Talk:The Sopranos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Userbox

This user is a fan of
The Sopranos.

{{User:UBX/Sopranos}}
Enjoy. Andrew Levine 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

==Better Articles-- i think we need to change some of the articles so they go in order in what they happen

Timeframe?

What is meant by "The timeframe is not accurate however more approximate judging on weather, media and climate."

What does the climate and weather have to do with how long a season last and when it is aired?

• What it means is that we don't exactly know what year it is until they tell it which is why you look what season it is:

Here's how I broke up the time difference between the seasons

• Season 1: 1999, introduction year.
• Season 2: 2000, a year after last season's events
• Season 3: 2000-2001 Seeing Meadow graduated in June of 2000, and returns to college in September when the FBI plans their surveillance it would make sense. ...To Save Us All From Satan's Power is a Christmas-themed episode which would be Christmas of 2000. The following episode Pine Barrens would take place around January 2001 since it was winter.
• Season 4: 2001-2002: Season 4 is probably the hardest because there is no mention of a year. We assume it begins in fall of 2001 since Uncle Junior's trial starts in October. And there is really no winter so it jumps a few months into '02.
• Season 5: 2004: takes place two years after Tony and Carm's separation. Season 5 seems to jump a lot of the seasons: with a few episodes being in the spring, summer, fall and finally the winter (in the season finale).
• Season 6: 2006: According to producers, Season 6 takes place two years after the death of Adriana and arrest of Johnny Sack.Sfufan2005 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Season 4 starting in Autumn 2001 would be backed up with the 9/11 Quasimodo reference from Bobby.

Reorganisations

Big Pussy

But paulie also says he "loved big paulie as a brother". The term "loved" is used as a symbol of terrible loss if anything, not an indicator of "tony's best friend." I agree that it is Artie Bucco as he is the only character who makes a major mistake (loaning $50k and losing it) who is not family and is not punished.Ryan Matthews 18:03 December 12

There is no "best friend" scenario in the mind of Tony Soprano. If anyone could be called his friend it should be Dr.Melfi, she listens to his problems, offers her advice and asks for nothing (nor offers)in return. Artie may have the distinction of being Tonys longest non mobbed up associate but once he tried to be involved in the game he lost the role of friend.--Jasklo 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with all of you, actually. Silvio is one of his closest associates, but not his best friend. Artie Bucco was a close friend, but not his best friend either. Dr. Melfi is his psychiatrist. They have a close relationship, but as she has personally pointed out, time and time again, it is a professional/working relationship. I believe that the only best friend Tony has ever had, would have to be Jackie Aprile. Though he was only in a couple episodes, it has been said time and time again of their close relationships. They both started working together. They stayed together through all the problems that ever arose, and Tony resolves a potentially deadly dispute with Uncle Junior because of it. 24.29.58.97 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Alexander S. Hoffman 20:44 April 09, 2007

John Tiffen Patterson

I've snipped the non-sequitur See also link to John Tiffen Patterson. If there's really a need to randomly single out this minor detail (Allen Coulter and Tim Van Patten have directed as many episodes, and Steve Buscemi, Peter Bogdanovich and David Chase himself are much more notable helmers), it should be done in a credits section à la Dawson's Creek#Credits, but personally I think such lengthy lists clutter up Wikipedia with info that belongs on (and is inevitably copied from) iMDB.

chocolateboy 17:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. – flamurai (t) 17:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking up article a little

Personally I feel the episode list should be moved to its own article. Perhaps List of episodes from The Sopranos. I also think that we should streamline the list of characters given that we have an article on the subject List of characters from The Sopranos. The character tables could be moved there in favor of a shorter list here of the bare necessity. K1Bond007 June 30, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

• There's already one... List of The Sopranos episodes. Someone added it to the main article though. Just relocated it. You can revert if you like. Sfufan2005 June 30, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
  • Ahh.. thanks for pointing this out. K1Bond007 June 30, 2005 21:26 (UTC)
• I agree, but I think it's more a matter of hoping that we get a User:SopranosFan of the caliber of our User:Sfufan2005 to add some of that pesky content to the article :-) It's quite a feeble article considering it's the greatest show of all time. Note that, rather than doing anything about it, I find it easier to rally other troops :-)

chocolateboy 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

• Glad to be of service for the greatest show besides SFU. How about adding to the article favorite quotes, Trivia, etc... a la Desperate Housewives. Sfufan2005 June 30, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

The last 'boss of bosses' was infact 'Lucky' Luciana, after Maranzano, since then knowone is thought to have enough power over the other families to be names cap di tutti capi. Johnny Sack is currently boss of the fictional Lupertazzi family, not the genuine Genovese family. The position of head of the comission doesnt really exist, just some bosses were thought to have more power than the other, so were unoficially 'Chairman of the Comission'.

criticism addition

I added the following to the criticism section. It's actually quite a nice addition. I'd appreciate a response. thanks. From an analytical perspective, here's a comical summary of the nature of the series thus far: Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Jimmy Altieri was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Brendan Filone got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Big Pussy was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Richie Aprile got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Raymond Curto was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Jackie Jr. got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Jack Massarone was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Ralph Cifaretto got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Adriana was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Tony Blundetto got whacked. And now...the sixth season premiere of The Sopranos. YAY! - Zarbon

This already got deleted (rightfully), but I just want to point out that Tony didn't fetch the paper at the beginning of season five. Tim Jan. 23, 2006 6:56.

- he fetched the paper in season 5 episode "Test Dream" in the plaza hotel, in his robe. so there. - Zarbon

You got that from the Two Tonys TWoP recap by Aaron, didn't you? Sfufan2005 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. So Zarbon ripped off a Television without Pity recap word for word except for the "Yay!". (which is a commercial copyright breach by the way) here's the link: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=44&story=6372&limit=&sort=

I didn't rip it off. it's good to add. i'm still wondering as to why it shouldn't be added actually. It pretty much sums up the series so well, it's unmistakingly perfect. I just liked it for the fact that Brendan Filone was mentioned, since he's my alltime favorite character and all. - Zarbon

I think it is only fair that someone take Zarbon out back and shoot him. And of course, pick up a newspaper.

hey, as long as i get shot right in the eye, like Brendan Filone, I'm happy. - Zarbon

Wikipedia:Talk page highlights#Talk:The Sopranos

Well, it made me laugh. Remove or correct if you disapprove or object :-)

chocolateboy 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Major characters vs. Recurring characters

I propose to move the recurring characters to their own article since they are taking up way too much room on the main page. I was thinking of what the users on the Lost page, there are series regulars on the main page with just their name: e.g.

• James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano
• Lorraine Bracco as Dr. Melfi etc.

And on the characters page which is already in existence, we have the full list of characters with their linking page and for those characters who do not have a page, they receive a summary on the Characters page. If you don't understand me just check out Characters of Lost for more information. I just wanted to alert everyone before I started cleaning up the article. Sfufan2005 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

Anyone reading this entry in order will not appreciate the mention and analysis of multiple parodies of the title theme appearing so early in the article. (this is a wikipedia tendency to come accross references to, say, the simpsons in some place where they really aren't of much use). Anyone agree? I'd like to just remove it but maybe someone wants to move it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.246.230 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you, I'll move the second half of the Title sequence section to the Praise/Criticism section. Sfufan2005 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Product placement

After watching Members Only one thing which sticks in my mind is the blatant product placement. We had enough about the Porsche Cayenne Turbo with the V8 and the little Porsche Boxster .vs. Corvette quip. From previous series I remember the Nissan 4x4, and the Cadillac Escalade with its crash protection saving Tony's and Adriana's lives. What's the background for this? Is HBO actively taking sponsorship? Does this merit a section in the main article?

No, I don't think this deserves mention in the article because there has been mention of brand names since the Pilot. Carmela uses Campbell's soup, the FBI likes Pepsi whereas The Sopranos like Coke. It would just be a long laundry list. Sfufan2005 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone can find a good article (not just something from a random blog) about product placement, I think it could be a worthwhile mention, just cite the article as a source. I don't think a list of all product placemeents would be very useful, but an explanation of their role in the show (financial and otherwise) would be interesting. --W.marsh 17:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a New York Times article a couple of years ago or so where this Sopranos producer or executive basically lied and said one of the wonderful things about the Sopranos is that there is no product placement whatsoever and they only use real life products for authenticity. I found this very doubtful, given how much the Sopranos family loooooooooves Snapple and other such instances Bwithh 19:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note the occasional product placement of other HBO programs in the show e.g. Curb Your Enthusiasm and Band of Brothers Bwithh 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really the issue, but to me talking about products by using their product names adds to the authenticty of the dialog. Most of these people are materialistic and shallow, they place value on name brands, etc... Tim 21:36, March 18, 2006

I never noticed it until "Members Only." It was blatant and ridiculous. Volksgeist 13:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In Join The Club we had AJ ask Meadow something about the Toyota Prius for no apparent reason. Then later he says something about the Mustang GT (I think it was) being better than a BMW M3 in horsepower figures. Google for Sopranos and "product placement" and you'll turn up quite a few people who comment on this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0603150036mar15,1,1509312.column?coll=chi-business-hed

I think there's a difference between "product placement" (which is taking money from sponsors to feature their products in a show, often with cross-promotion - ie. James Bond and BMW) and using name-brand products in a show to give it authenticity. It's jarring when a couple of wealthy guys are sitting around drinking no-name beer, as we've seen in the past. While some may doubt whether the spokespeople are telling the truth, the article should only feature sourced information. If it deserves mention in the article at all (which I'm dubious about) it should be something like "Sopranos is known for featuring name-brand products such as cars and clothing labels prominently. Spokespeople for HBO and the various products claim that no money is involved in these appearances, which are used to give the show a sense of authenticity." - dharmabum 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

HBO never accepts paid placements. I've renamed the "product placement" section to "depiction of brands", and removed the text which speculated about how much money HBO makes from paid placements. Please be sure to do a quick Google before adding speculative text to articles. Rhobite 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, HBO claims they never accept product placements - have you watched an episode of Entourage recently (by the way note how the Maserati sports car has been a plot device on both Sopranos and Entourage)? I agree that that the idea of how much income HBO gets from is speculative, but product placement doesnt have to be directly paid for to be product placement e.g. why are Apple computer products so frequently used by characters in TV shows (far more common than in real life) - because Apple actively gives away laptops to TV shows(including Sopranos) for product placement purposes with no monies attached. (I'm sure some of those laptops find their way in to producers' home sthough. Bwithh 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with an "according to HBO" prefix, but please don't remove the Chicago Tribune reference. Your speculation about Maserati and Snapple is original research. If you have a source for Apple giving away laptops to HBO, please cite it. Rhobite 03:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this Hollywood Reporter/Reuters story, during the first four months of 2006, Apple products were featured 250 times on 38 primetime network shows. HBO isn't mentioned in connection with Apple, but the article does site a deal between Aston Martin, the car company, and HBO for Entourage. The article also describes the phenomenon of "free" product placement in general, and notes that Apple has a long history of giving away free products to TV shows and movies. Also see the Businessweek link below which tracks Sopranos Product placement. I'll do some research later on this Bwithh 04:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can find backup references for the Apples and the Maserati at least. But in general, i think that subsection has too many brand names. so I will try to trim that down. By the way, a quick google shows that Businessweek magazine has a regular blog feature dedicated to analyzing product placement in the Sopranos. see this link. Bwithh 03:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ps I didnt notice your Chicago Tribune link. I would not have deleted it if I noticed it. sorry about that. Bwithh 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought 'Luxury Lounge' was the best episode of Season 6 so far. Especially as I have a couple of Oris watches. And it seems I'm not alone: [1] and [2]. Very much in the realm of trivia, but is there merit in a separate article on this? --Morgandp 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Motorola Praise

There was a quote somewhere in the show where once of the characters bought a Motorola phone for someone as a gift, saying something about how it was the best phone. Anyone remember this? I want to say it was the third or fourth season. Maybe the X-Mas episode?

The Motoraloa product placement occured in episode 54: Rat Pack. Tony Soprano buys his cousin Tony Blundetto the phone so they can stay in touch - BADABINGMAN919

Formerly Starring

I'm personally against the formerly starring bit. we have all the supporting ppl in the character page. we don't need to have them listed again on the sopranos main page as formerly starring. people who click on the list of sopranos characters link will obviously see them. also, eugene and richie were never main characters. they were simply guest stars. - Zarbon

Yeah but its just not the characters; it's also the cast. What I intended with the "formerly starring" were the cast members that were in the opening credits (i.e. Marchand, de Matteo and Marchand) previously and were taken out after they left The Sopranos so I believe they still deserve to be credited since they were series regulars. Sfufan2005 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Eugene was always listed as a star in the main credits despite his largely background role until "Members Only" so I think it's reasonable to have him on the main page -Opark77

Life imitating art

"Big Pussy" was clearly based on Frank Bompensiro as they share the same last name, both were FBI informants, and were both murdered (although differently). Maybe it should be added to the Sopranos somewhere...triva?? notyouravgjoe 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's original research unless you can find a primary source that says that. --Bk0 (Talk) 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here they are

• The Enforcer- Spilotro: The Chicago Mob's Man in Las Vegas, ISBN 0804113106 --notyouravgjoe 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't see anything there that says that Big Pussy from the show is based on Frank Bompensiro. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, however perhaps there should be a section which details coincidences of the sopranos with real life. I know that several of the scams Tony has done are identical to ones which were actually performed. I don't mean generic mafia crimes such as loansharking or extortion, but specific ones like the calling card scam. Just a thought. notyouravgjoe 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless those coincidences come from a primary source it's all original research. I'm not saying you have bad ideas but we need to follow standards for verifiability. Any and every fact in each article needs to be traced back to some external source. That's just how it is. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

"Big Pussy" was clearly based on Frank Bompensiro

Not necessarily...

perhaps there should be a section which details coincidences of the sopranos with real life

Knock yourself out!

chocolateboy 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable plots and timeline

This section has gotten extremely long. I am planning on reducing it to just KEY events (maybe 10-15 per season). I would like to move what's there right now to a new subarticle, called The Sopranos timeline. That way, people who just want a quick recap (not every single detail) of what happened in past seasons, can just skim through a section in the main article. Thoughts? --W.marsh 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A short synopsis for each season would be nice on this page with a Timeline on a separate page like you said. I have to admit it is becoming quite long since several bullets come from one episode alone. I'm for whatever you present to us. Sfufan2005 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I have the time to totally rewrite as a synopsis, but I am currently working on weeding out some of the more mundane points (Tony gets food poisoning, Meadow throws a party, etc.) and getting it to just things of central importance to the season/series. The section was actually 44k in size, over half the size of the article. Anyway hopefully once its reduced to the key points of each season, someone can rewrite that in prose. --W.marsh 22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you do move it to a separate article (which I think is a good idea) please don't edit information out of it. I think a separate article with a detailed timeline is a great idea, especially since minor events often take on greater meaning in subsequent episodes. It would be great if the timelines of the earlier seasons were as detailed as seasons five and six. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I propose to preserve all of the existing content, just as a subarticle. I think it's the best comprimise. People will also be able to add to that article in greater detail if they want. --W.marsh 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of a synopsis more like this, don't worry if you don't have the time... I'll try to help out the best I could since I'm spending a lot of time on the episode articles. Sfufan2005 22:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have trimmed it and created the subarticle, trimming 20k off of the main article. Further highly detailed information should probably be moved from the main article to the subarticle, or to individual episode articles. Thanks for the above comments. --W.marsh 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Criticism

This was in the criticism section of the article:

Other criticisms (pointed out by journalist Eli Evans) include that the show has become formulaic with characters placed as foils for Tony Soprano, following the formula of the character being introduced at the beginning of the season, disobeying Tony repeatedly throughout their run on the show, then eventually getting killed (or targeted) for their insubordination, usually towards the end of the season. The major examples of this are Mikey Palmice in Season One, Richie Aprile in Season Two, Jackie, Jr. in Season Three, Ralph Cifaretto in Seasons Three and Four, and Tony Blundetto in Season Five.

I think it's a very valid point, but it really feels like independent reporting or editorializing. The only citation is the name-dropping of "journalist Eli Evan", with no indication of who this is or where/when the opinion was published. If a notable journalist (or cluster of lesser-knowns) have published this in their review of later seasons, by all means cite the sources and re-instert this bit of information. --72.224.150.233 04:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

quoting The Godfather

I need to do some checking on this, and once I do, I will make some changes in The Godfather section, but I am certain that, on a number of occasions, when Silvio is doing his Al Pacino impression, he actually mangles the quotations. This has to have been done on purpose by the writers, and I think it's hilarious! --Charles 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Malapropisms

I like this new title, it is more fitting. However, the content of the section is now being expanded to encompass an overall sense of the perceived ineptitude or buffoonishness of the mobsters in general. This is not in keeping with the title "malapropisms," which refers specifically to the problem of mispronouncing words, misunderstanding their meanings, and/or using the word(s) incorrectly. --Charles 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I put in the content but someone changed the title. When you really think about it, much of the popularity and humor of the show is based on the stupidity of the mobsters. I think the title of this section will evolve over time, but its a good start. There is a lot of bathroom humor but we don't want to go there yet. Lgreen 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a relevant and interesting section. However, we could do with some references to support it or it's our original research. Also is it really symbolism? I always take symbolism as a visual thing where part of an image refers to something other than what it shows. Malapropisms are symbolic of the mobsters lack of education - I understand that - but I still think that as they're a dialogue/writing conceit they belong outside of symbolism. Certainly a section detailing the ineptitude of the mobsters is not symbolic of anything. Some of the stuff to do with the Godfather and Goodfellas is also not really symbolism - the death's are but the cast links (which I admit to adding a lot of) are more of a genre link than any kind of symbolism.. --Opark 77 08:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think everything was just put in "symbolism" because its the biggest subcategory here. Much of it is relevant but cannot formally be defined as symbolism; probably should have their own categories. Lgreen 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor questions

Gap in Production

Hi. Does anyone knows about the troubles that led to production of the show being suspended in 2003 (Season 4 ends in 2002, but Season 5 premieres only in 2004...)? I remember something about the show almost being cancelled, and that the source of the problem was (allegedly) James Gandolfini (maybe something about his salary?). I was surprised to see that there's no mention to it in the main article, and that really catches the eye when you're reading the episode list: you see that odd gap in production and naturally turn to the main article for an explanation... but there's none. Regards, Redux 22:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Main article needs to be changed, recent ads on HBO indicate the Sopranos will be back March 2006.

Changed. Added March 2006 premiere (with 12 eps) in addition to the final 8 eps airing in January '07. Sfufan2005 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Crystal Meth and learning

In the section regarding season one it reads "Meadow and Hunter try to score Crystal Meth from Brendan and Chris in order to stay up late and study for their exams." Although I am not an expert I am quite sure that some students use Crystal Meth (Speed) for the sake of recalling memorized facts better during exams, and not to be able to stay up longer. Any opinions on this?

You are definetly not an expert. Meth will not improve your memeory. Trust me, I'm an addict. C-Meth will keep you awake for days, and the last think you will care about (in most cases) is an exam. Especially when you're dealing with someone who does not have a tollerance. They will tweak like mad, and enjoy it so much, they won't be able to ground themselves enough to study. Only a functioning addict could attempt to study for a test. —This unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs) .

I'm pretty sure they were just after amphetamine, not methamphetamine. a short term effect of amphetamine is that it increases your concentration, similar to ADHD medication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.99.79 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Christopher's poem

• Hey I was wondering if anyone has seen that commercial on HBO with Christopher's poem. HBO has split the different sceens up from all episodes and made it into a poem. I was trying to show co-workers this but are unable to find it. Can someone please email it to me at nvallarelli@deltafudning.com if they know where to find this commercial, much thanks

The poem is now available on HBO.com if you're still interested. It's called Christopher's Def Poem. Sfufan2005 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)\

HBO has a podcast series called "Words of Wisdom" with poems like this by cast members of Six Feet Under and Curb Your Enthusiasm

sopranos v star trek

My contribution to wikipedia, when I get around to it, will be to generally update entires (sic) on brain science to reflect newer, ascendant theories incorporating non-linear dynamics and notions of embodiment. (in case you don't get it, I'm freakin smart a'ight?!) So, I feel at least potentially justified in asking why it is that the sopranos, which is probably the most ambitious, most subtle piece of drama ever to appear on TV in any country during my lifetime, receives such a tiny entry when compared to the ridiculous star trek. Bear in mind - I've been watching star trek since I was very young. I love it. But, it does not merit extensive coverage; it makes only very rudimentary points about, well, anything interesting before it retreats into simple wish fulfilment and fantasy.

Might it be a worry that wikipedia in general somehow makes a correlative retreat?

I'd be keen to open a discussion about that, and mechanism to remedy the problem.

C dot M dot REVELEY ===?AT?=== SUSSEX dot AC dot UK

The amount of mention that each topic merits on WP is a matter of opinion, and WP does not make it its policy to opine on such things. Rather, advocates of either property should simply contribute material that they feel is appropriate. If you feel The Sopranos is missing info that you could add to it, then do so. It is a non-sequitur, however, to argue that the validity of its content should be judged solely by comparing it to Star Trek. Like it or not, Trek has been a cultural phenonmenon for almost 40 years, and because its canonical output alone includes six television series and ten feature films, it is natural that it will have more extensive coverage than a TV show that's only been on for several years. Since it probably has more worlwide fans of several generations, it is understandable that more Wikipedians will have an interest in contributing to its articles, which is what determines their extent. Not one individual's opinions of which is more "ambitious" or "subtle" or marked by "wish fulfiment" (unless there's a WP policy that I've missed. :-))Nightscream 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the internet is full of nerds. --(sorry dont know howto sign name)

Trivia- Whitecaps

Just to make things clear: John Patterson directed the fourth season finale episode "Whitecaps" so whoever continues to change that is wrong. Sfufan2005 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Jr

Currently says "Associate in Ralphie's crew, Christopher's friend and partner in crime" for Jackie Jr. Here's Jackie Jr's story arc: Jackie wants to be in mafia, Jackie dates Meadow, Tony doesn't want Jackie in Mafia, Jackie breaks up with mafia, Jackie leads poker-game heist, Jackie is wacked. Look at the Jackie Aprile, Jr. wikipedia entry. He's not an accoiciate with Ralph, Ralph is merely giving him bad ideas (and that's just Ralph pretending to be a father). I definately wouldn't call him Chris' "friend and partner in crime." How about something along the lines of, "Son of former boss, had brief relationship with Meadow Soprano, desperate to make name for himself in the mafia." - Tim 06:54, Jan. 18, 2006

He actually in one episode he acts as a driver for chris in a robber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Still doesn't make him "friend and partner in crime." Chris used him to drive once. It's also not the most important thing about the Jackie Jr. character. The most important thing about him is 1. his relationship with Meadow and 2. his desire to follow in his father's footsteps. Tim 02:35, March 18, 2006

There's another scene from the pizza joint, where Chris and Jackie discuss business and Chris tells Jackie that Tony has no business telling him how to make a living. As far as being in Ralph's crew, you do see Jackie and Dino kick up to Ralphie and they ask him to watch their backs, so I would consider them associates. --M vopni 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please continure discussion on Jackie Aprile, Jr.--Opark 77 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The definative Jackie Jnr.: Christopher is encouraging Jackie Jnr. into crime because he can make money from him and he would like to be the one that gives the orders for a change, in the early seasons Chris is subordinate to the rest of Tony's crew.

In one of Jackie Jnr.'s first appearence he is representing Aprile family interests along side Richie in a meeting with Tony. From this, Richie at least seems happy to allow Jackie to follow him and his father into the business. Jackie even attends a meeting between Richie and Junior where they are openly discussing killing Tony.

It is difficult to say whether Ralph actively encourages Jackie into the life or just failed to discourage him. What is certain is that Ralph's stories of Tony and Jackie Snr.'s youths and Mafia careers made Jackie even more determined to emulate his father. Indeed, it is Ralph's story about how Jackie Snr. and Tony first rose to prominence in the 'family' (by holding up a game that was paying a made man) that gave Jackie the idea to rob the game that eventually cost him his life. He held the game up to gain more respect, not to 'break up with the Mafia' as previoulsy stated. The only member of the 'family' that actively tries to keep Jackie Jnr. away from crime was Tony. Tony had promised Jackie Snr. that he would keep Jackie Jnr. out of the life. Tony takes this very seriously and Jackie's decline makes him worry about A.J.'s future.

The final point is Jackie's death. The article states that Tony told Ralph to give Jackie a pass and it was Ralph's decision to kill Jackie. Watch that scene again. You have to read between the lines. Tony is telling Ralph in no uncertain terms that Jackie Jnr. must die and he holds Ralph personally responible for it as Ralph, being Jackie's mother's boyfriend, was a poor role model. With The Sopranos, as with most Mafia fiction, it is what is not said or the way something is said rather than the actual words that are important. Watch the scene again, I promise you'll see what I mean. Godforce 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up on the Jackie Jnr thing but Janice does introduce herself as Janice Soprano a few times in season 2. At the 'garbage man's ball' for example, before Tony has a panic attack.82.47.197.222 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the Accidental Blanking

Every time I try to fix one minor bit of wording, it seems the bottom half of the page gets blanked, and now even trying to restore prior versions isn't working. This is an aspect of WP that I admit I'm kinda in the dark about, so I'm sorry about that. If anyone else knows how to fix this, please go ahead and do so; I think I'll stay away from this article for now. :-( Nightscream 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dimeo crime family

How large is the dimeo crime family.

They don't exactly say. Do you mean just made men or including associates? Considering that there are 5 crews in the family and each crew has around 5-8 made guys in it, I say the total number is probably in the 30's plus another 40 associates.

To compare, Tony says in Season 6 that Phil has 200 soldiers in his family and it is one reason why he doesn't want to start a war. This would imply that NJ has far less members and would lose the battle on strength in numbers. --M vopni 19:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The DiMeo family actually has six crews (Tony Soprano, Altieri, Barese, Aprile, Curto and Junior Soprano) each having 10-15 soldiers and probably a similar number of associates. Im guessing the crew sizes vary, the Barese is crew is supposedly the biggest with around 20-30 made members and associates. Probably toal DiMeo membership: 50-70 made members, around 120 including associates

I disagree with some of this. The show gives us an in depth look into two crews in the family - Tony's old crew and the Aprile crew - and a close look at Junior's crew. In Tony's crew the most made guys at a time was 7 - Pussy, Sil, Tony, Paulie, Chris, GiGi and Patsy. In the Aprile crew GiGi, Ralphie, Vito and Gene made 4 at a time. Junior's crew once contained Junior, Mikey, Chucky, Beppy, Murf, Bobby, Bobby Sr., GiGi, Patsy and Philly - 10 guys. I think 60 made guys is an absolute maximum in the shows timeline and today with so many killed and so few new made men it's probably dwindled to around 40. The number of active associates in a crew is probably at it's highest right now - Chris' crew has Benny, Little Paulie, Murmur, Bissel, Cary DiBartolo, Perry, Corky Caporale and possibly Frankie Cortese just 8 associates. I think 100 guys is a maximum if we're feeling optimistic back in the family's early days. I'd guesstimate somewhere closer to 2-3 made guys per crew and half a dozen associates, around 50 total family members in 2006. --Opark 77 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris and Tony

Tony styles himself as a father figure towards Chris. However Tony clearly is to young to be chris's father, what is their age difference?

• Well, Christopher is Carmela's second-cousin and Tony thinks of him as a "nephew" since they were always close like a "father and son". If Tony was born in 1959, he would be 47 in 2006 and since we don't know Christopher's age I'll use Michael Imperioli's age (40) as an example. So Tony would be about 7 years older. Other examples are that TOny and Tony B. went up to Uncle Pat's farm when they were about 18 and Chris was around 11 or 12. Sfufan2005 02:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Christopher says that Tony was 19 and he was 11 in the tenth episode of the 5th season. So it's 8 years. The reason Tony styles himself as a fathger figure is, because he acted like one, after Christopher's father died. --JTrdi 13:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• The Sopranos family tree --Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Boss of the family

Who is the boss of the family? Tony, Mr. Dimeo, or Junior?

• The boss in name is Uncle Junior. Dominic DiMeo was charged with a life sentence in 1995 and therefore loses his privledges as mob boss. Jackie Aprile was acting boss until his death in '99. Tony nominated Junior who took the role. However after the attempt on Tony's life (end of Season 1), Tony took away everything from Junior except his title. So Tony technically is considered the "street boss". Sfufan2005 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Two make their relationship believable, they should have made their ages father apart, even if the actors ages are closer.

How much farther apart do you want them to be? Junior is 75 and Tony is 47. I say around 30 years is enough --M vopni 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For more information see DiMeo Crime Family --Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

finance

Who owns the Bada Bing? Tony or Silvio? Most mobsters operate legitament bussiness or go through the motions of holding a regular job. They sometimes do this to advance money laundering. They also do this to give themselves a err of respectability. Whats Jobs/ bussiness' do the sopranos use as cover?

Silvio and his wife own the Bada Bing. Tony owns a percentage of Barone Sanitation, The Casino in Kearny (joint between NY & NJ), Satriale's Meat Market and the Stugots I & II. Sfufan2005 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bada Bing is run by Silvio but he kicks upstairs to Tony as is the mob structure. It's never made clear how much of the club belongs to who only that money goes up to Tony.

Uncle Juniors history

Besides his on going arrest has uncle junior or toneys father spent long periods in prison?

• Please discuss on Junior Soprano--Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's history

Who was the first person Tony ever killed?

• Please discuss on Tony Soprano--Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's succesor

If Tony dies from juniors shooting him (which is unlikely) who would likely take over as boss?

I think Paulie would, since he is the Underboss and Junior is incompetent. Sfufan2005 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is not the best place for speculative discussion try HBO.com, imdb.com or televisionwithoutpity.com - all have active Sopranos message boards. --Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Season 6; Episode 2: Chris an "informant"?

I take issue with the summary points for Epidsode 2 from Season 6 where it states that Christopher "is" an informant for the FBI. Just because there was one scene where he discussed Tony's condition in the Deli it doesn't verify that Chris is indeed a sell-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.208.60 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Are you referring to this?

Eugene Pontecorvo, a Soprano family soldier who became a made man in the same ceremony as Christopher, is revealed to be an FBI informant

That is saying that Pontecorvo is an informant, not Christopher... and that's correct information, right? I couldn't find anything else on the page about Chris being an informant. If it is actually there, please fix it, or let me know which passage you're referring to so I can. Thanks. --W.marsh 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Symbolisom in the dreams

I've herd from many people, no one close with the show, but i've herd that there's a very deep meaning in the scenes when Tony is dreaming, and looking out the windows. Something about the lights on the horizon symbolizing the "choice" between hevan and hell, and half the city being pitch black, and the other half being lit. I'm unsure of what this all means, but i'm intrested in to see what the others users think.

~~gregmontalbano

Three O'Clock

Do we have confirmation from anyone that Tony actually woke up from his coma at exactly 3:00? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.9.238 (talk • contribs)

The Hotel is purgatory?

I thought the hotel in Join the Club and Mayham was limbo not purgatory.

Vito's murder

I don't know if it's worth mentioning or not, partly because it cannot be confirmed, but the entry does include a section on the show's momentary adaptations of murder's portrayed in classic gangster films. I believe Vito's murder was a reference to "Casino," in which Joe Pesci, playing the role of "Nicky Santoro" (who portrayed notorious gangster, Tony Spiloltro), meets the same fate; he's beaten death in the presence of actor John Vincent, playing Santoro's former right hand man. Anyone think that's worth mentioning?

Yeah I think that's worth an entry, although these should all really be referenced with someone else noticing the connection otherwise it's original research. The actor is Frank Vincent (not John). Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) --Opark 77 07:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The simpsons parody

Which episode was the parody of the sopranos' opening sequence on?

so anyone know?

Sopranos Video Game Info

• I added a lot of info for the upcoming game on the main page. lets keep the chat here for the game my friends. - Zarbon

• Somebody should update the Video Game section, or create an entire new page. The Video game has been reviewed by IGN, EGM, and many others, and is considered very poor.

External links - spam?

Anyone have any strong feelings about keeping the external links to the French, German and Spanish fansites? What purpose does this serve on the English Wikipedia? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we talk about it's HIGH GRAPHIC CONTENT?

I'm going to either way, this show is EXTREMELY VIOLENT

Please sign your posts on talk pages using 4 tildes (~). We could mention the graphic nature of the show if we have a reference from a reputable source that talks about it. --Opark 77 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, aside from a little blood, I would not say that there is HIGH GRAPHIC CONTENT. Agree that there is some...and a lot of swearing. Lgreen 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-structuring

Chocolateboy recently reorganised the page so that the lists of episodes, characters and the timeline are nearer to the bottom, summarising the edit as placing prose before lists. I disagree with this structure. I can understand that prose sections generally make better reading than lists on an encyclopedia. However, the page should be structured to give information on the show in a sensible order to a reader who knows very little about it. The videogame adaptations, trivia, lists of deaths, symbolic elements, music and other sections are less important to the show than it's episodes, characters and storyline in my opinion.

I also had a look at other TV articles on wikipedia Arrested Development has the episodes, characters and plot foremost. Lost (TV Series) has characters as the 4th section and season synopses fifth. having looked at around 20 TV show pages it seems that this order is most common but I expect counterexamples are out there. I understand that this is debatable and would like to invite anyone interested in the article to share their opinion on the structure of the page. --Opark 77 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Any page that has chunks of reference material before (or interspersed with) prose is broken. It's not the Wikipedia way. Arrested Development isn't (currently) broken. Lost (currently) is. [3] [4] I won't sweat it if there's a consensus on this article to do things differently, but there's a clear consensus on Wikipedia to "prose" first and "ref" (i.e. answer questions) later.

When was the last time you saw someone take questions, or plug their research, at the beginning (or middle) of a lecture?

How often does that happen in the Encyclopædia Britannica or h2g2 or The Lancet or Nature?

Try skipping through 21 random articles. How many of them have their See also, References, Bibliography, Discography, or External links sections scattered willy-nilly about the article, rather than placed, in accordance with the de facto Wikipedia convention, at the end?

chocolateboy 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your points about standardised structuring on wikipedia. I completely agree that the article is very broken and needs a lot of fixing. I've added a suggestion to restructure according to the wikiproject television guidelines as well as adding prose to sections that are currently in list format. I'd like to point out that the see also, references and external links were at the bottom of the article in accordance with convention long before your restructuring and not scattered throughout it. Plot and characters are the meat and potatoes of TV drama and that's why I believe they should come first, ahead of the symbolism section which is full of speculation currently. --Opark 77 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Funerals?

It seems to me that Funerals are a key device used in this series. What do you all think of adding in a "Funerals" section to this page and/or a "Funerals" section to each episode. I know there is a "deceased" section for each episode, but sometimes the funeral shows someone who passed away outside of the direct events. Lgreen 18:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure if it needs a section in the episode guides. Have you found any external sources that discuss funerals on the show? --Opark 77 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Di Palma

The elderly man Tommy who takes care of (and loses) Junior in Where's Johnny? is clearly not Tommy Di Palma. His last name is never mentioned. Back in early season 1, when Jackie is dying of cancer, Mikey Palmice says that Tommy Di Palma also has cancer, but "way worse than you". Whoever this Di Palma guy is, if he had cancer worse than Jackie, he would certainly be dead in 2004, four years later.

--Ant1238

Hesh Rabkin

Back when the Family Tree was on HBO's Sopranos web site, it said that Hesh was Jackie's Consigliere. Anyone know anything about this?

--Ant1238

Jimmy Petrille

It is listed that Jimmy was Johnny Sack's Consigliere for his short tenure as free Boss. Anyone know why that is assumed? In All Due Respect, Neil Mink says that the whole "Petrille crew" was taken down, indicating that he's still the Capo of his crew. Also, at John's house, John tells Tony that Phil will likely want to become Consigliere, further hinting that Johnny did not yet choose one, and Jimmy was still only a Capo. Where did the Petrille Consigliere theory come from?

--Ant1238

Beppy Scerbo

His first name is listed as Giuseppe. Where did this come from?

uk season 6

when will season 6 begin in the uk? and what channel? thanks in advance

Broken article

This article contains a wealth of information and could be very useful. At the moment I think it lacks enough citations, several important sections are underdeveloped or absent and there is far too much original research and speculation. To compare it to the suggested sections in the wikiproject television guidelines:

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; Channel of first and current airing - HBO; Production companies - HBO; Principal characters; Influence; Place in popular culture; Major Awards; Spin-offs; Music or Theme; The introduction seems a bit long at the moment and some of the information might be better off elsewhere.
4. Characters - lower down but present, should be altered to prose from list format
5. Plot and Episode listing - There is no plot synopsis on the main page beyond the overview. I know that there are extensive episode guides and a timeline but the article would benefit from having a succint 1 or 2 paragraphs per season synopsis.
6. Impact of show on society - this is mentioned in the introduction and perhaps the awards section should be included here
7. Critical reviews - criticism and praise section
8. Production notes - perhaps casting, pre-production and locations should be moved here from trivia
9. External links - present and correct
10. Categories

Sections not included in the guidleine but present in the article include:

• Title sequence
• Symbolism
• Social commentary
• Depiction of brands
• Video games
• Life imitating art
• Trivia

Could we work on coming up with a guideline for structure to marry the current state of the article to something closer to featured TV articles like Arrested Development, Dawson's Creek and good articles like Lost?--Opark 77 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

In concert with my above question about restructuring, I think the trivia section is too long for the main page. There are several points that I think could be moved out of trivia. As I said above some of the sections are about production and would be suitable for production notes. Sections about individual characters are better placed on their character pages. Finally I think that the long section on deaths on the show might be better place on the List of deaths on The Sopranos article. Any thoughts?--Opark 77 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've acted on these suggestions since they were not met with any opposition. Should have just been bold I suppose.--Opark 77 08:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization

This show has been unorganized for some time. I did some things to help:

• Added "College Locations" trivia to Episode 05 Guide
• Deleted the "PowerBob on EBay" trivia but am unable to add it to Episode 50 Guide because the link doesn't work for me. If anyone can do it, please add it.
  • During the fourth season it is revealed that Bobby Jr's AOL screen name is PowerBob386. After the airing of the episode, a real PowerBob386 AOL account was made and later sold on eBay.

Done--Opark 77 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for organization:

• Symbolism should be separated into another page (the longest information).
• Some trivia facts should be removed such as the "Aprile Curse", "Christopher's Brush with Death" and "Sopranos movie".

• This should be the structure of the page:

• • 01. Overview
  • 02. Title Sequence
  • 03. Cast and Characters
  • 04. Episodes (Link)
  • 05. Notable Plots and Timeline (Link)
  • 06. Symbolism (Link)
  • 07. Social Commentary
  • 08. Depiction of Brands
  • 09. Life Imitating Art
  • 10. Music
  • 11. Video Games
  • 12. Criticism and Praise
  • 13. Awards (Link)
  • 14. Trivia
  • 15. HBO Broadcasting History
  • 16. Broadcasting
  • 17. References
  • 18. See Also
  • 19. External Links

Note: The article size is 60KB and the maximum is 32KB.

SeptemberX1990 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The size is a guideline, but summary style should be used to try and cut down this articles length.

As to the suggested organization, this is an improvement on the current one but still broken in my opinion. Did you see my suggested organization and request for input a little higher up?

According to the television wikiproject guideline criticism and awards should be higher, appearances in other media should come lower. References, See also and External links should be last. Trivia should be directly above them (therefore broadcasting would move up).

Headers should not be overcapitalised for example where you have used "Title Sequence" the manual of style suggests "Title sequence" is more appropriate.

The article uses too many lists. In particular the cast section should be in prose.--Opark 77 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Godfather reference

In the first episode of season two ('Guy Walks Into a Psychiatrists Office...')Silvio does another Al Pacino impression. After the traditional "just when I though I was out", he does the scene where Michael's hysterical wife was asking him if he'd had the brother-in-law murdered ("Just this once, I'll allow you to ask me about the business"(sic.), etc.). He was just doing it at Pussy's request, Pussy just having returned after going on the lamb at the end of season one and it was pretty funny (especially the part where he does the wife). In the same scene, he also says "our true enemy is yet to reveal himself" and straight afterwards it cuts to Pussy for the briefest of seconds. I'm sure there's more Goodfellas/Godfather references that aren't mentioned but that's my favourite Silvio impression and I felt it deserved a mention. Oh, and in seaon one ('A Hit Is A Hit') one of the 'gangsta' rappers calls Chris 'Donnie Brasco'.Godforce 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also another reference in one of tonys dreams were it is said in a restraunt "I dont want him to come out with just his d@&k in his hand." Then Tony searches behind a old style toilet for a gun which is not there (series 5). Reference to Michael corleone and Sonny corleone.Ryan Matthews 12 December.

Proposed Correction to Malapropisms Section of Sopranos Article

In regard to the statement: "...Dr. Melfi once remarks that she enjoyed the movie "Prince of Tides" and Tony shows up at his next appointment brandishing a gaudily wrapped bottle of "Tide", a detergent; both a hilarious misunderstanding and a product placement..."

Tony did not give Dr. Melfi the Prince of Tide gift basket in person. It was delivered with a card saying it was from the "Prince of Tide". It was clearly intended as a pun and. Dr. Melfi recognized it as such. I proposed the quoted statement be deleted.Albany1976 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Albany1976

Question

This article contains a lot of trivia does most of it belong in an encyclopedia? Aaron Bowen 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. Aaron Bowen 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No.--Opark 77 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to get into a big dispute over this, how should I go about deleting alot of it? Aaron Bowen 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? Aaron Bowen 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to reduce the trivia section itself as much as possible by moving info out into episode/character entries. For the sections that have been tagged as inappropriate for a long time you can just delete them; editors who wanted to keep them have had plenty of time to improve them. If you think something is inappropriate tag it as such, wait to see if it is fixed and then delete.--Opark 77 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work, I'll try to do that, as per WP:BOLD. Aaron Bowen 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved what was remaining here: Trivia For Trivia relating to individual episodes, see the episode guide and for character trivia see the character list.

The Soprano home at sunrise in Mr. Ruggerio's Neighborhood

• The Sopranos is known for mentioning characters that don't appear until later seasons. In the first season, Christopher mentions his cousin's girlfriend, Amy, who appears in episode 20 in the second season and has sex with Christopher. Also, Tony's sisters, Janice and Barbara, are referenced in the first season before making appearances in the second. In the second and third seasons, numerous references to a gangster named Feech La Manna are made. Feech appears in multiple episodes during the fifth season.
• The popularity of the show has spun off secondary enterprises, including a variety of merchandising. The most unusual of these is a location tour, where tourists take a bus trip throughout New Jersey visiting locations used in filming of the show.

Article looks better now, still needs work though. Aaron Bowen 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Groundbreaking?

In the lead it says the show's "groundbreaking view" this show is great and I love it but it's not groundbreaking. The show's creator openly admits to borrowing heavily from the Godfather and Goodfellas, so I don't consider it groundbreaking. The show reminds me so much of Goodfellas at times I wonder if Scorsese is directing it.

I run into the same problem here that I run into when discussing The Wire people always says The Wire is "so complex" it's a tremendous show but I've watched it once through on DVD rentals and never felt the need to rewind it or had trouble following it, hey it's not differential calculus. In both cases I think it amounts to fancruft and overhyping of what are already great shows and don't need them. Aaron Bowen 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Poster art instead of intertitle

After my significant contributions to this article I feel I have the right to make an executive decision so, there you go, I replaced the title screen with a season 2 promotional image. I'm quite willing to fight for it if that's necessary. And, yeah, I know a lot of articles use the title screen but who cares what other articles are doing? If another article jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? And it's neither here nor there but both The Office (U.S. TV series) and The Wire (TV series) use promotional pictures instead of the title screen (incidentally, both are featured articles). So leave it. Y'all know it looks better anyway.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN, official policy on Wikipedia. You do not have any "executive decision" no matter how much good work you have contributed to this article. Wikipedia works on consensus, and this discussion is left open to all editors. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew this day was coming. No, of course I don't own the article. Care to motivate your decision, though? It seems like you replaced the image because you were annoyed with my attitude (which is understandable), not because it was warranted. It certainly doesn't improve the article, which should be the main concern. Nowhere in Template:Infobox Television does it state that the image has to be the title screen. In fact, several TV show articles (some of them featured) use promotional images because, well, it looks better and improves the article. I'm gonna revert it. If you want an edit war, go get your friends and tell them how bad I am for wanting to show the main characters, some of them well-known figures in american popular culture, in the infobox.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has far more wrong with it than just infobox images - effort could be spent on better things than arguing about this. Personally I prefer the cast picture to the intertitle and would be happy for that to remain in the infobox.--Opark 77 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I am working diligently to improve it. Right now, I'm waiting for my copy of the book to arrive; that will probably be a great resource. In the meantime, I'm working on improving episode articles and other miscellaneous stuff.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure this issue has arisen before. I'm curious as to who the "most of us" who support the non-title screen are. Could someone please enlighten me? I'll throw a question out: why do you think Wikipedia has a manual of style? The answer is the same reason why title screens are used highly. Without basing your answer on opinion, could somebody please explain why this article should be inconsistent with the majority? ("It looks better" is opinion, quite frankly I disagree with that opinion.)

Frankly I couldn't care less about the outcome of this debate. That said I probably won't be checking back. However, I'd advise that a good reason to go against the standard, the consensus ("silence = consent"), be given. Matthew (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here we are again. "Most of us" would refer to 2 out of 3 people. Which is actually 75% when you think about it. Why do you keep championing the use of title screens when there are several articles that have circumvented this, uh, standard and managed to reach FA status? I'd rather model this article after featured articles than the "majority" you speak of, if that majority refers to the thousands and thousands of TV articles in terrible shape no one cares about. But hey, they use the title screen so it's the best thing for the rest of them! I just don't see the logic. My intention was always for this article to reach FA status, though I admit there's still plenty of work to be done. I do think it's in a lot better shape than it ever was before though. So out with the old, in with the new I say. Preserving the old ways from being abused is commendable, though. But then again, people didn't shave their pubic hair in the sixties-seventies. They do now though, and I think we're all very appreciative of it. What I'm saying is, who cares about a five-year old consensus reached when most TV articles were still in their infancy? Template:Infobox Television, which I follow and is up to date, state that the image should be "relevant to the show." Check that out. Oh, and as you're a stickler for rules I think it's fascinating that you, or anyone for that matter, don't care about the "An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption" bit. Well, I call hypocrisy and I'm gonna revert it. Go get your friends and tell them how mean I am.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

David Chase image

Really? No free image of David Chase? C'mon, people! If someone out there has taken a photograph of the old geezer, please donate it or at least upload it to flickr or something.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: 69.232.234.143 deletes the Vanity Fair cover photo as "very inappropriate"

(re 23:15, 9 March 2008 edit) Patrolling recent changes I noticed 69.232.234.143 has judged the Sopranos cover of Vanity Fair as "very inappropriate." Since "The Sopranos" has adult content, and "Vanity Fair" is sold on news stands, this seems a strange value judgement, but I'll leave it to those who have an investment in this page to handle this as they see fit. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i've reverted. wp isn't censored. people however, are weird. Anastrophe (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Anastrophe. NOTE: Not that it matters :), but looking at the enlarged photo of the cover, I see the woman isn't nude (unlike Demi Moore in two Vanity Fair covers in Wikipedia) e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vanity_Fair_August_1991.JPG :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i noticed that too. on the flip side though, the actual image is really dancing at the edges of qualifying as "low resolution" per the fair-use rationale. might be trouble at some point, but for now....Anastrophe (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References to future episodes?

Thought I'd put it here, but on the entries for individual episodes somebody has put sections for 'references to future episodes'. This seems somewhat bizarre and unecessary. It's also a bit spoiler-ish, although I know we're not supposed to consider that for Wikipedia. Surely it would be better to have 'References to previous episodes', since I don't imagine that the writers were deliberately referencing things they were going to write in later seasons, but I imagine they were later referring back to thing they had previously written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

References and allusions, go to the mattresses

Might be worth a mention that the very final scene of “The Blue Comet" where Tony lays down on the bare mattress could be a literal reference to the phrase “going to the mattresses” of godfather fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaX (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They do go to the mattresses, it is not a reference. Going to the mattresses is gathering the whole family, and taking refuge at a safehouse during times of Mafia war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaspv (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research in season summaries

This entire section and its sub-parts are uncited. Parts of it basically an amateur interpretation of the significance of character behavior and events, with no academic backing whatsoever.

Ex: Tony, having virtually abandoned his new philosophy, considers killing several of his associates for relatively minor infractions.

This is open to interpretation, to put it mildly; Tony does not seem to have abandoned his new philosophy completely, on the contrary, his Mescaline experience alone is utterly inconsistent with this idea, that and also the argument that Tony isn't a guy who overlooks any of his options at any point as boss.

The only associate Tony actually kills is Christopher, this being an impulsive decision. In "Remember When" he glances at the knife on the boat several times as the camera demonstrates, but this does not defacto indicate consideration to kill, only his anger at Paulie's betrayal of Ralph to JS. Additionally, the argument for Bobby can be made, but the evidence here is also scarce to nonexistent.

This type of problem needs to be fully-addressed in order to allow for a more balanced description of the series' plot.

Kst447 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sopranos ever been re-aired on a network other than HBO?

I remember once at a hotel browsing through the channels, I saw Sopranos, but it was not HBO, I can't remember what it was now.Xbox999 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Edited versions are broadcoast on A&E.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how many things they have to edit out for A&E. Maybe should list it on the main page, it is some useful information.Xbox999 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the language is toned down and the stripper scenes are replaced with them wearing bathing suits. And some of the violence is edited. I know there were a number of reviews talking about it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the sex scenes, I know there are alot with Tony in it, they have to edit them out completely, because they can't refilm those. Xbox999 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't watched the show in a while, and I've never watched the A&E version, but I figure unless they show explicit nudity (and I know they have at times) it shouldn't be too much of a problem. From what I heard, the language is what gets edited the most. The violence is still there, just not as much. (For example, you saw someone got shot and the blood splatter but you don't see brains sliding down the wall) I did a search to see if there's a site that chronicles all the changes but nothing yet.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're responding to a sockpuppet who is trying to obfuscate an outstanding SSP case against them. You probably don't need to worry about any further queries from this user. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting info I found on the web, that A&E bought the right to reair the show for 2.5 mil per episode. So 75 episodes equal to 187.5 mil. Xbox999 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

its actually on a few different networks since the last season, i've seen it on atleast 3 networks here in Canada on Bell ExpressVu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.58.158 (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations for characters/plot synopsis

I'm not quite sure what the standard practice is, but would it be acceptable to use just one citation each, both from the appropriate areas of the official HBO website, to cite the character and plot sections? I'd like to have both sections properly cited, but I personally don't have the patience to tack on a citation from each individual character profile and each individual episode summary; for the plot summary especially this would be really tedious and in some instances unfeasible for multi-episode arcs. What I'm suggesting is that we cite http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/cast/ for the characters section and http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/episode/index.shtml for the plot summary. Is this cool? I won't make any changes until there is some kind of consensus or authority on the matter. thebogusman (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP:TV style guidelines say, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags calling for citations in the plot summary section. Hopefully no one has a problem with this, but since no one responded to my original message I'm doubting anyone will. thebogusman (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ending Again

Appart from the hints in the ending (with more that one person wants to kill him in the restaurant) Chase has given an interview were he says "This wasn't really about leaving the door open. There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view — a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter. " but goes on to say, "There had been indications of what the end is like. Remember when Jerry Toricano was killed? Silvio was not aware that the gun had been fired until after Jerry was on his way down to the floor. That's the way things happen: It's already going on by the time you even notice it." From this I believe it is clear that, "trend on view" is that (like Jerry Toricano) Tony will be killed, before he even notices it. From reading the synopsis of the final season on this page as it stands you'd think that it all ended happily and peacefully.--Timtak (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To do list at the top of the talk page

See Talk:The Sopranos/to do - I would imagine that since this To do list was last edited in November 2007 - it is probably no longer accurate or reflects the article itself and should probably be changed/updated. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre is drama?

Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance and not a genre so it be incorrect to say its a drama as all t.v programs are drama. So what is the genre of the Sopranos? Pro66 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pine Barrens episode -- Christopher's "that movie" comment

A link to the phrase "that movie", regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, goes to the article on the film Thirteen Days, but I think Christopher could have been referring to the 1974 TV movie The Missiles of October, which was shown in some high school social science classes in the 70's and 80's (and maybe later) -- when Christopher certainly could have seen it. But being the movie fan he is, he no doubt would have seen the Kevin Costner movie, too -- so he coulda meant either. BRumbles207.19.143.2 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

We need some information about the ratings. --IceHunter (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Here are the ratings for the first five season premieres and finales: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/03/the_comeback.html. I think that's helpful.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And here are the ratings for the first four episodes of season six.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot details

Season 2

"...and Tony realizes he is an FBI informant. Tony, Silvio Dante, and Paulie Walnuts kill Big Pussy on a boat then wrap him up in chains and throw him overboard."

This sentence is introduced too early. It should be held until the end of the next paragraph. Introduced as early as it is, it causes chronological confusion for the reader when Big Pussy suddenly reappears to assist Tony "...while Tony and Big Pussy murder Matthew soon afterward."

It also is introduced too soon because Big Pussy's murder does not occur until well into the closing of Season 2.

—24.170.242.101 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Critics

Is there no critic at all to the fact that the serial is somehow belittle a really cruel and evil organisation? The Mafia is a terrible reality and in the serial it's like a "normal job" with somehow sympathic personal. How would the reception be if the concept would be transfered to something comparable like Taliban Drug-Warlords, SS KZ-guards or Pol-Pot's massacre troup? Is there any serious (academic) critic to the serial or really only statements like "best thing ever showed in TV". I am just wondering... --93.221.214.241 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be quite interested in seeing a Sopranos-style drama based around a group of Taliban drug-warlords. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been criticisms like this, but I think most critics concluded the show didn't belittle their actions as criminals. In fact the show routinely reinforces the idea that these are bad guys by throwing in shocking and unexpected scenes of brutality. What it doesn't do is paint characters as 2 dimensional. Yes they are criminals and murderers, but they are also complete characters. Some people may read this as a sympathetic depiction, but I think most people just realize they are trying to show the other dimensions of the mobsters lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.171.248 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't put this in the article, because it is simply my own observation, but the primary focus of the series seems to be the psychology of the characters. It is exploring ideas about what makes a mobster "tick" so to speak. The scenes in Melfi's office are the key to the whole show, as you can see the ideas she brings up manifesting themselves in Tony's actions time and time again throughout the series' run. The fact that he is in the Mafia is incidental. The day to day problems that he deals with, including normal human problems such as family and anxiety, are the meat of the series. I'm sure I could have said it better, but anyone who imagines the life of a criminal to be completely devoid of normal mundane conflicts and interests is completely blind to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.70.2 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct sourcing

Editors should be careful when changing text to source the new text correctly, particularly if the existing source does not support the changes being made. Footnote 2 may well have been a correct sourcing for the original text but it doesn't appear to be now. The cited NYT article doesn't specifically mention The Sopranos' "high level of quality in every aspect of production and is particularly recognized for its writing and the performances of its lead actors." In fact it mentions, "The show lost its way when it put murders and mischief aside and weighed itself down in ponderous character sketches and too many Bergmanesque dream sequences." I suppose the footnote is still there because the positive comments did include something about "cinematic stylishness"(=production?) complexity and wit (= writing?) that could be used:

The series lowered the bar on permissible violence, sex and profanity at the same time that it elevated viewers’ taste, cultivating an appetite for complexity, wit and cinematic stylishness on a serial drama in which psychological themes flickered and built and faded and reappeared.

Remember the strict requirements for sourcing: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."WP:Verify Eudemis (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Care should be taken when sourcing as well as when reverting if doing so may affect sourcing. Example: The second lead paragraph's "most financially successful cable series in the history of television" was reverted to unsourced. The same paragraph's "twenty-one Emmys and five Golden Globes" was also reverted to unsourced. There shouldn't be any reason to unsource exiting text unless the source does not "clearly support the material as presented in the article." Eudemis (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SQUEAL by Les Coleman and Richard Pedemonti

A customer review at Amazon.com claims that the tv series is based on the book SQUEAL by Lester Coleman and Richard Pedemonti from 1982. (See: Talk:Lester Coleman#SQUEAL by Les Coleman and Richard Pedemonti) Is there any truth to this claim? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox

The cast list in the infobox seems entirely too long. Why not remove it and include a link to the cast section? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that there has been no response in the month-and-a-half since I made this suggestion, can I assume there is no objection? If not, I will make the change. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is now 12 February, I still have received no response here, neither negative nor positive, and yet my edit was reverted with an edit summary saying the matter should be discussed first. I agree. But, why then, has no one responded here, on the talk page? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for it; it is a lot of names for an infobox--Opark 77 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the impetuous revert. The decision is fine by me but, of course, this raises the question: should this apply to all television articles that have a credited starring cast of 20 actors or more? Perhaps it should be discussed in Template talk:Infobox television as well.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary. A wider conversation would probably be a good idea, actually. I have very few television shows on my watchlist, but of those I do watch, NYPD Blue and Homicide both have considerable cast lists. In cases, such as these, in which there is a large cast, with numerous cast members departing, returning, others joining, etc., it is best to discuss such things in a cast section, rather than belabor the infobox with an especially long list. With this article, the infobox is rather long already. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Season articles for The Sopranos

Hey guys, I think we should start doing articles for seasons of the show. How bout that? Oh babe (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Oh_babe

Good idea--Opark 77 (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

I included a fact about Lady Gaga appearing on the show in 2001, but it keeps getting removed for being "irrelevant" and because the source is "doubtful". CBS News is a very distinguished news outlet, and it's no less relevant than any of the other actors listed. PhysixRox (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this would be important to understanding what "The Sopranos" is. It doesn't sound as if her character was significant to the plot of even the episode in which she appears, much less the series as a whole. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but I'm not sure it's so important that it should be included. In what way do you think that this is important to the show? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree I removed it on the grounds that it was trivia with no real relevance to the TV show. Mo ainm~Talk 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone. I was just trying to include the information in the section that seemed most appropriate for it. Is her appearance any less relevant than any of the other one-time guest appearances listed in the "casting" section? PhysixRox (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't offended anybody here, but did Lady Gaga have a part or was she an extra? Was she even listed in the credits of the episode that she was in? If she was listed in the credits then I wouldn't have a problem with her name being added to the casting section. Mo ainm~Talk 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just found out about Lady Gaga's cameo through this discussion page and had never heard about it before. It's actually quite interesting and a real shame that some decide not to share this info on the main page; reminds me of the recent scrutiny on Wikipedia being hogged by a minority of increasingly bureaucratic editors.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.135.78 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Beginnings section

"Before creating The Sopranos, David Chase had worked as a television producer for over 20 years.[8][9] He had been employed as a staff writer/producer for several television series (including Kolchak: The Night Stalker, Switch, The Rockford Files, I'll Fly Away, and Northern Exposure[10][11]) and had co-created one short-lived original series, Almost Grown, in 1988.[12][13] He made his television directorial debut in 1986 with the "Enough Rope for Two" episode of The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents. He also directed episodes of Almost Grown and I'll Fly Away in 1988 and 1992, respectively. In 1996, he wrote and directed the television movie The Rockford Files: Punishment and Crime.[11] He served as showrunner for I'll Fly Away and Northern Exposure in the 1990s. Chase won his first Emmy Award in 1978 for his work on The Rockford Files (shared with fellow producers) and his second for writing the 1980 television movie Off the Minnesota Strip.[14][15] By 1996, he was a coveted showrunner.[16]"

I have to wonder how much of this is relevant to this article. The article reads a lot better without this paragraph. Isn't this better addressed in David Chase? -173.27.0.222 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The Controversy section explicitly spoils the ending of the series without any warning at all. My viewing experience has been greatly affected, and it shouldn't happen to anyone else. I didn't read enough to spoil everything, so I'm posting here hoping someone will change it someday, because I'm certainly not going to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.83.18 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Who in their right mind:

1. Expects an encyclopedia to omit info in case it spoils something 2. Is suprised when reading an encyclopidia about a tv show they have not finished reading they see spoilers?

118.92.44.44 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Dirty great green murloc

Seasons

It is not clear wether the show is still playing or it was cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.145.126 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The finale, "Made in America", first aired in the United States on June 10, 2007 on HBO. However, A&E continues to air reruns (which have been somewhat shortened and modified for TV), while full episodes are available in various forms (via downloads and online streaming, Blu-ray, CD, DVD, HD DVD, and VHS) and in various configurations (per episode, per season, per multiple seasons, and per entire series) with and without bonus features (e.g., see Amazon.com's Sopranos offerings). - Froid 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"a seminal work of fiction"

This article describes The Sopranos as "a seminal work of fiction." Merriam-Webster defines the word, in its figurative usage, as "containing or contributing the seeds of later development."

Could it really be said that The Sopranos contains or will contribute the seeds of later development in a field as vast as fiction? Madame Bovary is a seminal work of fiction; so is Metropolis. But The Sopranos? Can we really tell at this point whether it contains or will contribute to later developments in fiction? Wouldn't that only be discernible from a much greater perspective in time? To describe it as "a seminal TV series" would be more natural, since TV of course has a much shorter history than fiction, making it easier to measure its influence. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

>A major commercial and critical success, The Sopranos is the most financially successful series in the history of cable television and is acknowledged as one of the greatest television series of all time and a seminal work of fiction. The series is noted for its high level of quality in every aspect of production and is particularly recognized for its writing, its cinematic style, and the performances of its lead actors. The show is credited with bringing a greater level of artistry to the television medium and paving the way for many successful drama series that followed.<

Someone very young must have written the above quotation. Please amend it. I will explain it for the simple minded.

1: Anything that is new and big is more financially successful than equivalent things from the past. Inflation creates the newest and best and most successful thing of all time. There is nothing to brag about. Another tv show will eclipse the high claims made here, in a very short time. It's about the same as saying you had the biggest fart of all time.

2: "A seminal work of fiction": that is baloney. What does the writer mean? *The Sopranos* is better than any work fiction ever? Again, hyperbole doesn't win you any fans. It is a laughable concept. Charles Dickens wrote seminal works of fiction. His writing changed the way people thought.

3:"The series is noted for its high level of quality in every aspect of production and is particularly recognized for its writing, its cinematic style, and the performances of its lead actors." Again, bullshit. There have been a multitude of TV shows that could be described in that way. *The Sopranos* is not special. It is not better than anything ever. This kind of hero worship does not belong on Wikipedia. Get rid of it. It sounds like advertising.

4:"The show is credited with bringing a greater level of artistry to the television medium and paving the way for many successful drama series that followed." Credited? By whom? What a load of crap or, as the great Benny Hill said, "What a road of clap". *The Sopranos* according to this writer is the greatest ever TV show and it taught everyone how to write and act from henceforth. Not bloody likely!

My opinion?--->>> It is an OK show. Done well, but the story is far too sympathetic to the crime families that exist. It does not show enough moral judgement about organised crime. It presents these people as being morally eqivalent to everyone else. There isn't enough about the evil of the Mafia. They are presented in too good a light. And it makes me wonder about the ties to the Mob that the entertainment industry has. Oh, yes, some of them get shot and beat up... but they are all too human and nice... The Sopranos should have been a better show, but it wasn't.

And, frankly, for TV drama Columbo is better in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.57 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, although I'm not sure that personal opinions about the show have relevance here. The question is really whether The Sopranos can be viewed as a seminal work of fiction, when fiction has a history that is over 4000 years old. I agree with you about Charles Dickens; he certainly produced seminal works of fiction. Maybe in 150 years we can evaluate whether The Sopranos was equally seminal; at this point in time, however, it's surely too early to tell. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: actors

I think the infobox should list several of the main actors. I added them but was reverted with the dismissive summary "no sound reason given" [6] -- why are so many other crew members listed there, including even one-time editors, yet no actors listed? Doesn't make sense to me. -Anon98 98.92.187.178 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked User:RepublicanJacobite to respond [7] but since he ignored the request (by removing my post) I'm restoring the cast names in the infobox. If he reverts again and there is no discussion then I will pursue steps of dispute resolution. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the cast section, which is sufficient. The show has a large cast, so, rather than list them all, a link is provided. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's not sufficient. Your logic sounds like 'all or nothing' -- Why isn't that applied to the list of writers and directors? As with those credits, a partial list is a better compromise, and judging by past discussion (see archive) it does have support, despite another one of your dismissive edit summaries [8]. You are not acting in the collaborative spirit of this project. You've reverted twice now without discussing. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, RJ - I think that listing the major cast members makes sense in the infobox and is common in the encyclopedia. See Big Love - another HBO hit series - for example. I'd go beyond these 4 however. I would not list every last cast member there as it would be unwieldy, but I would include the significant ones, even if the list is a bit long, and add a link for the rest (but it should be linked to List of The Sopranos characters, not internally to this article - we generally do not do internal links to the same article like that). In fact, I'd use the characters listed in that link under "main characters" and maybe add a few significant others - so that would be Gandolfini, Falco, Bracco, Imperioli, Chianese, Van Zandt, Marchand, Sirico, Turturro, Iler, Sigler, Schirippa, Pastore, de Matteo, plus Pantoliano, Buscemi, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, perhaps another couple, and then the link to the full separate list article with the comprehensive cast/character list. I see this was raised last year but there wasn't much of a discussion - I missed it, but now seeing this I do think the complete removal of the cast from the infobox is not a good idea. Tvoz/talk 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is entirely too many names, which is exactly why the internal link was put there. The link is sufficient. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The guideline for infoboxes advises "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The purpose of an infobox is to provide key information and so we should include the major cast members such as James Gandolfini. We might follow the style of opening credits which list only the most important contributors. Warden (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly, Warden, about not using internal links, and I don't think any link alone is sufficient for this - but I could be convinced to go with a shorter list than I came up with. I don;t recall offhand which names are listed in the opening credits but yes, that might work for me. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the RepublicanJacobite on this subject... "KEEP IT SIMPLE!"... that's my choice.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for "Simple", but there is such a thing as oversimple - the purpose of the infobox, as Colonel Warden points out, is to provide key information - I'd say a snapshot - of things one should know about the article's subject without diving into the whole article. A list of starring cast is commonly employed in tv show infoboxes throughout the encyclopedia, and given the non-simple level of detail that is being presented in the infobox regarding directors, etc., it seems odd and wrong to me to use this particular point, the actors, to streamline. Tvoz/talk 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank for responding. I shall attempt to explain. When ANYONE opens the (very long) article, the first paragraph of the "lead" contains the four main actors: their names and their character names, there they are... right in front of you. In order to read them in the info' box, one has to scroll down the page. I don't understand how THAT is making the information easier to access.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

After having had some disagreements in the past, Mr. Griffith-Jones and I are in complete agreement here. The only thing I have to add to his observations above is that the issue of "cast list link in infobox" should have centralized discussion somewhere. The guideline quoted above is only a guide, it is not a hard and fast rule, and, in the case of tv shows with a large cast, a link like this is, I believe, more helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, does it really make sense to list a half-dozen writers, directors and other crew but NO actors there? @Gareth much of the information in the info box is in the lead already, so that objection to the partial cast list seems inconsistent as well. There are (still) other areas of the box which could be trimmed before we leave out actors. Do you two have something against them? Otherwise you should be willing to compromise. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RJ, I looked at NYPD Blue and Homicide: Life on the Street - two articles you mentioned in last year's discussion of this topic - and the difference between those and this one is that they both have charts listing the cast and characters right up front, so the information is easily accessible and clearly shown, as compared to the prose section lower down in this article - so it more or less works there not to have the names in the infobox. But in this article it's not as obvious - if you want to rework the article and create a similar chart up front of the characters/cast, I'd be willing to consider it as an alternative to listing the names in the infobox. But not the way it is now - as IP98 points out, surely the cast of the show are more important to be clearly listed than than the lists of behind-the-camera staff. Tvoz/talk 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not more important, just as important. -A98 98.92.185.159 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I return to my observation, that the cast names are more easily available in the lead, than they are in the info box. If, as you write, "cast and characters right upfront... easily accessible and clearly shown... etcetera, etcetera..." what can be more accessible than opening the page and reading that which is right in front of you, without needing to use the mouse?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point of the wp:infobox as stand-alone. Regardless, many more editors here want the partial list there, counting those who've weighed in by reverting you and User:RJ. -A98 98.92.185.66 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is it (I wonder) that "A98", as he/she styles himself/herself, have so many IPs, both here and in the section below AND on Talk:The Godfather? Perhaps the number of editors in favour of enlarging the "Info Box" is smaller than he/she is attempting to make it appear. Should this be investigated?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not create an acount "A98"? That would give you, whoever you are, some credibility.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm counting other editors, not my own IPs (which are assigned by my ISP, not that it's any of your business or should be discussed here) and your call for 'investigating' reads like an ad hominem distraction because you have nothing else to say about the content. -A98 98.92.189.153 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, and after a good night's sleep, I think that I shall endeavor to become a little more hedonistic, more of a Wikisloth. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones's edits

Would another, uninvolved, editor, or more than one, even, please take a look at Gareth Griffith-Jones's recent edits, please? I have been involved in a back and forth with him for several days, and it is going nowhere. If other editors could take a look, and state here whether they feel his edits are or are not helpful, I would appreciate it. I have tired of the edit war. My feeling is that he adds unnecessary details, or makes changes in wording (i.e., from "murder" to "assassinate"), that are unnecessary and unhelpful. Please, someone else have a look, thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO REPUBLICANJACOBITE AS PREVIOUSLY POSTED ELSEWHERE ON Wikipedia YESTERDAY BY Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC) :

Thank you for your consideration and care. I appreciate that it is your wanting to protect the site, and to assist me in my editing, that has inspired your involvement. I admit to feeling a degree of anger, initially, but feel content that you meant no unpleasantness. I want to assure you that I am only interested in complete accuracy of detail and well-written English. I would hate to be thought of as some old pedantic Welsh geezer. I have all six ... or is it seven ...(another debate ...?) seasons here on DVD, and have watched every one a minimum of four times over the years. Currently, I am more than three-quarters way through Mario Puzo's final published novel, "Omerta'". It is excellent.

I had not thought about "Edit Summaries" before; I have now checked the box on the "my preferences" editing page. I promise that I will always fill in the summary from now on. Finally, I was upset when I saw that you had identified one as "Vandalism" ... NOTHING could be further from the truth than that. I love this article.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian-American, adjective hyphenated

This term appears in the introduction here (and in many other articles) as a hyphenated adjective. Is this correct? I think so, because the article Italian American starts with the noun form but includes the hyphenated adjective form in the body text, and there is some discussion of it on the talkpage. I ask here because User:RJ keeps reverting my change over at another article, The Godfather. I'm not sure he sees the distinction. We should be consistent. -A98 98.92.187.248 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the difficulty stems from the fact that both words can be interpreted as a noun and an adjective. In my opinion, the phrase Italian American is a noun and should never be hyphenated. When used as an adjective, for example, ... "an Italian-American, divorced woman..." it is easier to read and understand the description if it is hyphenated. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My remarks above in Gareth Griffith-Jones's Edits are only meant to be taken as a little humour injection. GG-J

Having now read the discussions that accompanied moving all the "Hyphenate American" articles, I am changing my position to neutral on this matter. The inconsistencies in the articles, I would imagine, is due to the articles being moved but not all of the instances of the phrase(s) being changed in the article text. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hear, hear!" As long as the noun is never hyphenated,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem, of course, will be differentiating between the two for the average editor who sees it hyphenated in one place, not hyphenated in another, and decides to "fix" it. This will have to be looked at. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Will be difficult. How do we set about it? Will need some thought.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since 1 December 2011 this does not seem to have been an issue, either with The Godfather, or here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sopranos "loosely based on the real life DeCavalcante crime family"

A recent edit added to the lead section: "which is loosely based on the real life DeCavalcante crime family of northern New Jersey that Chase saw growing up." However, the source cited does not say any of this; it says only that the DeCavalcante family 'bear more than a passing resemblance to "The Sops."', and its earlier references to David Chase are prefaced with "maybe" - it's pure speculation on the part of the author. Instead, what Chase has actually said is that while "90 percent of [the show] is made up. . . . it’s patterned after" the Richard Boiardo family. AV3000 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"11.9 million viewers is right answer!"

I should like to apologise to User:68.165.77.245 for my "undoing" his revision ( March 8 ) regarding the matter of the 11.9 million yesterday, and also, to thank AV3000 for reverting my incorrect action later yesterday. I had noticed this edit's bouncing to and fro, previously, and made the mistake of not checking the facts. The final episode, "Made in America", was filmed in February and March 2007 and marks the first time Chase has directed an episode since the pilot. It attracted 11.9 million viewers on its premiere date. The initial critical response was mostly favourable and since the episode's original broadcast that appreciation has grown considerably, ranking it as one of the best television finales. The episode was nominated for a Directors Guild of America Award and won an Emmy Award for writing and an Eddie Award for editing. "Made in America" and its closing scene have been the subject of discussion, criticism and analysis; parodies of the final scene have also appeared in popular culture

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. 68.165.77.245 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Overwritten

A main article doesn't need every single tiny minute detail exhaustively explained. This is completely standard operating procedure across WP:TV, and the obsessive nature of the Season 6 summary is a complete detriment to the article. Please justify reverting my trim - there is no "precedent" clause on Wikipedia. 108.45.142.234 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An experienced editor does not have to "justify" reverting the deletion of a huge block of text, this is standard operating procedure. When you were reverted you should have posted here, rather than revert. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you continue, I will report you for edit warring. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone who has been uninvolved here, I think 108.45.142.234's edits improved the article; I agree that it was overwritten. Can we discuss instead of edit-warring? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am all in favor of a discussion, but the anon. needs to check his attitude and stop reverting. That one comment above, and the comments he has made in his edit summaries, are not helpful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Most financially successful

Prior to this change the introduction claimed

"The Sopranos is the most financially successful series in the history of cable television"

without any cited reference. The reference should include an explanation about just what that summary statement means. It's fine to have such an introductory assertion as long as details are provided somewhere in the article, probably in either the production or reception section, depending on what the criteria is for "most financially successful"... 68.165.77.245 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone inserted a couple of sources for this claim, but I just checked them and neither actually do support it, so I have removed the superlative claim about financial success. 99.192.61.219 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Production

There seems to be some info missing ... notably why the series ended. Was it always planned to only be 6 series? Similarly most of the production notes only seem to go to the pilot and nothing after that, surely ther must have been something that happened during the years it was produced? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed name change of article

For reasons fairly simple to comprehend, the article could be changed from The Sopranos to The Sopranos (TV series). This means the message at the top trying to prevent confusion would be defunct, and would make for a generally cleaner article. Edfilmsuk (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose since the TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and any disambiguation is unnecessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Support as per WP:2DABS but it's not a big deal. Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose No disambig in the title is more aesthetically appealing. TheBearPaw (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox

I'm sure this has been discussed a bunch of times previously, but I've somewhat recently finished watching the series and plan on making some edits to the page. I've noticed the infobox just list five actors from the show, which seems a bit odd. I know the series has a very large starring cast, and I'm not suggesting to add every actor who was featured in the opening credits. My suggestion (at the very least) is the addition of Dominic Chianese, Tony Sirico, Robert Iler, and Jamie-Lynn Sigler. Adding those would be then be all the actors that were credited as series regulars for all six seasons. That's pretty reasonable. It just seems very odd why they're not included, especially when the infobox lists series editors who don't even have Wikipedia articles instead of listing the obviously more notable list of actors who played major roles. My second suggestion would be adding Aida Turturro, Drea de Matteo, and Steve Schirripa, who were all also essentially part of main cast for most of its run. That would bring the list to a clean dozen, and the 12 actors with the most episode appearances. At the very least, those four should be added. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't do it!
You are correct—all been said before.The clue is the line following the five listed: and others<!-- Partial list by consensus on talk page. Please DO NOT ADD to this list. --> Regards, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the reason though? How is someone who edited 20 or so episodes of the show who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article more important to list in the infobox than Dominic Chianese or Tony Sirico? Come on... The actors are the most important pieces of information when it comes to a TV series. The infobox should reflect the most important things. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It is all recorded in the archives—look it up! Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through the talk archives and read the conversation, and it didn't seem like there was any consensus to this, unless I'm missing something. Sorry to stir up an old conversation, I just feel pretty strong regarding my suggestion, as it's quite reasonable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was involved in the earlier conversation, and was very much in favor of the truncated list. That said, I would not object to the addition of the first four names you mention, for the reasons you give. But, I would object to adding the other three. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as long as those four actors get added, I'm happy. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that I should concede to that, providing it stops there. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we're in agreement—Chianese, Sirico, Iler, and Sigler can get added to the infobox. Before I add them, what order do we use? Since I notice Falco is listed second, although is billed third after Bracco (though I understand why you guys list her second on here). Either we use the billing order (Gandolfini, Bracco, Falco, Imperioli, Chianese, Van Zandt, Sirico, Iler, and Sigler) or the order on the official website, which is the same except Falco is before Bracco and Sigler is before Iler. We shouldn't mix and match like how Imperioli is bumped up. Final thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow the billing order — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus never took into consideration the facts of what makes a character main versus primary or secondary, which is billing and casting. The main characters are the select 14 actors who were credited for episodes they did not appear in. The list is relatively short and is fact. The list should go as seen below, and anything otherwise is subjective. I opt to reopen the decision based on this fact. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

James Gandolfini
Lorraine Bracco
Edie Falco
Michael Imperioli
Dominic Chianese
Vincent Pastore
Steven Van Zandt
Tony Sirico
Robert Iler
Jamie-Lynn Sigler
Drea de Matteo
David Proval
Aida Turturro
Nancy Marchand

Family drama

From our reliable sources, http://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/family-drama-d944 "A popular and well-worn genre, the family drama centers on conflicts at the heart of family life and family relationships. Not to be confused with family-oriented drama, family dramas can touch on such adult topics as incest and political violence. Though some American directors such as William Wyler, Orson Welles and John Ford have produced some defining works in this genre, the family drama carries a particular potency in Asia where the conflict between duties to family and individual desires are more charged. The preponderance of work by such Asian masters as Keisuke Kinoshita, Yasujiro Ozu, Mikio Naruse and to a lesser degree Hou Hsiao Hsien have been family dramas. Significant films in this style include Fanny and Alexander, Tokyo Story, City of Sadness, Magnificient Ambersons, Mrs. Miniver and Pather Panchali. ". How does Sopranos not fit this genre? 177.102.44.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

I removed two of the genres in the infobox, psychological drama and family drama, because the articles they linked to were not sufficient. Psychological drama was a piped link to psychological novel, which article never mentions tv or film examples, so is of no value to an article about a tv show. Family drama was a piped link to drama (genre), in which article there is no mention of family, except in regard to horror films, which is not relevant to this article. Crime drama is the only genre that has content relevant to this article. Those genres should not be reinstated without a good explanation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Allmovie lists the series as family dram, psychological drama and the main one crime drama, I think all those should be linked to drama (film and television) Darunia02 (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the only relevant genre listed in that article is crime drama. Neither psychological nor family drama are listed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TheOldJacobite. More than anything else, The Sopranos pertains to organized crime. That's the only aspect of the series that is consistently found in every episode. As such, the best descriptor is crime drama. If I look around the internet, I'm sure I could find half a dozen other genres used to describe the show, but that doesn't mean they should all be in the infobox. Infoboxes are succinct overviews, and there is no need for less significant genres that are questionable. Sundayclose (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of plot for each season

I enjoy when movie and tv shows have detailed plot summaries, and wanted to expand on the sopranos page. I wrote a detailed and, more importantly, accurate summary for season 5.

TheOldJacobite rejected the changes outright.

Is there any way to change this guy's mind? Some of the season summaries are not only too concise, they contain inaccuracies.

Is there any way to change this admin's mind about improving the plot summaries? Anything I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzy3113 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot summaries should be as concise as possible, since Wikipedia is not a recap website. I suggest reading MOS:PLOT. If they contain inaccuracies, then they can be fixed, but they should definitely not be expanded, as they're quite lengthy already. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Drovethrughosts. Additionally, every episode has a separate article. Readers interested in more detail very likely will click on a season link, then click on the episode link for more details. This is the parent article for all articles related to The Sopranos, and as such it should not be dominated by one aspect such as plot summaries. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Gangster categorization

I believe lots of sources list Sopranos as a gangster show. Why does that cat have to be removed? Deloop82 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the program centered around mobsters/gangsters would appear to make it a valid candidate for inclusion of the category as a defining feature (per WP:CATDEF). @Gareth Griffith-Jones: is there a reason you continue to remove it? Your edit summaries calling the edit "stupid" and "idiotic" don't impart much explanation as to the actual reason why the category doesn't apply in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it conflict with Category:American crime drama television series perhaps, being too narrow of a category to use?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Gangster cat should be kept because there are different types of crime dramas, for example, Godfather is a crime drama and is gangster film, meanwhile Drive (2011) is a crime drama but mot a gangster film, it just happens that the main character is a criminal. I still defend that we add Category:Gangster television series to the Sopranos. Just like CSI is a crime drama but it's not a gangster show, but a police procedural.Deloop82 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am dubious about this new category – in part for the reason given above by Ponyo: it is so narrow the category will remain under-populated simply because there are very few relevant programs to put in the cat. I definitely oppose adding Mob film to the genres in the infobox, as that article is only about Mob films, and there is no relevant article for gangster tv shows, which is another problem with the new cat. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree about the film genre addition to the infobox, it doesn't apply.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Sopranos. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/383832%2CCST-CONT-sopranos13.article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726085435/http://gawker.com/5016985/how-and-why-tony-soprano-died to http://gawker.com/5016985/how-and-why-tony-soprano-died

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) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sopranos. 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/20071116222056/http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2354 to http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2354

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) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Gay characters

When a TV series includes a gay character (or lesbian, bisexual, transgender), the category identifying the inclusion is added to the article. It does not render the series a "Gay" or LGBT series. It only acknowledges that the TV series includes L, or G, or B, or T characters. In regards to this series:

Gay ‘Sopranos’ mobster finds a bit of fame
April 10, 2006
Today
NBC
https://www.today.com/popculture/gay-sopranos-mobster-finds-bit-fame-wbna12250822
Pyxis Solitary talk 07:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A copy, cut'n'paste from my Talk

So what's the problem with the Sopranos page? You said my information has nothing to do with the Sopranos article? Can you explain how the Sopranos HQ, which was featured in every single episode, has nothing to do with the Sopranos? I'm getting a little annoyed at your arrogance, can you please explain your problem? I reverted it then your reason for deleting my information was "it always was", what the hell does that mean?? ThePlane11 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the addition has nothing to do with the Sopranos. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed as well, doesn't belong in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not relevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it was good to get a second opinion on it. Personally I thought it mattered as it's a very important location and I specifically put the information at the location & sets section on the Sopranos page. ThePlane11 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I understand your meaning now Vaseline. It wasn't always closed though, it was a popular attraction for Soprano fans. I think it's still shut down and the situation was extensively covered by several online news websites, but I know my place in regard to the information so it doesn't matter now. ThePlane11 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that now you apply yourself to studying how to behave in a civilised manner when posting on User's Talk pages.. Oh, and brush up on your arithmetic too
‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Then do not provoke me and act in a pathetic manner. Explain yourself more better and we could have avoided this drama. I was trying to add more information to Wikipedia and be of use, which I've recently been doing, instead you deleted what I contributed with vague and arrogant reasons. Oh, and I strongly suggest you work on your manners towards people because I wouldn't appreciate you talking to me like that in the real world :) ThePlane11 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Addressing wholesale changes to the voice of the article

@Dilidor: has made major changes to the voice of the article. I have reverted and as such am beginning a discussion. I can't see any justification for disposing of the passive voice, in fact I expressly support its use. Regardless of my opinion, however, I think this is a clear case of MOS:STYLERET . NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. --Mazewaxie 09:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The mass removal of all the wikilinks should also be reverted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, he did the same not too long ago at Bad Blood (TV series). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I think it should be reverted too. He removed way too many wikilinks. --Mazewaxie 15:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would support restoring links where appropriate. Bear in mind that some of the removals were necessary (HBO was certainty linked far too many times). If another editor could do this I'd be grateful as I'm keen not to appear too zealous.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored some of them in the lead section and infobox. --Mazewaxie 17:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Conception: state definition at top of section

The "Conception" section should begin with what is currently the second paragraph:

The story of The Sopranos was initially conceived as ...

Currently the section begins with a long paragraph about David Chase's background.

David Chase had worked as ... a coveted showrunner.

This definitely should not be the first paragraph. Don't give background and build up to the conception; instead, summarize the conception, then spell out in more detail. The background information could be moved further down the section, or maybe it fits better in the David Chase biography page, I'm not sure. I will leave this here for comment. If no one objects, I may return and make the change myself. Karl gregory jones (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with you. I suggest that you make the revision now, utilising the mantle of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
  Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

• Beckerman, Jim (2019-01-04). "'The Sopranos,' launched 20 years ago, made TV hip and New Jersey cool". Northjersey.com. - Could be for the cultural depiction info
• "'Sopranos' translator". Chicago Tribune. 2006-03-10. - About some of the vocabulary
• Johnson, Liz (2019-01-10). "Our favorite Sopranos catch-phrases and dialects". Northjersey.com. - About some vocabulary

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Errors in "Home Media" section

This part of the page seems to be incredibly lacking in information. No mention is given to the original UK releases of the first three series (Series 1 & 2 in 2001, and Series 3 in 2002) on DVD. I have the first UK release of Series 2, which comes in a box containing six of the cardboard "snapper" cases; so not only is the Region 2 release date of 2003 incorrect (although I am aware of the reissue in 2003), but the disc number is too. This is a fatal issue with the "Discs" column; there is no way of telling whether it refers to the Blu-ray release or the DVD release, or which region is supposed to have that number of discs. For the first series alone, there are three different releases which each have their own unique number of discs; the original US DVD release has four, the original UK DVD release has six (with the 2003 UK reissue only having four), and the 2009 Blu-ray release has five. Some new system of displaying is needed very badly in order to avoid all this confusion; either the table should be split into three tables, one for each region, or more rows should added inside the existing table. James Arthur Sturgess 21:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)