Talk:The Wire (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star The Wire (TV series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
Peer review The Wire (TV series) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Title

Can someone define what the title means?

The term 'The wire' refers to the phone tap that the detectives use in the series to gain the upper hand on the Barksdale empire. I suppose it also has allusions to being on the wire i.e. a tight rope as in they are really under pressure to crack the case because of all the pressure being put on them from above. Buy yeah it is a wierd title isn't it... a good one though in my opinion.

[edit] Episodes

"The seasons are twelve or thirteen full-hour episodes in length."

It was my understanding that 12 episodes was the norm, the debut season only having one more because it included a pilot episode. Is this the case? Gram 12:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there are a set amount to be honest one season has had 13 two have had 12 I don't think there is a "rule" that any future series will not be able to have 13 or more. Many TV series have different numbers of episodes in series through out their commission.

Season four has 13 episodes, so "twelve or thirteen" is correct and should stay as is.Andrewjnyc 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] episode list

does anyone want to attempt to create individual wiki pages for each episode?

  • OK I'll have a go now. I'm going to use the format from The Sopranos episode guides.--Opark 77 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I did a guide for the last episode I watched here and linked it in to the episode list and character list.--Opark 77 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season List

I think it's a good idea, but perhaps we should start with pages on the seasons.

[edit] Character list

I've set up a character list to include character summary's and lists of appaearances as per other show articles. I've tried to leave a list of all starring characters here on the main page but I think I missed some of them. --Opark 77 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a good idea setting up a separate list. That will allow detailed description of the characters witout cluttering this page. I agree that if there is a separate article, we should limit the main page to the major characters. I made one correction to the new list- Ziggy was Frank's son, and Nick was his nephew. That was part of the reason Ziggy always felt disrespected- his father seemed to treat Nick more like a son than he treated Ziggy.JeffStickney
  • Thanks Jeff, keep watching me as I often make silly mistakes like that (wish I could say I was just testing)!--Opark 77 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Tag

I notice that Jeff moved the spoiler tag up to exclude the character list - this seems reasonable. Just to explain why I agreed with it including the character list before. I noticed on one TV program article that made it to featured status it was suggested that the list of actors contained spoilers because it gives the information to first time viewers that certain characters will be leaving the show. On this article they moved the list down so it was not one of the first things seen. Wish I could remember which show it was! In summary I have no problem for it just covering the synopses but wanted to add a rationale for why the spoiler tag might include the character list also. --Opark 77 10:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that is should cover the characters also - besides the spoiling "formerly starring" section, it does tell the new viewer what path the characters follow - such as Rawls and Burrell. 69.116.150.174 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go ahead and move it. 69.116.150.174 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject television guidelines

I think it may be worth restructuring the article around the television project guidelines. The main sections they suggest are:

  1. Articlename - present and correct
  2. Infobox - present and correct
  3. Introduction - The first sentence should explain the premise, genre, setting and significance of the show. Other options for the introduction include.
  • What made the show unique
  • Years on the air - still going
  • Premiere date - June 2, 2002 added
  • Channel of first and current airing - HBO
  • Production companies - HBO
  • Principal characters - not done (save for later as so numerous)
  • Influence - little so leave out
  • Place in popular culture - save for critical response section
  • Major Awards - save for critical response section
  • Spin-offs - none
  • Music or Theme - currently discussed in episode structure
The introduction seems a bit long at the moment and some of the information might be better off elsewhere.
  1. Characters - lower down but present, should be altered to prose from list format
  2. Plot and Episode listing - need to separate plot summaries from critical response and expand a little
  3. Impact of show on society - little to say can be considered as included in critical response, consider adding rating tables
  4. Critical reviews - currently intermingled with plot summaries and DVD release details
  5. Production notes - perhaps casting and crew should be moved here and maybe origins too
  6. External links - present and correct
  7. Categories - present but may be redundant in some cases

What do other editors think about these suggestions?--Opark 77 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of going by Arrested Development's layout, as it's already an FA, while borrowing a little from Lost (a GA). I'd go:

  1. Infobox
  2. Lead
  3. Overview
  4. Origins
  5. Themes
  6. Characters
  7. Crew
  8. Episode list - consists only of a {{main}}
  9. Plot synopsis
    1. Season one
    2. Season two
    3. Season three
  10. Production notes
    1. Episode structure
    2. Music - maybe, as this doesn't really apply to The Wire
    3. Filming locations
  11. Response
    1. Ratings
    2. Critical reviews
      1. Individual seasons
    3. Nominations and awards
  12. Nominations and awards
  13. Broadcast history
  14. DVD release
  15. Trivia
  16. References
  17. External links
  18. Categories

We should hold off on restructuring until we get a consensus. east.718 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm not sure about having the overview section - the lead is supposed to be an overview itself. I'd keep the awards in the response section as it is at the moment. Perhaps DVD release could stay in response as well. What do you think would need to be done to the existing article to better match this suggested format? I agree that we should hold off on a consensus for moving around exisiting content, but feel we should be bold in areas where new content is needed. --Opark 77 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the lead would be a little bit long then - WP:LEAD dictates that it should be two, at max three paragraphs. I also agree with your suggestion about awards, but not about the DVD release. We could have just a table under the DVD release section like Arrested Development does, but with critical information included - there's a lot of critical response specifically about the DVDs that are mixed in with the main response right now. east.718 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent compromise on the DVD section. In terms of the overview, I meant that we should move this information elsewhere and keep the essential stuff in the lead. That was my eventual intention when I deleted the header earlier but I should have explained that at the time. How would you feel about that?
Also where would the locations section fit into the new structure? I suggested above that perhaps we should use the production notes header from the wikiproject guidelines to unite sections like origins, locations and casting. Although I am torn by keeping origins at the top and casting at the froint end of the characters section as this reads particularly well. Thank you for your help with this East718 and apologies if I am being pedantic. --Opark 77 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How about renaming Baltimore locations to "Filming locations," expanding it, and putting it between episode structure and music? About the overview, we should rearrange the rest of the article, then decide where to put all of it. I'm weakly opposed to combining origins, locations, and casting, as it would make for one overwhelming section. east.718 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The locations renaming point sounds good. I meant rather than merging those three sections they should be united as subsections under the header "production notes"; just to make it more obvious we're following the TV show article template.--Opark 77 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually very fond of the structuring in this revision. What do you think about putting themes in after origins, music after episode structure, and moving crew below characters? Filming locations could go after music. east.718 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding music below episode structure and moving crew below characters sounds fine. I'm not sure about themes straight after origins, it could be a bit in depth for the reader unfamiliar with the show. I think that's why the meat and potatoes sections of plot and character are so high in the template. However, it would relate well to origins so I think we should try it for now and consider how it reads as a whole a bit later on. Could you possibly alter the suggested structure you wrote before so that there is a quick reference here for our (very small) consensus structure?--Opark 77 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, had a go at doing it myself. Looking at it now I would say that the DVD release section seems quite out on a limb, is there anywhere it might fit in?--Opark 77 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a planned section on Broadcast History - this appears in many other TV articles including arrested development and I think we need it to be considered "complete".--Opark 77 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambient Music/Expansion

Bravo- I'm glad to see this series getting some of the attention it deserves.

The note in episode structure about all music being ambient except for the end of the season finales is not completely accurate. In particular, I can think of three instances:

1. In season 1, around episode 6, when Avon, Stinkum, and Stringer Bell are walking through the low-rises on their way to tell D that they "think he has a snitch in the house", music is played and the scene even features slow motion.

2. In episode 11 of the second Season, Greek music plays during the 10 minutes or so preceeding Sobatka's fateful meeting with The Greek and Vondas.

3. During the cold intro of one of the Season 2 episodes, the Cash song featuring the chorus "I keep a cold watch on this heart of mine" plays while during an assortment of shots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BishopOcelot (talk • contribs).

I think Simon mentioned that episode six's slow motion and the pilot's flashback were exceptional techniques that HBO forced him to do. Not that it really matters. east.718 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Although the music is usually ambient this is a good point BishopOcelot. Why not add this information in a music section to the article? I'm not very observant musically so I've struggled to think of things to say about the music so far. You could use {{{title}}}. for citing the episodes which contain these musical examples.--Opark 77 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encapsulation

Great work is being done here, but I have one suggestion; let's allow each character their own page. The character page will get extremely lengthy, and it matches the format of the Sopranos.

I personally will help with this, and will begin doing so later this week unless I get a reply convincing me otherwise.--BishopOcelot 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yeah, the flashback in the Pilot is in my opinion one of the handful of weak moments in the entire series. Glad to hear it didn't come from the man.

Thanks for the offer of help, that would be much appreciated. There is actually a discussion that I recently started on the character list talk page about who should get their own pages. Six characters already do have their own pages - Jimmy McNulty, Cedric Daniels, Omar Little, Avon Barksdale, Stringer Bell and Shakima "Kima" Greggs. If you create a page for a character on the list please move the content from the character page and leave a link and a short summary behind (see the McNulty section of the character list for an example).
I personally think a character article is only appropriate if it has the potential to be a non-stub article i.e. single episode or background characters probably don't qualify. There are guidelines for this in place that I found linked to from the television wikiproject. Sorry if all of this was already known to you BishopOcelot, I'm quite new myself so I'm never sure how much is common knowledge on here. If it's not useful to you maybe someone else can benefit from the info. --Opark 77 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Could I also ask a favour - if you are making character articles please do one for Bunk, I had one almost finished for him and then a crash cost me my hard work. Just can't face doing it again! --Opark 77 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I made {{TheWire}}, a footer template. Feel free to add it to all related pages. east.718 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FU images

The season covers currently do not have a FU rationale on their image pages, we need to add these in. East718, I know you altered the S3 one form a box to a cover, what was the source of the cover image? --Opark 77 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Amazon. east.718 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks East, they've all got FU rationales now so we should be OK in that regard.--Opark 77 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

The only major problem in the article that I see is that some of it is written in the present tense when it all needs to be in the past. My attention span is way too low to fix this all at once, so can some people help out? east.718 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything in-universe (plot summary and character descriptions) should be in the literary present (or in past progressive where needed). Things that happened outside of fiction (casting decisions, an interview being given, etc.) should be past tense. Things like what David Simon or Ed Burns says/thinks about the show can be past or present depending on what makes more sense in context. Andrew Levine 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You guys have done a great job of fixing the tense, I'll try to keep an eye out but as most of the problems were my mistakes originally I'm sure can tell that I'm not a very accomplished writer. If there's any particular sections that need a look please point me in the right direction.--Opark 77 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image captions

I noticed you shortened the image captions East, this is fine just wanted to leave a note to explain my thinking. I read in the captioning guideline about readers who scan articles looking at pictures and trying to use captions to get them interested in the content, by giving brief descriptions I was trying to achieve this effect.--Opark 77 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I really had no problem with the descriptions' prose, just the fact that they made the caption almost as large as the image itself. I don't really think there's any way to maintain prose at that level while keeping the captions succint, but some things just can't be, right? east.718 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What's right is right.--Opark 77 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


The IDs of the new characters in season four were incorrect. I tweaked the order (and changed the spelling of one name) per HBO press materials and the show itself (I've seen several episodes in advance via my job) to make the caption accurate.Andrewjnyc 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast history and DVD release

I noticed that Andrew Levine recently collapsed Broadcast history and DVD release into a section called "overseas". I understand his reasons that the information is repeated elsewhere and can follow his reasoning in removing the sections.

I created the sections as part of an effort being made to bring the article close to the template suggested by wikiproject television (see above discussion). I would like to suggest that instead of removing the DVD release section because the info is in critical response we should remove the info from critical response as it is not appropriate under that heading.

The broadcast history section is likely to grow somewhat given time and users in other countries adding further information. One of the articles aims should be to be comprehensive - if some of the information that it ought to include is better provided by another article then that should be clearly stated with a link to that article and a prose summary of the most important points. I don't think that reasoning that the info is in the episode list is enough to remove it.

Does this make it any clearer what my intentions were Andrew? If you still disagree about the need for these sections I'm happy to leave them ou. Is there a third party out there who has any thoughts?

Finally as a British wikipedian I don't like the assumption that the UK is overseas, for me it's underfoot! --Opark 77 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename the section if you like, as I was just trying to avoid using the phrase "outside the U.S." twice in the same section. If you want to call it "In other countries", that seems a suitable fit. The section can also be split again as I recommend below. If more people want to add to that section broadcast info about the show in the Netherlands, or Australia, or whereever, then we welcome that. I share your hope that the section will grow larger.
Anyway, the information on airdates doesn't really work well as prose, it's the sort of thing that works much better as a list. As previously worded, they were a little too detailed and looked a bit strange as prose. I think that this is a place where the guidelines can be bent in the service of what looks better. Also, having fewer short sections cuts down on the table of contents' size, and the FAC process likes that. I think that if you really want for there to be airdate summary information, it can go in the (re-namable) "episode list" section, and it should be no more complicated than saying that such a season aired from such to such month in such a year, leaving out all that stuff about fortnights.
I am not sure about where to put the DVD info except that it shouldn't be there more than once. I kind of like your idea of re-adding the table and removing the info from the critical response section. This re-adds the collapsed section but cuts down more on prose (the reviews of the DVD features).
So a possible slate of recommendations, in line with what you suggest, might be:
  1. Restore "Broadcast history" section and add to it the "Main: List of episodes of The Wire" template, the briefer summaries of when it aired on HBO, and the info on where it airs outside the U.S.;
  2. Restore "DVD Releases" as a section with the table and with the info on where the first 2 seasons have been released on DVD;
  3. Remove the critical reviews of the DVD sets themselves (as distinct from the reviews of the show drawn from the box set reviews);
  4. Remove the headings "Episode List" and "Overseas" as there will no longer be anything in those sections.
Andrew Levine 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed over this section before doing my last edits. Feel free to revert, I won't do anything until we get consensus.
I think we should:
  • restore DVD releases as section with the table.
  • send the {{main}} for the episode list under plot synopsis, then remove the empty section.
  • remove broadcast history, as it contains redundant information. If we can get something other than airdates, we should restore it and collapse the broadcasters section into it too.
east.718 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Both are reasonable sets of suggestions. I do think it's worth keeping the reviews of the DVDs and moving them to the DVD release section. I think I have done this already and if anyone disagrees they should revert it. I think the episode list link is best placed higher up with the plot synopsis. I wonder if it could be repeated in the broadcasting section? --Opark 77 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I used a peer review semi-bot to analyze this article.

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

  • 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.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • 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: 18 mm. I haven't found any instances of this. east.718 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

east.718 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Andrew Levine has done a great job improving the prose style and spotting redundancies so far.--Opark 77 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've read WP:LEAD and tried to make according adjustments.--Opark 77 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We use summary style where appropriate. Are there further sections that should be summarised out?
Are we ready for a full peer review? I think we're almost there but should wait to produce a stable version of the page.--Opark 77 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the above to reflect new edits, and rigidly complying with WP:SS seems hopeless to me. The largest thing we could splice out is the plot synopsis to season subpages, but that would gut this article. When the page becomes stable enough, I'll nom it for PR and then FAC.east.718 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to merge the character sections in the next few days, and also address the issue of the music samples. To me, those are the only remaining significan tasks. After all that is done, we should put it on Peer Review. That will probably happen sometime this week. Andrew Levine 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the peer review process. In terms of reducing the size of the TOC further we could merge the critical response season subsections so this is one larger section. The same could be done for some of the short one paragraph subsections in the Themes section. I would like to wait and see if reviewers of the article feel the TOC is too large before acting on these suggestions, just wanted to let you know I had considered it.--Opark 77 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it a good idea to merge the critical response sections (the paragraph breaks make the division between seasons pretty clear) but left the individual Themes subsections as you suggested. Andrew Levine 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No problems with that here. east.718 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging characters sections

Personally I think the major character and recurring character sections should be merged. The line between starring roles and important recurring characters is a thin one; for example, right now Carcetti is listed as a major character and Cutty a recurring one, even though they have both appeared in the exact same episodes and had roughly an equal amount of time dedicated to their respective plotlines. They should both just appear together in the same paragraph as season 3 additions. Also, I don't like the word "guest star" because that to me implies a celebrity appearance like you see on a lot of other shows, when the only people to ever appear on the show who have anything close to celebrity status are Method Man, Steve Earle, and some of the city figures mentioned in the casting section, like Robert Ehrlich. So I will probably take out all the uses of "guest star" in the next few days. Andrew Levine 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this despite it being me that used the term guest stars in the first place. Sorry for causing problems by sticking rigidly to the credit type.--Opark 77 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record I distinguished the characters into two types based on whether they appear in the opening credits or in the also starring list at the end of the episode. I used TV.coms episode guides to work this out for season 3 as I have no source I can check for these episodes. For season one and two I used my DVDs.--Opark 77 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music samples

According to Wikipedia:Music samples:

Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples may not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter.

Although this is only listed as a guideline and was defeated in a vote on whether to give it force of policy, having the entire opening theme for every season seems excessive. With the nine images, we have twelve fair-use claims for the page -- more than any featured article does, I believe -- and it is best to play it safe here. I would half-follow the guideline and excerpt 30 seconds for each season's theme, using the audio from about 0:06 to 0:36 (which for each sample gets the vocals of the first verse; this way listeners can compare them better). I also think we should be willing to drop the audio samples entirely if the issue is raised during the FA candidacy. Andrew Levine 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll trim them. About the number of FU claims though, you have to remember that it's pretty much impossible to obtain free images given the nature of the subject matter. east.718 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, but that still doesn't give us carte blanche to use as many as we want. Andrew Levine 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but I'm sure people voting on FA will keep the fact that we can't obtain free images in mind. Enta Da Stage recently passed, and it has nine fair use claims. Only one objection was brought up about the images, and when they were properly sourced, the person abstained his vote. east.718 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is getting way too big

We don't need to include quotes from every single interview David Simon has ever done, or from every review of the show. The bloat of quotes and analysis is starting to make this a slog to read, and the social commentary section is beginning to harangue the reader with Simon's opinions. We're better off with fewer quotes and less commentary. Andrew Levine 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we may need to use fewer quotes, I disagree about needing less commentary. The article aims to be comprehesive, that means using all the high quality sources available to us. If sections get too long they should be subarticled, we shouldn't try to restrict analysis of the topic to control article size. We can achieve that by using subarticles. --Opark 77 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try to assess where information can be moved out of the main article.
I think the examples of names and character origins can be cut from origins as they can go with the indivudal characters. Anyone agree/disagree?
Perhaps the themes section could be moved down the article structure as it is heavier reading. Also if some of the quotes could be altered to a more succinct prose summary of the jist of the points made that would reduce the over reliance on quotes.
The current cast and formerly starring tables could be moved to the character list as they are just a summary of what is now in prose. Prose is preferable right?
The plot summary may be over long, but it's hard to cover it succinctly as its fairly complex. Perhaps we should have season subarticles with a chance for the plot summary and season specific critical response and keep even shorter summaries of these sections here. I know East718 has said that this will gut the article and that's the last thing I want. Anybody want to sandbox it to see what it would do to the size and flow of the article?--Opark 77 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the character origins being part of the character articles, and also the idea of removing the character tables. Anyway, I don't want to reduce the plot summary, that much I know for sure. Andrew Levine 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'll give that a try.--Opark 77 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narrated

The lead has said for a long time that the show is narrated from both points of view. This phrasing has always bothered me as the show is not narrated at all. Is this just a personal thing of mine or does anyone else think the wording needs to be altered?--Opark 77 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's narrated in the (very common) figurative sense, not the literal sense. Andrew Levine 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todays changes 7 August 06

Andrew Levine continues to do a great job trimming the fat of the article and improving wording etc. I think the new lead is preferable to the old one. I notice that the Zap2it link was removed because it was dead. The article still works Ok for me: [1] if anyone needs to use that content again.

The following paragraph was also clipped because it is similar to points made elsewhere in the themes section. I wrote it so I'm not going get completely precious about it and re-add it, I just thought I'd be a little bit precious and put it up here to see if anyone thinks it's worthy of going back in: Simon has described the show as a examination of the way Americans live in modern cities and an attempt to examine what he sees as competing American myths — that if you do better than the next man, you will succeed; and that if you are unable to do better if you work hard every day, there is a place for you nonetheless and you will not be betrayed. He believes that the show illustrates that this second myth is now a lie in cities like Baltimore.[1] --Opark 77 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Burns link

The link to Ed Burns links to "The Brothers McMullin" director, not the Baltimore ex-homicide detective. Someone oughta fix that. Not the same type of writing at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elleesttrois (talk • contribs).

Done--Opark 77 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I haven't been able to find any internet refs. to all the drug names used on the show (i.e. WMDs, Spider bags, Pandemic, Missletoe). How would y'all feel about adding this as an item in a trivia section?

  • I'd be opposed. I don't want this get cluttered with trivia. Andrew Levine 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose this. Trivia is not really encyclopedic. In order for wikipedia to discuss the drug names used we should really first find a source otherwise this is original research.--Opark 77 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see how simply observing and recording the kind of dialogue on the show can be considered original research. I'd be all for a "Langauge and Slang in The Wire" section, but trivia sections tend to piss people off. Stilgar135 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject television specifically says that trivia sections should be removed or incorporated into the text. A list of trivia would harm this article at at FA review and having worked hard to bring it up to FA status I wouldn't want to see it lose that so soon. Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary so a language and slang section is particularly inappropriate.--Opark 77 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But language and slang are essential to the show. One of the reasons that the Wire is so different from other shows is that it strives for realism in all aspects, including language. A section discussing that would make the article better; a list simply stating all the slang terms would not. Stilgar135 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This would probably best be served with an external link to a website that discusses the use of slang particular to the show. If no such website exists, maybe someone should make one. Andrew Levine 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to agree with both Opark 77 and Andrew Levine. east.718 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Aa article on Baltimore slang would be useful.Comic J 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be. However, Wikipedia is not the place for an article solely defining slang words - we're not a dictionary. An article charting the development of Bmore slang might be useful.--Opark 77 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Burns

The article, and more the whole article, seem to downplay the role of Ed Burns in the show before his death. On the season one commentaries David Simon constantly states that the show was a large collaborative effort between them re-enforcing them as equals rather than Simon the creator and Burns the writer. Should this be rectified? –– Lid(Talk) 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed Burns is very much alive. Are you thinking of Robert F. Colesberry? I quote from the "Crew" subsection: "Another The Corner veteran, Robert F. Colesberry, was executive producer for the first two seasons and directed the season 2 finale before passing away due to complications from heart surgery in 2004. He is credited by the rest of the creative team as having a large creative role for a producer, and Simon credits him for achieving the show's realistic visual feel. He also had a small recurring role as Detective Ray Cole." He's also mentioned in the infobox. I think that serves to give him his due. Andrew Levine 04:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm probably combining two crew members in my mind, but the Ed Burns point still stands in that Simon constantly put it forward as the team of him and Burns. –– Lid(Talk) 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I just relistened to the commentary on The Target and yes I accidently combined Ed Burns with Robert Colesberry, no idea how that happened. –– Lid(Talk) 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metacritic

Lid recently added a passage about the Wires high score on Metacritic to the critical response section, I have a couple of questions about this. Is metacritic a suitable source for wikipedia? Also I don't think we need to explain how metacritic works in this article - that information is better suited to an article about metacritic. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?--Opark 77 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no needly for such a lengthy description of how Metacritic works. A single, short sentence ("Reviews from major sources compiled by Metacritic..." etc.) is enough. I think that if we keep the metacritic info we drop the TV Guide quote, since there's no need to beat the readers over the head with the critical consensus that the show is good (and the metacritic compilation shows critical consensus better than the TV Guide bit). Andrew Levine 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template idea

To deal with the numerous and varied cast, such as the many levels of the police force, and not enough space to do it in why not use something similar to the templates Law & Order use for their cast?

Template:Lawandorderprosecutors and Template:Lawandorderpolice are what they use and I think we could extend use this for The Wire to create seperate templates for the Police, the Politicians, the Street and the Docks. This avoids the problem of having to only have six names listed when the multi-lkayered concept of The Wire means many characters get left out. Take Ray Cole for example, under the current template he wouldn't be listed however under Homicide squad he would be listed. It also stops debates about character longetivity and whether we should replace them or not.

Thoughts? –– Lid(Talk) 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So we would then only append the templates to the appropriate pages (i.e. only use the docks for S2 episodes)? Perhaps you could make up some examples in your sandbox. How many different te,plates are you thinking of? I think it's important not to have too many characters listed otherwise they become less functional because you have to search through them.--Opark 77 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names in captions

I've noticed someone changing the names in captions to the full names of the characters rather than their common names. I have changed this back because it disrupts the links to the character articles and is unnecessarily verbose. For the main article we should introduce the characters as they are commonly known and then give more detail on their full names in their individual articles. I wonder if there are any arguments for having the full names in the captions?--Opark 77 08:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD release

I think we can cut everything from this section after the table. There is already a lot of cited praise in the article and the DVD reviews don't really add much to that. It feels like preening. Andrew Levine 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence in lead

I have reverted back a sentence in the lead that had been changed twice by another user (who made other very useful edits). I don't think it accurately represents the sources to state that "The Wire has received critical acclaim for its portrayal of urban life and exploration of sociological themes." Hundreds of TV shows portray life in a city, and almost every current American network drama explores sociological themes to some extent. What the reviews cited in the article state, with consistency, is that the show is realistic in its depiction of urban life, and that the sociological ruminations go deeper than most other TV shows. The user mentioned that not all the reviews praise The Wire for these reasons, which is true (only most of them do), but there is no unanimity implied by "has received critical acclaim." Only that some (a lot, actually) praise has been given by some (many) critics. Andrew Levine 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police Procedural?

Is "The Wire" a true police procedural? To my mind, it's more of a character driven drama, with some characters who happen to be police officers. From the wiki definition of police procedural: "the police procedural frequently attempts to depict the work of police officers in solving multiple crimes simultaneously". Each season and episode of "The Wire" centers around no singular crime being solved; usually one criminal group or enterprise is being pursued by one police group; usually for a large number of crimes. And the current season (four) centers more around the educational and political worlds, with the nominal "police story" on the back burner. When I think of a "police procedural", I think of "Law and Order" or "CSI", not "The Wire". Weirdoactor 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves..

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Proposed_moves_for_episodes_of_The_Wire.. someone has decided to request episode pages for The Wire be moved (without notification I add) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you just beat me to it. You could wait more than two minutes before you start complaining, I can't edit multiple pages instantaneously. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bootleg Season 4 DVD's

I believe that the fact that HBO pre-released the entire season to critics, and the prerelease ended up leaking into the black market is notable enough to deserve a mention. I'm having trouble finding non-blog or non-forum references, however. The Baltimore Sun had an article about the bootleg-and-spoiler fiasco on October 18, but it is no longer linkable from their page. It is currently mirrored at [2]JeffStickney 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Wire_%28TV_series%29_eec9.html"