Talk:List of The Sopranos episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of The Sopranos episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of The Sopranos episodes article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

List of The Sopranos episodes is part of WikiProject List of Television Episodes, which aims to improve, standardize, and guide episode lists on Wikipedia.

Looking to help? Check out the to-do list: If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project. edit - history - watch - purge General Tasks: Put {{WikiProject LOE}} at the top of all talk pages associated with this topic Get more participants and more input on preferred formatting Apply the project recommendations on lists not formatted adequately. Make sure all TV screenshot images have proper fair use licensing tags and fair use rationale statements made. Evaluate Category:Lists of television series episodes and sub-categories, come up with guidelines to help editors choose correct ones, possibly create, merge, etc others. Discuss at WT:LOE#Categories. Discuss updates and changes to the general style guidelines on the /structure talk page. Propose guidelines for when to have embedded article lists or split articles, etc. Lists to create: Articles to reformat: List of Batman Beyond episodes List of Cowboy Bebop episodes List of Mission Hill episodes List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes List of The X-Files episodes Articles with incomplete content: List of Andromeda episodes List of The Angry Beavers episodes List of Batman Beyond episodes List of Boston Legal episodes List of Chicago Hope episodes List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes List of Darkroom episodes List of Dinosaurs episodes List of Edgemont episodes List of Even Stevens episodes List of Fantastic Voyage episodes List of Frasier episodes List of I Love Lucy episodes List of Invasion episodes List of King of Queens episodes List of LEXX episodes List of Matlock episodes List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes List of Tales from the Darkside episodes List of Third Watch episodes List of Undergrads episodes List of Voyagers! episodes Current Collaboration: List of The X-Files episodes

List of The Sopranos episodes has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Episode Guide Basics 2 Season 6 source information 3 season six finale title 4 Deceased/Title Reference/Trivia 5 Clearer Pictures 6 Kaisha picture 7 The Final Eight Episode Titles 8 Final 8 Episodes synopsis 9 Peer Review and FA drive 10 Peer Review (2) 11 Automated peer review 12 Summaries 13 Table of contents

[edit] Episode Guide Basics

I've produced a couple of episode articles now. Just wanted to ask for a few pointers

• Is it standard to always link up the guest starring actors even when there is no article to link to?
• Would it be preferable to link the guest characters to the character guide where possible?
• What are the rules for who gets mentioned as a first appearance? (I understand it should be their first episode and they should be recurring but is there a minimum number of subsequent appearances?)

--Opark 77 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is what I've seen in other episode guides including Desperate Housewives which I also maintain:

• Yes, you always mention an actor even if they don't have a link. It means that they will eventually receive an article if they become more notable, so don't worry about the red link.
• Yes, you can link the characters if you so choose. I think this should be optional though.
• First appearances should be for those who begin a recurring role on the series and have at least 3 episodes under their belt. For example, Fran Feltstein would not be eligible but someone like James "Murmur" Zancone would be able to have a "first appearance" mention.
• Also, I want to clarify that we should list GUEST STARRING ROLES as billed in the opening credits. Now Opark, I've noticed you've been alphabatizing which could work as well but I've been adding how they were billed. I think either/or but I think it should probably be first billed meaning people who are mentioned in opening credits first, then closing credits and only the people who played supporting roles so Carlo Gervasi (Arthur Nascarella) would be credited but not someone lower like 7 1/2 to 9 (Jane Doe). Or we can keep the guest stars as they are. Which ever way is preferable to the consensus. Sfufan2005 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah that was me, I apologise for undoing your good work there - I didn't realise that is how they were ordered until I read your post on Zarbon's request for comment page. It is preferable to me to have them in credits order - although more work to find out this information! I agree that very minor characters need not be included in the guest starring roles, anyone without a name probably doesn't belong. This information is available from the imdb and doesn't belong in an encylopedia. Thanks for the clarification here Sfufan2005, as always, this is a well reasoned approach. --Opark 77 11:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 6 source information

Where did the information about the future season 6 episodes come from? Paul^C/_T+ 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A little site called "The Deadwood Stage" [1]. It has a synopsis for almost every episode of Season 6. Sfufan2005 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] season six finale title

jdpeck changed the season six finale title to "kaisha". can anyone confirm this information to be true or is the title still "setimental journey?" - Zarbon

The title was always Kaisha according to the Schedule on HBO.com and ebay.com which is selling a page of the script titled "Kaisha". Sentimental Journey may have been the working title but I got that off of IMDB which is not always reliable when it comes to episode titles. So Kaisha is definitely the title as per HBO. Sfufan2005 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased/Title Reference/Trivia

I'm going to try and go in to clean up episode guide so each episode summary looks the relatively the same. My suggestion is that the order of the contents goes:

• Guest Stars
• Episode Summary
• First Apperances
• Deceased
• Title Reference
• Trivia.

Any other suggestions?RTB2006 14:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. Thanks for the effort it will be good to keep them looking consistent. --Opark 77 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer Pictures

I just noticed HBO.com has more clearer pictures in their episode guide. I've already replaced the pilot episode. Maybe we should try doing it with the rest.--CyberGhostface 01:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I already did this with "Mergers and Acquistions" but I guess I can do them if I have time. It may take awhile though unless you would like to do some. I also placed fair use claims on all of the pictures which is a necessity for featured lists. Sfufan2005 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just finished for the first season.--CyberGhostface 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished updating all the photos. I hope everyone finds it satisfactory. Sfufan2005 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaisha picture

I'm going to alter the picture for 6x12 Kaisha as the one used is a bit of a spoiler for the episode plot. --Opark 77 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

People going to this guide and wikipedia in general should be expecting spoilers. There are various other pics showing spoiler material on this episode guide. Also, look at the pages for Carnivale and Rome and their episode guide pictures. --CyberGhostface 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The main page ep guide tries to avoid spoilers while the episode pages themselves are full of them. The picture should at least reflect the short episode summary - Tony at Phil's bedside doesn't. --Opark 77 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, half the pictures would have to be changed. And if you want, I'll add a line to the summary mentioning Phil's heart attack. Its the best pic for the episode (on the guide at least) whereas the Carmela/Tony one is just bland.--CyberGhostface 10:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I want - less spoilers on the episode list page so it's useable as a reference for people watching for the first time as well as those of us who are up to date. I'm happy to leave that picture and have the summary as it is. I prefer the other one and I've given my opinion, if no-one else has an opinion it should stay as is. --Opark 77 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Final Eight Episode Titles

Are the episode titles "A Few Kind Words" and "Stage 5" confirmed? Where can I find this information? Also, how come the 2nd and 3rd episode titles have been released, but not the 1st? --RTB2006

Information for episode 614 & 615 titles were retrieved from a website known as "The Deadwood Stage", a very reliable fan site which contains casting calls, episode synospses and things of that nature. Here is a link to the Sopranos portion of the site: [2]. Be careful the site contains spoilers for future episodes. Sfufan2005 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not navigating the site correctly or I missed it, but I don't see the episode "Bloodlines" on the Deadwood Stage board. Is that a confirmed title? RTB2006 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "Bloodlines" needs a citation. Sfufan2005 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They should all have citations. If they don't, then they might end up getting deleted during the upcoming peer review. --Cliff smith 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I found a site that has those episodes listed. It's in Dutch, but that doesn't much matter because you can still read all the episode names, which are in English. --Cliff smith 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final 8 Episodes synopsis

Can we put a reference/source for these synopsis? The ones in here are usually taken from the HBO.com Sopranos page, but obviously, HBO.com doesn't have any info for the new episodes up yet. RTB2006

[edit] Peer Review and FA drive

This list is starting to shape up. I believe that it can come to achieve the FA status of other episode list pages such as that of Fullmetal Alchemist. Should we aim for a Peer review? What other additions can be made? Qjuad 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as additions go, I took a look at other FA episode lists, like the lists for The Simpsons. I also checked out the episode list for Lost. I have made a Season section that incorporates the DVD cover art, like the list for Fullmetal Alchemist. Also, I have added the color-coding for each season that is outlined in the guidelines for episode lists.

--Cliff smith 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. I've added the region 1 release dates. Is there any other details need to be added? Other material that needs to be reworked? Qjuad 02:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much else needs to be done. Some pages have a See Also section, but the "Sopranos box" at the bottom of the page has links to all the things, and more, that would be in a See Also section for this page. As a matter of fact, this page might be worthy of an FA nomination. --Cliff smith 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review before FAC, just to check what criticism we're likely to get. We need to work on fair use rationales for all the fair use images in this article too.--Opark 77 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The fair use thing would probably be the only problem we might run into. I checked the criteria for featured lists and it meets all other requirements. The peer review sounds good; and I will most definitely stick around for the long haul of the eventual FA drive. --Cliff smith 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I also like the way this article is shaping up, thanks Cliff, Opark and Qjuad for all your help in improving the page. One question: should the episode titles be bolded? Since this is pretty common on several article pages I've visited on the site. Let me know what you guys think before we make a final decision. Sfufan2005 19:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. The WP:LOE guidelines use bolded titles. Most other episode lists have bolded titles anyways. --Cliff smith 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding all of the titles. --Cliff smith 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review (2)

Now, I'm curious about something related to the FA drive. Does everyone think we should request a peer review?
I'm just curious because two FA episode lists, the lists for South Park and The Simpsons, both attained FA status without ever having a peer review. I know that they [peer reviews] are a good idea; and as Opark said above, it could help check criticism we'd be likely to get. But it's just that I don't see what kind of criticism this could get apart from fair picture use since it meets all of the criteria for featured lists. I'm just not fully convinced that that one issue alone constitutes the need for a peer review. Besides, if we get any other criticism, we could simply cite how it would be inactionable since the list meets the criteria. All of the screenshots are okay by the fair use guidelines.
What does everyone think?
--Cliff smith 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there aren't many obvious criticisms to make fo the page. I think peer review is still important as it will bring up naything we haven't anticipated before FAC or prove the theory that there are no problems with the page correct.--Opark 77 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We should probably go for the peer review just to be on the safe side. Qjuad 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are probably right. How long will the peer review last, do you think? --Cliff smith 20:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Can't imagine that long. Qjuad 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I began the project page—the peer review is officially in effect. Cliff smith 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think the time may come soon to move ahead and apply for FL status? Qjuad 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we're almost ready. If we address the automated peer review suggestions over the next couple of days and nothing further comes from the peer review we could move ahead.--Opark 77 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's almost time for FLC. Since the automated suggestions have been addressed, we could wait to see if we get anything on the peer review page or go ahead with the nomination. —Cliff smith 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[1]
2. Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
3. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
4. Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
5. Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like
6. As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
7. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. ^[2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think point 2 might be quite relevant - there are a lot of links in the list and the director and writer links are often repeated within a single section. Are the links important to the list or should we limit each link to once per section?--Opark 77 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to limit the links to writers and directors as once per section. -- Qjuad 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made the edits. Does it work? Qjuad 04:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with it.--Opark 77 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have struck through the over linking of dates suggestion as I have copy edited the article and remove most instances of linked dates. I've left in the "year in television" links as I think these ad duseful context.--Opark 77 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same for point 6 as there are no longer links in headers.--Opark 77 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure about point 4 - do images in lists need captions? I assume they don't. --Opark 77 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Point 5. Are there any examples of units of measurement in the article?--Opark 77 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we can rule this one out -- Qjuad 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About point 4:

-The screenshots need no captions since they're in a headed column, as are the pics of the DVD cover art.

-The only other picture is the title screen-shot, which has an appropriate caption, so this meets point 4. —Cliff smith 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Point 7. Since the superfluous links have been deleted, I don't think that much else could be copyedited. The episode synopses are brief, concise, and to-the-point.
—Cliff smith 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Point 1. According to WP:LEAD, "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." This article may be physically long, but in words it is not. The subject is bolded as it should be, and it gives adequate information about the article's subject without running on. —Cliff smith 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should we apply for FL status now? I don't think the peer review will be recieving any more comments - and considering this is not a full article but a list, I can not imagine there is much else we need to change. Qjuad 19:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that. Let's go ahead and do it. —Cliff smith 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm putting the nomination in right now. —Cliff smith 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

Per Jay's suggestions on the FLC page, I have begun expanding the episode summaries. Season 1 is complete, and hopefully the other five can be done without stopping the nomination. —Cliff smith 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the summary expansions will be finished in about two days. Season 2 is now complete. —Cliff smith 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 is now complete. —Cliff smith 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 is now complete. The two-day hope is obviously lost, but the summary expansions will be finished soon. —Cliff smith 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to help from Qjuad, seasons 5 and 6 are complete. Cliff smith 18:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents

I'm proposing moving it below the lead. As it is right now, it really makes it difficult to read the lead as it pushes it towards the image and reduces its width. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)