Talk:Feud (TV series)

Changing Bette and Joan to actual color shade of season
I will be changing Bette and Joan's color scheme back to the fuchsia that is used on all official art for the season now that there will be a second season, unless a consensus is formed against the move. Ridiculous formality, brought about by editors obsessed with overrule and lordship. LLArrow (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My only issue is that there is none of the fuschia key art in the article, so it's visually arresting to have a bold red heart in the infobox and then an obviously different color for the only other bold swath of color in the article. As far as "overrule and lordship" goes, you seem pretty obsessed with having the purple in the article yourself, and isn't insisting on it because of off-wiki art just as much of a formality? It's not worth fighting over but the whole rationale behind TV season colors was to make articles more visually appealing, make consensus easier and not have the colors be random.— TAnthonyTalk 20:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly; I was not referring to you as "overruling and lordly". Second; your reasoning is definitely the most irritatingly head-scratching I've come across. The colors in the article could make your eyes bleed, it matters not. We go by official season art/DVD cover per season. If you don't like that way of thinking, I suggest building a coalition and change it. LLArrow (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The convention that a single-season show uses a color coordinated with the logo is simply for visual appeal; as with this article, if you only have a logo and a table header, they should match or be somehow coordinated. The rationale for different colors for additional seasons is so that each section is appropriately differentiated; the most evenhanded way to choose colors was determined to be by official media or packaging, but this is usually triggered when differentiation is actually required. Notwithstanding the fact that "season 2" is just an announcement at this point, there is no episode table for it and also no color.— TAnthonyTalk 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. You're merely delaying the inevitable to suit your own taste for the time being. You seem to be the only editor with this problem I've encountered on Wikipedia. I'd suggest finding some like-minded compatriots for the mountain of bureaucratic fun that will be heading your way in the future. LLArrow (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Found another editor. You're the only editor pushing for the purple shade. Cease your edit-warring over it. I state again: your edits are against WP:DEW and MOS:TV (Once established, colors that meet WP:COLOR should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion, under Formatting, which also quotes DEW at the end of the sentence). --  Alex TW 16:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The C word
This is definitely notable, but this article is still developing and I'm concerned that adding something about this right now will seem trivial. Thoughts? — TAnthonyTalk 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there has been multiple articles written on the topic, I think it's most definitely of note here. In an informative/enlightening manner of course. LLArrow (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ratings
Regarding this edit: I see that Variety says "3.8 million viewers in Nielsen’s L3 ratings" and "5.17 million viewers in L3 in total with two encore telecasts factored in." We usually do not track extended broadcasts, just the first/live+same day. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 23:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This updated Deadline article notes all three ratings (including live+same day), in case this info ends up being notable to work into the Ratings section (but not the table).— TAnthonyTalk 23:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing credits
The credits in the infobox should reflect the credits in the show. Here we have the correct credit Created by Ryan Murphy, Jaffe Cohen and Michael Zam. The latter two is referring to the original screenplay Best Actress by Jaffe Cohen and Michael Zam, which is not separately credited. There is nothing unusual in a previously unproduced script being re-written and renamed. When this occurs the original writers are usually credited with the later writer, as occurred here, but they do not get a separate "Based on" credit. That is done for works previously produced or in another medium, like published novels or produced plays. Not the case here. So while the Best Actress script's history is interesting and belongs in the article's Development section, editors should not be putting a Based on credit for it in the infobox. That is actually redundant and contrary to the credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast issues
Inviting everyone, including We should probably have a formal discussion about some of the cast issues that have been reverted back and forth:


 * Is the "special guest star" thing something we should be acknowledging or is it honorific billing that shouldn't be designated separately?
 * Should we be crediting one-offs like Sarah Paulson as Geraldine Page, Toby Huss as Frank Sinatra, and Serinda Swan as Anne Bancroft?

The group seems to be saying "no" and "no" by recent edits but we have seen enough back-and-forth that a discussion seems necessary.— TAnthonyTalk 15:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I should note, Huss appeared in episode #4, but only his voice was heard in #5 and I don't believe he was credited. The other two have only appeared in episode 5 so far.— TAnthonyTalk 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are three issues here: how to handle the many cameos, such as Paulson's noted above; what constitutes a recurring role, given Huss appeared once on camera and once as Sinatra's voice; and how to handle the honorific billing "special guest star".  One of the problems that pervades TV articles is the lack of understanding of the types of roles (main v. guest cast), what constitutes a recurring role, and the difference between role types and billing (guest star, co-star, etc.)  Billing is negotiable, and often associated with size of role.  For example, one common error made is the assumption that "also starring" means an actor isn't main cast.  This is actually incorrect: it's a way of billing main cast actors who don't appear in the main credits for a variety of reasons.


 * The same is true of "special guest star". It assigns no special status to the role; it's simply a guest or recurring guest role played by an actor of sufficient standing that the show affords them additional recognition, and thus is honorific billing.  Who gets SGS billing?  Actors who seldom do television, actors with a long history in TV, actors returning to a role briefly, an actor doing their first guest role, you name it.  Think of the stature of many of the actors billed this way, such as Bates and Zeta-Jones, and the reason for using SGS becomes clear.  But in terms of the type of role, they're simply recurring roles, nothing more, and there's no reason to afford them their own heading based on their billing.  Even less so Paulson, who made a glorified cameo.


 * Which leads to the second issue: how to handle the appearances such as Huss's Sinatra and Paulson's Page. I suppose, give the nature of the show, that an argument could be made to add a featured appearance or some such category for the various actors who have played real people, particularly in the most recent episode.  There were several fairly notable actors among them, including Anthony Crivello, who has a long, long history on Broadway and played David Lean, or John Rubenstein playing George Cuckor.  It would also help readers not familiar with these older actors and directors to know who they are, which serves our encyclopedic mission.


 * The trouble with recurring roles is that, aside from a vague mention in WP:TVCAST, WP remains silent on what constitutes a recurring role. But it's certainly more than showing up (or being heard) on camera in more than one episode.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, I'm probably going to quote you in future discussions re: credits! I could not agree more, and I actually like the idea of some kind of "historical figure cameo" section, as in North and South (miniseries), since as you say this is a notable aspect of the series. BTW I corrected "Paulson" above for other editor's understanding, I'm assuming your autocorrect was a little overzealous, as mine often is.— TAnthonyTalk 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical figures
Per this discussion, TAnthony has created the historical figures cast list, which I support. It was reverted by Njorent with the rationale that it "didn't fit". Leaving aside the lack of sense in the edit summary (how on earth doesn't it fit?) that list was a product of this discussion, and Njorent should discuss his revert here. In the meantime, I have restored the list, and will tweak the heading slightly. This cast is never going to fit the overly-narrow (and frankly, too inflexible) MOS-TV cast list guidelines that are shoved down our throats by a few editors at Project TV. WP:IAR is the best guideline in this case. --Drmargi (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do think that these guest cast are notable in the context of this particular series. I don't think we can justify cast who didn't actually have any lines though, for example I don't believe the actors playing Lee Remick and Gregory Peck had any dialogue, and wasn't Marilyn Monroes in the pilot?— TAnthonyTalk 20:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just rewatched the relevant scene from the pilot, and Robards is not identified as Patrick O'Neal in the context of the episode; we know that he and Margaret Leighton were Bette's costars in Iguana and perhaps somewhere there's a reliable source confirming who Robards was playing, but the role seems even less notable than the Marilyn performance. Also, did the Gregory Peck character have any dialogue? Extras-as-celebrities should come off the list.— TAnthonyTalk 04:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Character descriptions
Can you explain the thinking behind your removals of almost all character descriptions from the related section of this article? I assume you are thinking that characters based on real-life historical figures who have their own Wikipedia articles do not need to be described, but I disagree. My understanding of MOS:TVCAST is that there is no such restriction. As with any TV series or film, character descriptions provide context, telling the reader who these individuals are and how they are related without the reader having to visit a dozen other articles. Further, characters like Mamacita (though based on a real person) and Pauline Jameson have no articles of their own. Is there a precedent or guideline that you think justifies these edits? Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I spotted the reverts before this, sorry! I've restored WP:STATUSQUO; that level of change should have been made with consensus, not on whim and without an edit summary.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  22:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was waiting for a response before I reverted in case I was the only one who objected. I also recalled that Njorent removed some of this info previously, without edit summary.— TAnthonyTalk 22:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he/she does have a tendency to dig their heels in where edits are concerned. We just went 'round and 'round about minor formatting on another article.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And the Oscar for Best Actress goes to...
Did Michael Curtiz actually present Joan Crawford with the Oscar for Mildred Pierce? My understanding was she feigned pneumonia and took to her bed Oscar night, only to make a sudden miraculous recovery when she was announced the winner for Best Actress. Anyway, the way description of Michael Curtiz is written gives the impression he personally presented the Oscar to Joan Crawford, which I find highly doubtful. Did writer mean to say Curtiz directed the film for which Crawford earned the Best Actress Oscar? Then say *that* instead of confusing the reader (well, this reader anyway). Armchair Hollywood historians, please help! Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bette and Joan should have its own page.
I was just thinking that "Bette and Joan" should have its own page since there's one for "Capote vs. The Swans" TVBuff90 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I hear that. Can't someone make a page though? 101.115.172.134 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Might you be interested, since you created the redirect Feud: Bette and Joan? --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)