Talk:Twin Peaks/Archive 4

Dispute of synopsis length criticism
I have read and re-read the series plot synopsis several times, given the flag on this article claiming that it is excessively detailed. I am not the author of this article, but I'm an avid Wikipedia user and a fan of the TP series. This show was one of the most intricate television series ever produced, with a large ensemble cast with myriad interweaving and overlapping plot lines. I think the plot summary section could be tightened up slightly in terms of syntax, which I will work on, but I think that the editor(s) who flagged this section are unlikely to be familiar with the show's structure and premise. This show is arguably a work of considerable art that had significant influence and impact on an international scale that persists twenty five years later; it isn't Falcon Crest. It's innumerable character arcs are essential to its gestalt and appeal, and I think that it merits a QOS review by someone conversant on its subject. I think its length is warranted. Alanrobts (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispute of category
I am unconvinced that TP meets the definition of a "soap opera" per Wikipedia standards. It was not a daily show, and it had plot lines which were closed-ended--the murder of Laura Palmer was solved. TP was a single camera, surrealist, supernatural drama series, with comedic elements; I think it is unfairly classified as a "soap" because other editors have mistaken its post-modern surrealism as "melodrama" and "camp". "The Mentalist" is a contemporary TV series that had a linking plot device--the identity of Red John--but that show is categorized as a "police procedural". Clearly, there are quality implications between a police procedural and a soap opera--and in my opinion, TP is being grossly underestimated. Alanrobts (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tense
Per WP:MOSTV we use the present tense when talking about a show. Twin Peaks is a show, not Twin Peaks was a show. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it. This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves here. It's like changing a film article to read "was" after production is complete. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"the show represents an earnest moral inquiry"?
The above quote is text from the current article intro. I don't find it supported in the citation (though I only have the google preview, and have only tried searching for "moral inquiry", with no luck, and then searching for "moral").BrianPansky (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Limited series vs. miniseries
The term "limited series" is perfectly valid, it's not a made-up marketing term. It's what Showtime is calling it ("...TWIN PEAKS returns as a new limited series"). Limited series is a category at the Emmys, adding to validity. I would agree that "limited event series" is a marketing term, and has been removed with my latest edit. IP user 70.181.231.172 provided citations to call it a "miniseries", however, three of the four sources provided also refer to it as a limited series. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the article should remain as is, until a consensus can be reached for the change. A bold edit was made by the IP user, but has been reverted, so a discussion should take place instead of any continued edit warring. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Miniseries" appears to be the standard, commonly understood term. As there seems to be no distinction between that and a "limited series" I vote for miniseries. "Limited event series" was absolutely the problem, though, so thanks for fixing it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twin Peaks. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304011109/http://davidlynch.com/ to http://davidlynch.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this an unending soap opera cancelled with no ending?
The article could be improved by stating whether or not the story had a decisive ending. (PeacePeace (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC))

Infobox: do we include the new series?
Should we be including the information for the new series in the infobox for this article? I know IPs are constantly changing the season count to 3 and now the episode count too. The original run and broadcaster parameters would also need to updated to reflect the new series. The question is, should we? While I have no problem either way, I still feel the new series is different enough and it's own article is treating itself as a series not a season. I think this article should just retain (infobox-wise) the original ABC 1990–91 TV run. Thoughts? Pinging active TP editors:, , , ,. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm avoiding sources on the new episodes until I've watched them, but even then, I'm seeing a lot of "season three" being mentioned, so it seems more like a continuation than a new series entirely (like The X-Files (season 10)). So yeah, I'd include it on that basis, unless the sources don't bear that out. G RAPPLE   X  13:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's canon and should be considered an extension of the series (read: TP (season 3)). Same characters, same underlying theme (Black/White Lodge), and, heck, it even reminded us where it left off 25 years ago. There are even theories on what's past/present. (See: Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)) —  Wylie pedia  14:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see it as its own distinct entity. But, as always, it's what the sources say that matters.  I removed the new series page from my watchlist because the changes are coming way too fast to keep up and I don't want the story revealed too quickly.  That's another (selfish) reason I'd like to keep them distinct. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  15:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I'm not arguing whether if this new series is canon, "season 3", a proper continuation, etc. It's basically, do want the infobox in this article to reflect both shows (episode/season counts, etc.)? As this article is primarily about the original 90s series. Of course the new series is a continuation of the original, but should we separate it from the original series in terms of the information presented in the infobox. I've updated the infobox (to be consistent with updating of the season/episode count). So the question is: do we keep the infobox the way it is now or have it just contain information from the original series. Thanks for the responses guys... now time to rewatch parts 1 and 2 again. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article contains detailed information, which it does, the infobox should reflect that. This isn't 24 and 24: Legacy that we're discussing. —  Wylie pedia  21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd look at it from the POV of the average reader who doesn't know the finer points of how this place works (maybe a Man From Another Place, perhaps). What would they expect to see when they see the infobox of this article for the first time? 3 seasons, 48 episodes would be my guess. Then when they start reading a bit more, they'll see the split to the 2017 article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed - however, to match this wider scope, the hatnote needs to no longer say "This article is about the 1990–1991 TV series." 2620:1F7:807:C46:0:0:1:3AB (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Stars in infobox
Being a "star" is not the same thing a being a "regular cast member". Stars have billing above (or before) the title or in larger typeface than other actors. Twin Peaks opted for "most favored nation" billing, in which all featured actors are billed the same, this doesn't mean that they are all stars, and should all be listed in the infobox, it means that there are no stars, and no one should be listed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your definition of a "star" is incorrect, at least as far as tv series are concerned. Almost no tv series have "above the title" billing for actors, and in any given credit sequence (again for tv), the typeface is usually the same. However, all of that is irrelevant, since if you look at other tv pages here on Wikipedia, the "starring" part of the infobox IS, in fact, series regulars.  AND, the other false sort of your statement is that all featured actors are billed the same on Twin Peaks. Kyle MacLachlan's name is listed first and separate from all the other actors, who are listed alphabetically. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The "starring" parameter in the infobox is meant to include all "starring" cast members (series regulars, actors credited in the opening credits). This is exactly what it is. We're also including actors credited after the opening titles (such as Eric Da Re and Harry Goaz) because they're also credited as "starring" and separate from the guest star billing. If you're referring to the new 2017 series, then MacLachlan is technically the only "star", but that's a different article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my 45 years in show business says that your definition of "star" is completely incorrect, but if you want Wikipedia to look ridiculous, and you're willing to edit war to that end, there's nothing much I can do against your ignorance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're getting at. The infobox (for TV series) is meant to list series regulars (actors credited in the opening credits), and that's exactly what this article is doing and has done several years. It's pretty simple. Moving on. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Showtime external links used in episode articles
The editor has removed all the links to the Showtime official website for Twin Peaks from the various TP episode articles, citing them as "linkspam". Since the Showtime site is currently the official website for the series it would make sense to have a link to the respective episode pages (such as this). Any TV episode article consists a link to its official website if one's available. The editor is saying I need consensus to add these links back since they disagree with them. Pinging relevant editors:, , , ,. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With all respect to Drovethrughosts, it's not the "official" website for the original series. The original series can be purchased at a number of websites, such as Amazon, and is not exclusively sold by Showtime. The links I removed were from articles about episodes in the original series. Singling out one vendor for an external link is spam. Let me emphasize: I removed the link only for the episodes of the original series, not the new series. If we add the Showtime link to the original series, then we need to add several other links to vendors that sell it. That is unacceptable in my opinion, but I'm open to discussion. As a side note, and again no disrespect, but the proper way to get broad opinions is with an RfC, not pinging individual editors who may have a particular opinion. That could be considered inappropriate canvassing, but I don't want to stir up an argument, so let's see who expresses opinions here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it has nothing to do with adding links to a "vendor" (as I also expressed on your talk page). It's about adding a link to the official website which contains information about the episode themselves and acts an official source for the episode title, air date, cast list, writer/director info, etc. It is the official website because the series is owned by CBS, which in turn owns Showtime. My intent was not to "canvass", I pinged the same editors I did back here who at the time were most active editors on this article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I don't misunderstand. Are you stating that the Showtime website has information about air dates for the original series? If it doesn't, then articles for those episodes should not have a Showtime link. There is a link to the new series at Twin Peaks if readers are interested. I could easily add links to Amazon (or other vendors) for each episode of the original series because Amazon does have information about each of those episodes, but I don't because that would be inappropriate. As for canvassing, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I just want to make sure any consensus here isn't determined only by those who have been pinged. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason for including the link is because it's an official one, while any others (like Amazon) would be inappropriate because they're third-party links. Per WP:TVEXLINKS, "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article." Showtime is an official website. My opinion has been fully expressed and I look forward to any other opinions! Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree that the Showtime website is an official website for the original series. As far as I can see, the website has little if any information about the original series other than a link to watch it (which must be purchased, just like any other vendor). If I'm wrong, please let me know where I can find it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Showtime from the external links, regardless of whether it's an official website or not, is considered disassociating the network from the series as a whole, period. If you remove it from that section for the reasons given, you would have to remove it from any mention in the main article, which requires an even bigger consensus that you would most likely lose. Its EL/website removal causes visitors to find the Showtime page, find its website link, and search for the series. —  Wylie pedia  19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Drovethrughosts. The Showtime links should remain. Sundayclose, your argument for removal is not convincing. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  21:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CAWylie, thanks for your opinion, but sorry again, I disagree that it must be removed from the article simply because it does not belong in External Links. Lots of articles discuss matters that do not require an external link. As just one example, articles for generic drugs can mention manufacturers, especially the company that obtained the patent, but that doesn't mean every manufacturer is entitled to an external link. We need a sturdier argument than that to restore the link. And again, not to belabor a point, but I hope we get opinions in addition to those who have been pinged; I would have difficulty concluding that there is a consensus made up of the five who have been summoned to the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LINKFARM: (bolded for emphasis) There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article. —  Wylie pedia  22:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What content does Showtime provide about the original series other than links to watch the episodes (if you subscribe to Showtime)? Amazon's link to the original series provides more detail. So if we are selecting "useful content-relevant links", it should be Amazon or perhaps another website that sells the episodes. In fact, on Amazon you can buy the episodes without any kind of subscription as required by Showtime. But my opinion is that none of these should be linked because it is simply spam to promote the website. Let me emphasize again, my concern is only for the original series, not the new series which can only be seen on Showtime. Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I support their removal. There is no official page for the original Twin Peaks seasons that I know of. Popcornduff (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)