Talk:Fargo (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International broadcast[edit]

It also premiered on Channel 4 in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:5F00:AB:34:7C2C:6768:222D:9756 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already added, if you knew where to look. — Wyliepedia 02:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also premiered in Israel on HOT3 at April 19th, see reference: http://www.midnighteast.com/mag/?p=29189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.179.136 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Next time, feel free to register and do it yourself. — Wyliepedia 03:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is it set- do we know exactly?[edit]

& when we find out let's include that info in the article. kthx. skakEL 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's set in 2006 per the opening text at the beginning of each episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...which is mentioned here under "Series premise". — Wyliepedia 21:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True story?[edit]

At the beginning of the TV series they say the story is based on true events. They continue to say they follow the events exactly despite name changes to protect the dead and the victims. Can anyone include more information on this in the article? Does it accurately follow the true story? How about a link from the article to the true account of the events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinheacock (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the film, which has the same opening text. You can look here: Fargo (film)#Factual basis. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10792814/The-truth-behind-Fargos-true-story.html Colinheacock (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colinheacock: Congratulations, you found a source. Now, feel free to be bold and add the info yourself. — Wyliepedia 20:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CAWylie: aka Wyliepedia? Ha very wily comment; [and btw, poor practice to munge your actual wiki userID!, I highly recommend AGAINST what you're doing in your sig]. To the OP @Colinheacock:, I answer, the Writers mean this is 'truly' a 'story in that definition;' and technically or semantically they are absolutely being truthful when they say it is based on actual events - They do not claim that 100% of the story in exactly the chronology that unfolds actually occurred at that time, in that place, and in that order... Instead, by saying it is based on actual events, it totally could mean that the writers were inspired or are parodying or lifted and modified random mafia and cartel and organized crime stories into a collage that stitched together to create each episode that we watch! I hope that makes sense. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 17:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Vid2vid: (Or is it "Karen"?) it's a custom signature. People can still find/talk to me by using it, as I also have claimed the alternate account. Wyliepedia @ 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this clear in the lede. DougHill (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a recent edit, a TV series could easily be based on a true story, as this one purports to be. DougHill (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unnecessary, given this is not a documentary but a television series. Given the film article doesn't state "...is a fictional 1996 American black comedy film", why should should this? I've never seen this type of wording on Wikipedia before describing a TV series. It's explained in the article, that seems suffice enough. Or, just fully explain it in the lead. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how naive do you have to be to believe this series is based on true events? Game of Thrones is also based on true events. And Star Wars did happen, in a galaxy far far away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.172.42 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allusion to Buridan's ass[edit]

In this edit, I added prose to the episode "Buridan's Ass", linking to Buridan's ass, with a reliably-sourced citation.

My edit was reverted by @CAWylie: with the edit summary: "Most titles are from parables, which is WP:TRIVIA. Create episode articles for this."

I restored my edit, with the edit summary: "Episode articles haven't yet been created. This allusion is not that well-known & exists in WP. How would it be trivia here, but not in a standalone?"

CAWylie neither replied to my question nor re-reverted, but @Drmargi: did re-revert, with the edit summary: "we don't add trivia to the edit summary box".

As this response made no sense to me, I again restored: "The added content isn't part of the edit summary." (If Drmargi had meant that "trivia" was not permitted in the "ShortSummary" parameter, which is part of the episode template, she did not provide any support for that contention.)

Drmargi neither replied nor re-reverted, but @Drovethrughosts: did re-revert: "per the other reverts. maybe a separate section devoted to the episode title allusions w/ notable refs?"

I was just about to start a discussion on this talk page, but I immediately found that Drmargi had left, IMHO, an uncivil and threatening Edit war message on my user talk page. Her message reminded me that three reverts w/i 24 hours would be charged against me, ignoring the fact that three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each. And of course she added that three reverts were not required to block me. She then ended, again IMHO, most condescendingly: "You've now been reverted by three editors. That should tell you that the content is inappropriate where you've placed it. The last editor made a good suggestion regarding title allusions. You might want to pay attention to it rather than continuing to edit war. Moreover, please discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary; see WP:BRD". She ignored the fact that the three editors in question had all replied via edit summary as well, and up until the rather nasty Edit war notice, only Drovethrughosts had actually made a constructive, responsive comment.

So I again would like to know:

Since episode articles have not yet been created for this show (and who is to say that this program will last enough seasons to necessitate episodes being broken out), why should I bear the responsibility of creating episode article(s) just to add one small bit of episode-related prose?
How is an allusion to some other work considered "trivia" in a summary article, but acceptable in a break-out? I had been looking at Lost, where a cursory examination of the first season episodes reveals that a number of the titles are allusions, which are discussed in article prose.
Would it be acceptable to put title allusions in a separate section in the summary article? Possibly, but IMO this unnecessarily interrupts the reader's flow. For guidance, I turned to MOS/Television#Episode listing. The MOS directs you to model articles on the "list of featured episode lists". Not only is the aforementioned Lost there, but so is Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1). What is listed right there, inline, in Degrassi? "TRIVIA"!... "Note: This is the 100th episode in the Degrassi franchise." So if prose like that is included in a Featured article, why not a title allusion?
It was suggested that the title allusions should have "notable" refs. First, the concept of "notable" only refers to the existence of articles, not the content therein. Second, Vulture.com, which I cited, has been held to be a Reliable Source, per the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Obviously, if Fargo episodes are ever broken out into standalone articles, any allusion prose would move into the standalones. The proposed state of affairs is just a placeholding measure to last until and if standalones are created. IMO, inline prose, as per the Note at Degrassi, would be much more readable, and by being a direct part of the episode prose, will move with it much more cleanly when a standalone is created. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "other stuff exists" will never get you far in discussions. Secondly, "three separate editors were ganging up and reverting my edits and thus would only be charged with one revert each" is completely untrue and unproven and the most offensive thing I've read today. Finally, as stated elsewhere, edit summaries are no place for discussions, certainly not to get a point across by re-reverting. — Wyliepedia 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that my argument was specifically NOT "other stuff exists". It was that the MOS specifically defers to a list of Featured lists to model episode list tables; one of the first featured lists I looked at included what most people would consider much more "trivial" than the bit of prose I had added.
I'm sorry you're offended, but collusion or not, from my perspective, it's a distinction without a difference.
Also, I didn't know you from a troll; that's why I restored from your revert without a lengthy talk page discussion.
As to your earliest point about parables - which I hadn't yet explored since I had just intended a single, drive-by edit: I have subsequently located a probably non-reliable link discussing all of Fargo's as-yet-aired episode titles. All the more reason, IMO, to memorialize these allusions inline. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merciful heavens. Could you possibly at least try to assume good faith? Ganging up on you? Hardly -- that implies we somehow worked together, but to what end? Rather, why not entertain the idea that a bit of trivia about the origin of a title is not part of an episode summary doesn't belong in a table cell designed to hold the episode summary? You're taking this far too personally and allowing it to color how you see the actions and motives of others. Moreover, the body of the text of the warning I posted on your talk page is templated. Template has a talk page; if you find it offensive, you should address that issue there. The remainder of what I posted, which you quoted above, are neither condescending nor uncivil. They were a simple statement of fact: when three unrelated editors revert your edit in close succession, each providing an explanatory edit summary, you should get the message -- your edit goes somewhere else. No one voiced any opinion as to whether your edit was suitable presented in a different way; in fact, one editor made a suggestion that there might be a way to get it in. Rather, we simply said, each of us, that the edit summary cell of the episode table was not the appropriate location for information about the title, linked or not. --Drmargi (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I concede that the first part of your 3RR post to my Talk page matches the template.
But, following up on my latest response to Wylie, the rapidity of reverts seemed to me indicative of collusion or at least of group-think. I've unfortunately run across many editors who slavishly follow excessively legalistic interpretations of WP guidance. But here, I don't even find appeals to legalisms, just plain IDONTLIKEITs.
  • The TRIVIA section cited actually refers to Trivia sections within articles; besides, Wylie somehow holds this "trivia" to be non-trivial in standalone articles??
  • Your first response advised that I shouldn't place trivia in an edit summary; perhaps you should not revert so hastily when you haven't exercised enough care in correctly explaining the rationale behind the revert.
  • Your 3RR arrived before I had the opportunity to even read Drovethrughosts' much more helpful response. At that point, all I had to go by were odd, unclear responses vaguely referring to "trivia = BAD" - not so-called "explanatory edit summaries" - so I responded accordingly, in the edit summaries.
  • It is hypocritical to scold me for commenting in edit summaries, when all three of you did the same.
  • I still find the last part of your 3RR post and part of your most recent post here to be condescending. The notion that "might makes right". "That should tell you". "You should get the message". That's not what I would consider a civil, collaborative tone. Perhaps we were raised differently.
If such allusions are appropriate for inclusion, then the guidance provided by MOS serves to support the placement of my original edit. Perhaps if a RS is found and the pattern holds, a statement to the effect of "All episodes are named for parables, koans or paradoxes" should be added to the body, with the actual allusions better integrated into the episode summaries, instead of a separate "note" or in your suggested, (IMO, much less preferable) non-integral section.
Again, this would only be the case until episodes are broken into standalones, as has already been done with S1E1. So I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that I would prefer memorializing these allusions in a particular manner in the meantime. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been contributing to this page since February 2014, wrote most of the episode summaries, have done 18% (58) of the edits to the page and you "didn't know me from a troll"??? — Wyliepedia 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I'm not sure I had even looked at this page before. I watched the "Buridan's Ass" episode and wasn't familiar with the reference, so I checked on WP. (After reading the paradox article, it did seem vaguely familiar). Then, as I said, I intended a single, drive-by edit, not expecting a revert of something I saw as entirely non-controversial. But here we are. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was struck by the same thing, Wylie. Even the most cursory glance at the page history or the talk page would have shown Chaswmday that you were anything but a troll. First I'm accused of incivility following a failure to exercise simple diligence, then you are called a troll after the same. Again, Chas, how about assuming some good faith? Thus far, I see none in your responses. You seem to be determined to deflect all of this back on us, cast us as the bad-guys and yourself as the aggrieved party, while assuming completely bad faith on our part. Then you take me to task for being uncivil while throwing a back-handed insult regarding my upbringing -- an undeniably rude comment. This leaves me wondering if you have too thin a skin to edit on Wikipedia. You're taking it all far too personally. Meanwhile, you've got this trivia thing all tied up in knots and are completely overlooking the solution presented by another editor. I'm happy to continue this discussion once you're ready to get to work on the problem, but I'm not interested in any further analysis of my motives or my character. --Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. I've found your continuing air of smug superiority so egregious, especially as it was, IMO, entirely unjustified, based on the sloppy, non-responsive rationale you (didn't) supply - and only supplied after you were called on it. So yes, I stooped to your level - the back-handed insult was not accidental. And I didn't call Wylie a "troll", and I'm not just playing cutesy semantics. After being on WP for so long, I've run across few actual trolls, e.g. one editor who disrupted an entire project, then finally admitted it was all just a game. But there is behavior which I consider troll-ish. Namely, editors who revert, delete or disrupt while providing little or no cogent rationales for doing so. It usually turns out that there exists some cabal, seemingly of one mind, which assumes that all other editors are fully versed in their own idiosyncratically legalistic interpretation of some bit of WP guidance. So I was hoping for a troll who would get bored and go bother someone else, but almost certain that it was probably the first strike by a cabal. Although not a legalistic one, just an IDONTLIKEIT one.
Why am I seemingly burning bridges here? Because I've found over the years that no amount of reasonable arguments or clear guidance or Featured articles doing substantially the same thing as I'm trying to do will ever stay you from your appointed rounds. We're right, you're wrong. That's that. We'll make life utter hell if you dare defy us. "I'll be happy to continue the conversation" means "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
I dare you to actually ponder my arguments, cited guidance and examples and prove that you can actually admit that there are other valid ways to accomplish the goal of improving WP. I don't believe you're "bad", just, like countless others on WP, having no brakes when it comes to enforcing your particular agenda/interpretation/likes. If that is indeed the case, then I am the aggrieved party here. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article talk page is not the place to discuss editor conduct. This is not improving the article, and IP who never edited here before this week trying to play teacher..
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This discussion is hilarious, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia drives away editors. You have an editor with a clean block record and almost five thousand edits who is trying to add content to the page, and three other editors who just revert him to the point of 3RR, and then slap a template on his page to warn him like some newbie vandal. If protecting the article to your preferred state is so important, one of you should have gone to his talk page and explained why his edit was being reverted so he'd understand. Teach, don't template.

And yes, he should have opened a discussion on the talk page, certainly. But it would have been far more friendly and professional of one of you to begin some kind of discussion somewhere to try and explain things to a productive editor. Obviously just explaining things in an edit summary wasn't working, the next step should have been explaining before blocking, but no one is interested in talking. Nobody's being helpful here. This talk page is just a shrine to passive-aggressiveness. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Drmargi has removed my comments once, claiming WP:NOTAFORUM. I disagree completely, and feel my comments were definitely to the point of improving Wikipedia. If you'll look at this entire section, you can see very little discussion of Chaswmsday's point, which I happen to agree with. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment on the issue: This entire section is a rant against three editors who concurrently reverted edits from a single editor who failed to gain a consensus, nor asked opinions here. My particular "passive-aggressiveness" started when the name-calling began. I don't respond after that. So that makes me the bad guy, I reckon. As for being "blocked", I fail to see anyone being as such. — Wyliepedia 19:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Drovethrughosts seems to have at least helped out with his edit summary, and is helpful on the talk page. CAW, I'm just saying that Chaswmsday has a point, which could have been discussed on this talk page, or at least explained to him calmly here or on his own talk page. This was a teachable moment, and instead it led to the templating of a regular, which absolutely no one appreciates. When you have a difference of opinion with an editor with almost 5000 edits and a clean block record, discussion is a logical conclusion rather than jumping straight into block warnings. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion door swings both ways. Re the comment: Also, I didn't know you from a troll; that's why I restored from your revert without a lengthy talk page discussion. — Wyliepedia 20:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the straw man argument that derailed everything. He was obviously not calling you a troll, he was referring to not knowing you. All you did was revert him and call his edit WP:TRIVIA, with no explanation beyond that. His revert of your edit made a point about trivia that you never bothered to address, and once he came here to the page, no one ever really gave him a concrete answer, choosing instead to tumble into off-point arguments.
Here's my question, and it's something I'd like to know. Is there a piece of concrete policy against what Chaswmsday was trying to do? If the policy exists, please quote it. Indeed, it would have been a lot easier for two experienced editors such as yourselves to simply go to Chaswm's page and say "Thanks for your edit, but that kind of information is trivial and doesn't belong there. The policy is (link)." Boom. You clearly indicate to him that you understand how things work around here, and you show him why he's being reverted. Everybody learns, and there's no need for hard feelings or templating regulars.
I'll agree here that consensus is against it at this point (since the original poster has been driven off), but consensus is determined through discussion, not edit summaries, and at the time of the first revert (and the second, which mentioned edit summaries, which made no sense) it should very well have been up for discussion unless policy spells out otherwise. And that's the key, if you don't want to drive people away from editing Wikipedia. Just saying "have a thicker skin" is a copout to avoid civility. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi has now deleted this thread once, and tried to hat this twice under the faulty logic that it's not about the article. Since she doesn't seem to want to contribute, let me make my question clear again for anyone else who might want to step in and explain. Is there a actual policy in place to prohibit what Chaswmsday was trying to do? 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Drmargi or CAWylie actually had any kind of policy-based reasons for their reversions above, as both editors have refused to discuss this matter here, or on their own talk pages. I doubt we'll actually get any actual answers based in policy here. It's obvious it was just a case of blind piling-on an editor who was trying to help, which is the kind of thing that drives away good faith productive editors. Wikipedia has a reputation for that, and it's sad to see such a perfect example of it in a situation that should have been handled in a more civil, collaborative manner.

If any of the other editors on this page actually have a link to a policy that prohibits what Chaswmsday was trying to do, please post it because I'd still love to see it. It would clear up a lot of things. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After one of the editors involved attempting to hat this discussion yet again rather than comment, I'm just going to conclude that there was no policy behind the initial reverting, and we're never going to actually get any answers here. The silence pretty much proves my point, so I'll just go ahead and hat this discussion myself. I hope in the future everyone can actually assume good faith and be welcoming, because that's what Wikipedia needs. As for the article itself, I'll continue to do some copy editing and proofing when I can, and try and chip in to improve things. Good luck to all of you. 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might care to look at the instructions for {{Episode list}}, specifically the instructions for the ShortSummary field which say that the field is supposed to contain "a short 100–200 word summary of the episode". Since the content that Chaswmsday added was not part of the plot, it doesn't belong in the field. Most TV series include episode titles that are allusions to one thing or another; it's nothing out of the ordinary and constitutes non-notable trivia. We try to avoid adding non-notable trivia anywhere on Wikipedia and so it should not be included here. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, thank you so much for the link. I really appreciate you posting that here, and I understand what you're saying. I agree with your point, although I will disagree on referring to the title allusions as non-notable trivia. Wikipedia does have a problem with editors adding trivia to articles, but the titles are purposefully written allusions. I agree with linking them on the individual episode pages. Not here, though, after reading your post, I get that. Thanks for taking the time to post that. Thanks! 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defense, 2607. I see that you were templated as well (of course, you in turn noticeboarded Drmargi). Drmargi has accused me of being you, which I hope to disprove by getting back on topic here:
While one could reasonably read {{Episode list}}'s ShortSummary as containing the plot summary, it actually uses the term "episode summary", without defining what that is. I again refer to the MOS, which defers to Featured episode lists. Some of the featured episode lists contain guest stars, notes and other asides within the ShortSummary field. I agree that episode title allusions make the most sense within the episode articles (if such articles exist). My only contention is that such knowledge, when it's right at hand, should be memorialized in this summary article until such time as a standalone is created; lest we're all run over by a galloping herd of wildebeest tonight and that knowledge is lost.
As an additional aside, my personal preference would be to eliminate any ShortSummary content once standalones are created, since IMO, you're just inviting WP:SYNC issues. There's not much support for this view within the featured episode lists, and exactly how much episode summarization to repeat within a summary article would, I suppose, be a delicate balancing act. The usages in the featured episode lists are all over the place, and not much help in the matter. If any ShortSummary content is kept, I would think that the brief summaries as modeled in featured 30 Rock (season 1) would be preferable. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One could easily read ShortSummary as being for the plot because that's the purpose of the field and it always has been. The specification of 100–200 words comes from WP:TVPLOT. Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing, which you referred to, also says "a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines) is applicable". If individual episode articles are created we don't remove content from the ShortSummary field as that forces readers to look for plot information in other articles, which they shouldn't have to do. If a reader starts at the main series article, they generally look first in the main episode list, then the individual season article and finally the individual episode articles. Episode articles should be the exception rather than the rule - episodes are generally not notable, although notability is often manufactured, and leaving some episode summaries while removing others doesn't make sense, which is why it doesn't get support. The season list generally has a short 100–200 word summary, while episode articles usually have more detailed summaries, up to 500 words long per WP:TVPLOT. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, that reading of ShortSummary is reasonable. But, in general, there is just too much guidance in all of WP, with the result that there are many reasonable, yet internally contradictory readings, within all of WP. Reading the MOS in question, I don't think that the guidance really anticipates standalone episode articles. The same guidance does defer to Featured lists, which have been ranked as among the best in WP. Some of these do include guest stars and notes as part of ShortSummary. Perhaps this is an indication that {{episode list}} should include optional "guest stars" and "notes" parameters. But perhaps the Community, in Featuring lists containing non-plot prose within ShortSummary, has indicated that is another reasonable reading of guidance in such matters.
When this all started, @CAWylie: seemed to be the only WP editor who knew that the episode titles were all parables, etc. I don't believe this knowledge should be dependent on the memories of a few editors, just for the sake of a particular interpretation of guidance, if it can be memorialized under Common Sense additions to this summary article. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since my name keeps getting brought up (probably from being the offending/offensive editor), please allow my opinion. First of all, I'm glad Chaswmsday wasn't "scared off" as the IP purported would happen. Secondly, it's perfectly okay to bend certain rules guidelines at times to make minor mentions, as was originally attempted. (My flexibility is showing.) That said, however, a can of worms is also opened up. If you let one mention slide for each episode, others will try to add theirs. Because this is possibly a "limited series" and there might not be a second season, global articles such as this need controlling. The aforementioned season article is great, because it branches off from the main article and can contain whatever is pertinent for that season. Another guideline to keep in mind is Wikipedia:Article size, which suggests any article be small enough to read in 30-50 minutes. Anything extra, such as "optional 'guest stars' and 'notes'" and trivia, impedes that for main articles. Granted, TOC jumps allow everyone to go to whatever they wish on the page, but that is a discredit to other sections where title allusions might be listed and not labeled. — Wyliepedia 10:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goodness. I just realized that WP:TVPLOT is part of the same MOS, which sort of proves my point about there being too much guidance. Perhaps that particular, anchored section of the MOS didn't anticipate standalones, although the rest of the MOS does... --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your name was mentioned (and I dislike the {{ping}} colon as well), not for any offense, but because you recognized the use of allusions. If the aforementioned wildebeests wipe us all out, no one will be left to remember that the allusions were ever there. As I've stated, this is only a stopgap until/unless episode standalones are created.
The Featured List of Moonlighting episodes contains such prose in ShortSummary as "This is the first episode of the series in which David and Maddie break the fourth wall, welcoming the audience back for the second season at the start of the episode." and "The episode ends with an extended sequence in which the characters wander right off the show's set into other parts of the studio, and several members of the show's production crew appear on camera as part of the plot resolution." Clearly the Community feels these inclusions are OK, to the point of Featuring the article.
Good article Friends explains that show's episode title format—"The One...". If a Reliable Source can be found generally describing Fargo's episode title allusions (there are a number of non-RS's that do so, and there are RS's for individual episodes), then as with Friends, this explanation probably should be included here in this summary article. If picked up for additional seasons, and the naming pattern doesn't hold, the explanatory prose could be placed under the appropriate season.
All of WP is a can of worms. So, we as a Community maintain control over summary articles. We evaluate each edit as it comes. We try to follow the guidance about length of plot summaries and article size. And we have no more issues than those cropping up on almost any other article in WP. Reasonable? --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing...The source given for "The One—" for Friends is from a publication that is full of trivia questions. I would prefer a source detailing why the showrunners start the titles as such. The source even says "As any 'Friends' fan knows..." but what if they don't? What if Fargo viewers don't know the titles are allusions? What if they simply watch the show without prior knowledge of parables and Biblical plagues? This is why I and others suggested more detail than a trivial mention. This article could support a section for every detail, as long as it comes from production and not some rag publisher who picks up on them. However, finding such comments would, could, and have proven futile. — Wyliepedia 11:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the Friends reference. A RS, but not IMO the best article. I wouldn't necessarily advocate an in-depth discussion of each allusion on this page, but certainly within standalones. Also agree that some of the sources are limited so far, but allusions prose could be expanded later as more/better refs are found. Slightly off-topic, but I'm sure each reviewer may have differing interpretations for the allusions. What does WP generally do in such cases? List each significant opinion? OK, yep. Just browsed Featured article Blade Runner. That does seem to be what we do. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of Moonlighting episodes was promoted to featured status in April 2010. The content that you mentioned, "This is the first episode of the series in which David and Maddie break the fourth wall" etc, was added after then.[1] Even featured articles are subject to changes that may not be appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should have been re-graded. But you seem to be rationalizing here, Aussie. ShortSummary contained the prose "Cybill Shepherd performs the big band songs "Blue Moon" and "I Told You I Love Ya, Now Get Out!" Orson Welles introduces the episode, his last performance before his death." when Featured list status was granted. Later edits were likely seen as just more of the same. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not practical to re-assess an article every time somebody makes an edit. It's not a 5 minute job. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of episodes[edit]

Should be 10 episodes in the info box rather than 9, shouldn't it? Zerotalk 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we only update infobox when a new season/episode begins/airs. — Wyliepedia 02:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 10[edit]

"Gus surprises Malvo and fatally shoots him. " Shouldn't this be "and execute him"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.2.29 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did Malvo step on a bear trap? I thought it was Lester's Top Salesman Award that he threw in that vicinity while emptying his suitcases. ```173.15.103.65 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Executes" takes on a more sinister term than what was shown. Most people could take that to mean Gus cleanly killed him, which was clearly not the case. As for the bear trap, a previous episode showed Lester seeing it in a box belonging to Chazz. He knew it would help him with Malvo. The award was there for Malvo to retaliate. — Wyliepedia 02:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you see the condition Malvo's leg was in afterwards? I know I won't forget that scene.. --SubSeven (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ya, you betcha. Was no injury from stepping on an award, dontcha know. — Wyliepedia 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could Gus get away with just shooting Malvo like that? You can't murder someone just because they're evil, and he could have apprehended him. Malvo didn't have his gun on him, and he was already physically incapacitated. I know Gus wanted him dead to protect his family, but this seemed pretty unbelievable, plot-wise, that he would not be brought up on charges or at least an inquiry. I guess it helps if your wife is taking over as chief. PNW Raven (talk)

The series had me up till that point. I accepted the plague storyline, the time jump, Lester sacrificing his second wife, etc., but turned my head like a dog saying "huh?" when Gus "got away with it". But that's not what this talk page is for... — Wyliepedia 00:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand what this page is for. I only want clarification for the purpose of understanding the reasoning behind that plot point, and whether I'm unaware of something. The more I work on the synopsis and re-watch the episodes, the more the holes in the story line become glaringly apparent, yet I've not read any critical reviews regarding it, which I find interesting. PNW Raven (talk)
I doubt there will be any discussion on the events of this series/season, not from the creative team anyway. Those from the blogosphere and critics would be just that. Even if any arises, it should be listed at the respective episode articles. Personally, I think anything Fargo-related will remain part of its mystique, good or bad. — Wyliepedia 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Character first/last names in episode summaries[edit]

Per recent edits to character names within episode summaries, made in this article and in standalone articles, and mentioned at User talk:Jimmypopeyedoyle#July 2014:

Rather than just deciding to use the last names of the characters, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#How to use character names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2012/August#How to handle names of fictional characters seem to offer the best guidance - refer to the characters as they are most often referred to in the series.

This is borne out in featured list articles such as Desperate Housewives (season 1), Lost (season 1), Seinfeld (season 2) and The Office (U.S. season 1). The characters' names seem most often to be mentioned in full at first reference in the summaries, then follow series convention. Thus, Malvo, Molly, Gus, Lester. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, Chaswmsday, but can I just say that the aforementioned talkpage discussion was about an apparent "edit war" brewing, which began with this edit and successive ones which took place over the course of an hour without discussion here, not that that is mandated nor required? Let's just leave it at, please. Some might not know the MOS guidelines, but an edit war is an edit war. Respectfully, Wyliepedia 04:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like the first skirmishes of an edit war to me, too. Jimmypopeyedoyle should have explained via edit summaries and/or discussed here. Also, I find its edits such as [[home invasion|home invasion]] and [[ice fishing|ice fishing]] to be quite questionable. However, the substance of most of Jimmy's edits seems to be supported by the MOS and by the community consensus inferred by the content of Featured articles. The near-edit warring manner in which Jimmy may have made its edits is a separate issue, which can be dealt with separately. --Chaswmsday (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to make a change from what's there. Popeye,etc. made a few erratic changes, then edit warred when he was reverted, something he has a long history of doing, but made no effort to establish why the change, edit with care, or to gain consensus. Citing policies governing writing about fiction are a stretch; they govern literature, not film and television; the character names link is a discussion with a couple editors comments, not anything that governs how use names. There are plenty of TV articles where last names are used, so a few examples really establish nothing. As Wylie suggests, names are best left alone to avoid any further edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to look at it is MOS, among others, is a "guideline" and not a hard-and-fast rule set in stone, in my opinion. We could seek out those that are in error, change them with the "per MOS" summary and possibly a link, but would then need to police them for who knows how long after that. In the above instance, one hour-ish, but that is for one single editor. This page's history has several just like it from others, who feel strongly about changing the names. I think I was one, at one point. Finally, I think it boils down to consistency within the page. Pick and stick with name, not first in one part and last in another, which was a nitpick of mine at the time. That said, I agree with fulls in first mention, convention after. — Wyliepedia 07:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Drmargi: Why would one change them? Why were they changed to their current form in the first place? They're not real people, they're fictional characters. Reading "Solverson, Solverson, Solverson", "Grimly, Grimly, Grimly", "Nygaard, Nygaard, Nygaard", sounds like a completely different TV series than the one I watched, which featured the aforementioned Molly, Gus and Lester. As to your point about the antics of user Jimmypopeyedoyle, after researching it, I could make similar claims about the editor who first changed the perfectly fine standing prose to "last name" format here. Editor Froid's talk page is rife with notifications about disambiguation links and from BracketBot. That editor seems most invested in using last names.
Why don't you stick to the issue at hand? Here's my two-part response to your post, addressing both your irrelevant sling and the actual point of discussion here.
  1. I do have many disambig and BracketBot notices, this because: (a) I'm a prolific editor, (b) I'm only human and therefore - like other editors - can easily make errors, especially when entering references, and (c) I recognize a and b and therefore want to be notified of such errors so I can correct them. That I don't always erase the notices after making corrections does NOT reflect badly upon me, as you imply. Rather it shows I'm a responsible editor who likes not only to clean up errors and omissions I find in Wikipedia articles but any errors I make make, as well, so your mudslinging is inappropriate and unappreciated.
  2. Moreover, what does my receiving numerous disambig and BracketBot errors (or my correcting them) have to do with my using a last name v. first name format? One has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the other.
  3. Here's what's relevant: The convention on Wikipedia seems to be to use last names except where that's confusing or ambiguous, hence, I do that. I disagree with Chaswmsday's view of "governing policy" to be "the antithesis of what WP stands for" [see below, dated 09:05, 20 July 2014(UTC)]. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I strongly believe it SHOULD have governing policies if it's to be credible. So if one does not exist with regard to the use of first and last names, then, one should be created. Froid (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to cite "governing policy", which I consider the antithesis of what WP stands for. I've found what so far seems to be the most relevant guidance re use of character names within article bodies. I'm sure there are TV articles where last names are used, just as there are those where first names are used. The "few examples" I listed were not random; rather, they were featured articles, judged by the community to be among the best. Would you suggest "Seinfeld, Benes, Costanza" in place of "Jerry, Elaine, George" or "Green, Ms. Geller, Buffay, Tribbiani, Bing, Mr. Geller" in place of "Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler, Ross"? "Dr. Hinkley" in place of "The Professor"? I would hope not. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this from Chaswmsday caught my eye: "Also, I find its edits such as [[home invasion|home invasion]] and [[ice fishing|ice fishing]] to be quite questionable." I was the one who linked those at the time, and correctly, I might add. What should also be taken into consideration is that episode summaries, per Template:Episode list suggestions are optional. The only item needing listed is the title; other data is optional, some are "suggested". Summaries, lengthy or short, give readers a way to decide on seeing the episode or checking for something they missed (if it can be detailed while being concise). Some readers might know what "home invasion" and "ice fishing" are, others might not. The latter are those for whom I wikilink and will continue to do so. The links in question come from what was suggested by the episode. Why else would Lester knock himself out; why else would someone cut a hole in the ice???— Wyliepedia 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wylie, I wasn't objecting to [[home invasion]] or [[ice fishing]], which are perfectly fine; I was noting Jimmypopeyedoyle's use of [[home invasion|home invasion]] and [[ice fishing|ice fishing]]. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Froid, in response to your points 1 and 2, I was referencing Drmargi's comments about Jimmypopeyedoyle's "long history" of edits and its lack of "editing with care". Your own edit history, while not negating any valid edits you may have made, is suggestive of overly-rushed, and thus not careful, editing. Thus my initial impression per point 2.

In response to your point 3, perhaps I could have been clearer. I do not inherently object to policies. What concerns me throughout Wikipedia is the apparent belief that all edits are subject to some highly prescriptive set of rules. These "rules" are many, they are convoluted, and they are self-contradictory. But they are held to be inviolate nonetheless. And these alleged rules are directly antithetical to the Ignore all rules policy.

Yes, the general guidance for living persons throughout WP probably is to use surnames, keeping in mind BLP, WP:COMMONNAME as well as the usage in subject-matter reliable sources. I do not find any such convention or guidance for fictional persons. The guidance I do find for fictional persons, both via Talk pages and via what is apparent by looking at Featured articles, is to use whatever form of the name is used most in the fictional work itself and by reliable sources. I would ask that you please look back at my Seinfeld, Friends and Gilligan's Island examples, explain what you would or would not do differently, and explain why. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I would ask that you please look back at my Seinfeld, Friends and Gilligan's Island examples, explain what you would or would not do differently, and explain why." Not here, though, please. — Wyliepedia 02:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate character page[edit]

For those with some spare time or are bored TV series hardcore editors, may I suggest a separate character page? Normally, I would jump at the chance to do such a page, and most likely will if this series lasts past two seasons, but, currently my major editing time is limited by my real life. If anyone wishes, I could start a skeletal one, and those Fargoans could fill it out. I'm waiting on a casual visitor to only skim the page and wonder why two actors are playing Lou. Or maybe I'm just selling people short? — Wyliepedia 05:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Doyle[edit]

How come Shawn Doyle's character and the actor himself are not mentioned anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who use Userboxes[edit]

I created one for the show, if you would like to add it to your userpage. You may also request another with a different saying on my talkpage. Thanks! — Wyliepedia 10:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic graph[edit]

The metacritic graph on this page is one of the ugliest I've ever seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.3.76 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades[edit]

Do we need such a long table here when there is an article listing them? I reverted this edit, thinking it looked like vandalism, but on investigation it is a good faith edit. Still, I think it needs to be discussed. --Pete (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fargo (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Stephen King‏ about Fargo series[edit]

23 June 2017 an American author of horror, supernatural fiction Stephen King said in his Twitter account:

Peacock words[edit]

"Acclaimed" is one of the specific examples of peacock words in WP:PEACOCK. Critical acclaim is vague and peacocky. The source that backed up this phrase was metacritic. The information that I replaced was 100% based on sources and not a vague expression. This is an encyclopedia where editorialising should be avoided and source based information preferred. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images for episodes with a separate page[edit]

On every other page dedicated to a specific episode of Fargo, there is an image that appears on the info-box. In both season 1 and 3, every episode that has its own separate wikipedia page has an image for the info-box. Season 2 has 5/10 episodes with its own wikipedia page, but of those 5, only ONE has an image to accompany its info-box. Either each episode that has its own wikipedia page has an image for its info-box or none at all. (I would add it myself, but I am relatively new to wikipedia and unsure of how to find appropriate images that satisfy the guidelines). 98.113.156.38 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a number of reasons for the lack of episode images, but to say there should be "all or nothing" would be like saying not every episode has an article so there should be all or nothing. — Wyliepedia @ 07:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line Separators by Season?[edit]

Hello to all the fans! In the InfoBox near the top, I rather do like how the "Starring" section is divided with interspersed lines that say, Season 1 and then a list of actors, Season 2 and then another list of actors... Question: For the next table cell or box or field or what have you below that, Executive producers, and then, Producers, is there any growing support to do the same separating out by Season inline? [Same question for, Written by...] I think it would be fitting. Has anyone seen other similar Wikipedia articles that have adopted this practice? Thanks for your time. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It makes sense for the list of actors because it differs from season-to-season because it's an anthology. As for executive producers/producers/etc. it's unnecessary because generally the behind-the-scenes team is the same season-to-season, and if we'd do it for everything then the infobox would become too cluttered. This style of formatting is generally just reserved for the list of actors within anthology shows such as this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fargo characters[edit]

A separate character page for Fargo is currently being developed at Draft:List of Fargo characters. Everyone is free to contribute to the page, and is also welcome to do so. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters[edit]

This table might once have seemed like a good idea, but feels less and less relevant as seasons go by.

I suggest we find it (the table of shared S1/S2 characters, that is) a new home. Perhaps duplicating it in the season 1 and 2 articles?

Other than this the obvious connections between S1 and S2 we're left with basically a couple of scattered trivia/cameo mentions. No table is needed to note that Mr Wrench from S1 reappears in S3 or that a couple of minor characters are revisited in S4. And more than "not needed" - it feels incredibly overwrought to use a table for what is fringe/trivia.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fargo_(TV_series)&oldid=1210853307"