Talk:1923 (TV series)

Character death in Episode 3

The portrayed character by Ehle dies in the third episode after being smothered in bed by another character. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is that scene significant? It is not unusual for several characters to be killed off during each episode of a Taylor Sheridan created/produced series that the Official Yellowstone Podcast has a "death count" segment in which the hosts talk about which characters were killed off on Yellowstone and its prequels since the previous podcast episode. To quote The Narrator Elsa Dutton in Episode 1, "Violence has always haunted this family..." -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The article makes a point of indicating 'recurring' characters and it is clear that Ehle's character is no longer a recurring character or a returning guest. The article should indicate if a character is expected to recur or if they are no longer in the cast in any way. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, the "Recurring" section has too many actors listed who have not appeared in the minimum 4 episodes (which is not surprising since only 4 episodes has been release at this point in time) and needs to move to the "Guest" section. Ideally, all non-main actors should start in the "Guest" section and only be promoted to the "Recurring" section when they exceed that threshold. As an example, actress Jessalyn Gilsig (who plays Liz's mother) should be initially consider a "Guest" and not "Recurring" since she may have only been paid to appear in a single scene in one episode (i.e., a "day player" who work for a single day and leaves) and we most likely will never see her again in this production. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Television project has a guideline for this in the MOS: A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status. Keep in mind that not every character/actor is necessarily notable or needs to be listed, aside from "main" cast (i.e. those that are credited with top-billing). And we frequently do not diverge into "guest" cast lists unless there's a reason to do so. We're not a fansite. It's worthwhile to be familiar with MOS:TVCAST. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Genre

There may need to be a discussion to reach consensus on the genre of this series. A couple of IP edits have change it from Western (genre) to Neo-Western. I would argue that while it could possibly be classified as a Contemporary Western, it's not really a "Neo-Western" which is typically limited to post-war mid-20th century settings and later. I have seen one singular source refer to it as such, but it wasn't, IMO, one that I would consider to be "solid" (even though the source itself was a reliable source). It's quite possible neither is a fit, which is fine; but it doesn't fall into the Neo-Western category. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Three weeks later and no objections, User:Butlerblog. I think you can safely assume we agree our sources do not characterize 1923 as a "neo western". Reverting such edits should be fine. CapnZapp (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

1923 and 1944

I have just skimmed the supplied sources and it appears there's a massive misunderstanding. 1923 season 2 and 1944 appears to be different projects.

I emergency restored the article while we hash out the details here on talk since noone benefits from Wikipedia spreading rumors that 1923 season 2 is a hoax, which is effectively what the new edits mean.

I suggest everybody takes a cup of hot beverage and rereads the sources before making a new bout of edits:

• https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/why-1944-will-look-more-familiar-original-yellowstone-than-previous-prequels.html/
• https://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/yellowstone-spin-off-1944-to-be-filmed-in-bitterroot-valley/article_e09a150b-658b-536f-8141-e7f30995f0a7.html

I am not saying anything is wrong or right at this time, just that the news, if correct, would be explosive. So let's doublecheck before doing anything hasty.

CapnZapp (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably everybody understands this already, but just to be clear - I haven't destroyed anyone's hard work. Every edit is still accessible through the page history. Let's just first get our story straight. To be frank, I would like to hold off until more reputable trade mags pick up this story (ideally either or both of Variety and/or Deadline). If the previous version's interpretation of Cheatsheet's breaking story is true, it is a great find, a scoop even. CapnZapp (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

To further that point, it's probably important to emphasize that we (wikipedia) are not a fan site, nor a news site (WP:NOTNEWS among other things). There is also no rush (WP:THEREISNORUSH). For people that are in a yank to add the latest fan news, that's not what we do here. Get a personal blog or edit a fan site if that's what you're after. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Continued below: #There is really no Season 2... the next one in 1944 CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Crossovers / Future

Eerily mirroring this exact same discussion for 1883... Do we really need both a future and a crossovers section?

Our article definitely does not benefit from editors dropping various bits about prequels and sequels and sidequels and whatever Taylor S seems to be dreaming up in two different places. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this was discussed below, I'm copying the main thrust of my comment here as well:

The sections should not independently introduce the spinoff shows - that's repetitive and wasteful. If you decide both sections are really necessary; that the article isn't improved by discussing spinoff info in just one place; please reach a consensus which section is the chief dispenser of spinoff info, make sure that's the first of the two the reader reaches, and then in the other section, assume the reader has just read that chief section. I see clear indications editors aren't mindful of this; adding pretty much the same info twice. This suggests that in the long-term the sections should be combined, or at the very least live as subsections under the same header.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: (Since we're discussing the sections and not the contents of 1944 let's take the discussion to the proper place). What I am saying is that by having two sections, there is a considerable risk of ending up as our 1883 article, where various developments and spinoffs are discussed randomly at two different sections. I don't see why all of the content can't be collected under ONE section to minimize the risk of editors duplicating stuff using different words. CapnZapp (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That was my starting approach also; then someone argued against calling them sequels or follow-up seasons, and broke up the sections. Picking the best title for the section might also allow the one section approach you are mentioning here. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've pruned the Crossovers section to remove (and not encourage) news on other Yellowstone series, and I removed the Future section (discussed below). CapnZapp (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There is really no Season 2... the next one in 1944

Many articles said it was renewed for another season. Well, yes, Paramount said OK, but the creator decided to set the next one in 1944. So, is it a sequel or just an entirely new show? A new show in the franchise. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Peter K Burian: There already was a section where to discuss this above. Please discuss first and reach a consensus on your (rather controversial) interpretation of Cheatsheet's info, alternative hold off until more sources become available. I have reverted to an earlier revision for the second time; now please discuss first, edit later. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

WP:FIXIT

I did this and got reverted?

Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought – Why aren't these pages copy edited? Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require a certain amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator": be bold and drop your opinion there! Peter K Burian (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

.......... AND as it now stands, "the series was renewed for a second season" according to Wikipedia. But, as my edits indicated Paramount said, OK, make a sequel Well, that did not happen. Instead, the next set of episodes will not be a sequel since they take place 21 years later. See https://horseyhooves.com/1944-yellowstone-prequel/ if you do not like the Cheat Sheet citation. Do readers not have a right to know that?

If there were too many discussions of that, why not delete one and leave the other one. Instead you reverted and that deleted all of the relevant content.

Frankly, I am frustrated. THIS should be part of the Wiki page. Why am I required to discuss??

  In late February 2023, preliminary plans for a new series, tentatively titled "1944", were announced. Details about the plot and the cast were not revealed at that time, but a reliable source stated that "there are indications that Paramount is searching for a well-known actor to take the lead".

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Not sure what to say - you act as if completely new to Wikipedia, yet you have been an editor for at least six years. You cite WP:BOLD, yet you appear completely oblivious to WP:BRD? You bring up discussing on talk, yet you appear bewildered about the concept of discussing contentious edits?

You are required to discuss... since this is how Wikipedia works, and how it has been working since the dawn of time. Personally I can't see how Cheatsheet is saying that 1944 replaces 1923 season 2 anywhere. What I had hoped for was you taking the time to self-reflect upon your interpretation, and then, if you remain sure your interpretation is correct, take the rest of us through your thought process. Why? Since your edits would be a bombshell if correct! (Hence the previous discussion above - it doesn't hurt us to wait until more sources confirm! Not the existence of 1944, mind you - your specific interpretation. We don't need to be on the forefront of breaking news). In other (and still friendly) words: could it be that you are wrong?

So far I see no evidence of any introspection on your part. The process of convincing me that you are right haven't even begun. Do note: I am trying (repeatedly) to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you are - so far - not acting like the experienced Wikipedian I assumed you were. So let's start over, shall we? Please lay out your arguments for your position. Please make me see the Cheatsheet article the way you see it. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me add that third-party opinions are very welcomed. Ideally, this shouldn't devolve into an edit war between two individual editors. The only reason I rolled back the page so hastily is that if Peter K Burian's read on the situation is correct, it is headline news across all of entertainment. (For one thing, it would mean that Harrison and Mirren's characters would just fade out with zero resolution; Jacob and Cara would be, what, a hundred years old in 1944!) The fact only Cheatsheet has picked up this is a strong signal something is amiss. Hence the relatively brutish approach from my part. I am saying this trying hard to not claim anyone is wrong here - only that I see a negative value in having these claims on the page while we reach our consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I now understand why CapnZapp reverted the content twice: "bombshell"

     (For one thing, it would mean that Harrison and Mirren's characters would just fade out with zero resolution; Jacob and Cara would be, what, a hundred years old in 1944!)

I wish he had previously explained the rationale for the two reversions. And there was a second source, as I said above: https://horseyhooves.com/1944-yellowstone-prequel/ Here are just a few of the others:

New Yellowstone Prequel REVEALED! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS_clab_wB0

Everything Fans Need to Know https://www.wideopencountry.com/yellowstone-1944-premiere-cast-news-spoilers/

'Yellowstone' spin off '1944' to be filmed in Bitterroot Valley https://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/yellowstone-spin-off-1944-to-be-filmed-in-bitterroot-valley/article_e09a150b-658b-536f-8141-e7f30995f0a7.html

Is ‘1944’ Happening? What We Know About Potential ‘Yellowstone’ Prequel https://outsider.com/entertainment/tv/yellowstone/is-1944-happening-what-we-know-about-potential-yellowstone-prequel/

Report: New ‘Yellowstone’ Prequel ‘1944’ Currently in Development https://tasteofcountry.com/1944-new-yellowstone-prequel/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on talk, Peter. You still haven't even started to explain why you interpret these sources as saying "the second season of 1923 has been transformed into a new sequel". All I see is early talk about an upcoming show called 1944. Nowhere can I see statements that verify the original claims you made:

In February 2023, the series was renewed for a second season of eight episodes, to take place some years later, and hence, titled "1944".

However, the next set of episodes would take place during World War II and hence, the title "1944".

It is good that we now seem to agree these aren't exactly uncontroversial statements. How come you don't see the media storm that likely would have erupted were your interpretation correct? How about taking some time to reflect upon what you are claiming, and how likely it would be that none of your sources would discuss the expectations on 1923S2 more directly? And more to the point, what exact formulations in your sources caused you draw the conclusions you did draw? Could these statements be interpreted in other ways? Assuming you considered these alternatives, what made you decide one particular interpretation was sufficiently clear-cut it is time for Wikipedia to make these claims? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to already have been decided on the main page for the Yellowstone series, which states that there are 5 (five) spin-offs in play. Based on the RS used in the main article I'm adding a "Future" section into this article which is consistent with the main page. All the sibling pages should be consistent with the main page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do read the above section #Crossovers / Future, ErnestKrause. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you mean that cross-overs and sequels are the same thing which they aren't; 1923 is going into a second season, with multiple cliff-hangers ending the first season. The 1944 spin-off is to feature new actors, possibly Matthew M., with a new story line. I'm thinking that you may already know all that. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not saying they are the same thing. Asking editors such as yourself to be mindful to avoid duplication, both here at 1923 and over at 1883. The sections should not independently introduce the spinoff shows - that's repetitive and wasteful. If you decide both sections are really necessary; that the article isn't improved by discussing spinoff info in just one place; please reach a consensus which section is the chief dispenser of spinoff info, make sure that's the first of the two the reader reaches, and then in the other section, assume the reader has just read that chief section. I see clear indications editors aren't mindful of this; adding pretty much the same info twice. This suggests that in the long-term the sections should be combined, or at the very least live as subsections under the same header. CapnZapp (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure from what you state that the 1944 series should be covered in the main Yellowstone article. I've just moved it out of the 'Future' section of 1923 into the cross-over section, though you might prefer to edit it further. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied above. CapnZapp (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Future

@ErnestKrause: your addition of: "Paramount has communicated several iterations of their plans for more episodes to extend the series" is basically saying the same thing as the last sentnce of the lead: "the series was renewed for a second season of eight episodes"... yes? - wolf 17:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I wrote "Paramount has communicated several iterations of their plans for more episodes," but that was for 1883, to introduce the various shenanigans Paramount went through to obfuscate Elsa's fate. CapnZapp (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I just noticed it when EK added it to a separate "future" section, it seemed kinda clunky so I changed it. But then I saw they (not you?) re-added it again. With it just sitting there like that, with no context, it still looks quite... clunky. (can't think of a better word). It needs something. A re-write. Some expasion. Something. I already gave it shot, so hopefully someone else will fix it. - wolf 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The regular Wikipedia approach for the lead section is that it normally summarizes material already in the main body of the article. Once the edit is brought into the main body, then it can be summarized into the lead section as needed. The wording can be adjusted as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't make any sense of duplicating that sentence here. Since the section is empty without it, I removed the section. This should have the benefit that we don't encourage the very real risk that stuff will find itself into the article in two places - the sections are just too similar. CapnZapp (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that works on all fronts. If the sequel is not covered in the main body of the article, then it has to be removed from the lede as being unsupported by the main body. I'm also moving the spillover section to influencing Taylor Sheridan's writing and therefore its going into a new writing section. I think that works, and let me know how it looks. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think we are talking past each other here. When I wrote the sentence "Paramount communicated several iterations of their plans for more episodes to extend the series" that refers to 1883, not 1923. 1923 did end up as one of those extensions, but that's something else.

When it comes to 1923 (the subject of this article) IIRC it already from the start was envisioned as a two-seasoner.

To me, stating In February 2023, Paramount communicated several iterations of their plans for more episodes to extend the series. makes no sense. First off, we can't just say that without explaining what plans they were communicating (and no, we can't expect the reader to link this statement to what our lead is saying). Secondly, no, they did nothing like what they did for 1883 - there were no ending spoilers to protect. Thirdly, you're linking to the formal renewal of the show, which (again IIRC) isn't the first time the prospect of a two-seasoner has been mentioned. Fourthly, a second season is not a "sequel": let's agree there is no "sequel" to 1923 (AFAIK), just a second season.

Instead of lifting language suited to one article (=1883) I think we can convey what we're trying to say much more succinctly, and I will presently show that by editing the page; no new section needed.

---

As for the other part of your edit, Sheridan's writing in the series was influenced by the other spin-offs from Yellowstone; for example, both I think it looks nice. Assuming, of course, there's a source making that connection somewhere (it isn't original research), but I'm going to trust you on that one.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Doing it your way by adding it into the Development section works as well to support the lead section summary of it. There is some added discussion about a possible franchise page for the 5 spin-offs on the 1883 Talk page; and comments about the images. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)