Talk:The Sopranos (The Sopranos episode)

Television: Episode coverage Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as High-importance).

Unknown music

Near the beggining of the episode when tony begins to tell dr.melfi about "the day he got sick" and when he goes to pick up the newspaper. There is ambient music playing. If someone could say what the song is it would be much appreciated.

Yes, I'm looking for this song aswell. Would appareciate some help on this one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRBv5lPeuzU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.30.87 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"The Pilot was filmed in the Summer of 1997, two years before the series debuted on TV. For a year, Chase shopped the series around to various networks until finally HBO picked it up in 1998. During this year, the rest of the episodes of Season 1 were filmed. During this year break, James Gandolfini underwent voice coaching and gained 60 pounds for the role of Tony." -- this is confusing... which year was the break, and during which year were the rest of the Season 1 episodes filmed? Dlabtot 20:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Soprano.jpg

Image:Soprano.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

Re -> Recent Revert. I don't understand the supposed controversy surrounding the shortening of the plot summary. There was little-to-none ongoing discussion regarding the summary. The tag clearly stated, "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise." I've worked on other television pages. I've never had a problem regarding something like this. Penny Lane's America (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Penny,

Thank you for this posting.

I, being the poster of the tag – 21:17 hrs. November 14, 2011 – certainly have no problem with your trimming this excessively long plot summary to a suggested length...see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot ... my fear is that such wholesale editing is confusing to compare with the previous versions.

My suggestion is that first, you copy it to your own [sandbox]] – as I have done just now to keep as a referral – and then execute your revising in several edits, because your version may well be acceptable to other involved editors after they have had the opportunity to digest your revisions.

With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info' box

I have noticed that whilst a long list of guest actors features in this info' box, the "Starring" line is missing. I have added the four main actors/characters to the edit page, but, for some unknown reason, I cannot make the edit appear on the article page. Any help would be welcome. Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Template:Infobox_Television_episode and it appears it's not part of it apparently.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd, doesn't it, especially as "guests" can be listed ... and it works on the The Sopranos' Info' box

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that infobox is for the series proper whereas this one is for an individual episode. My best guess is that guest stars would be unique to specific episodes whereas the stars would never change. You could ask at WP:TV.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's deliberate. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. Jay32183 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. It makes sense when I think about it. Although, in this instance, it being the pilot, the omission of the names of the regular actors might appear to be unusual.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were there really 16 actors billed as guest stars in this episode? Seems like a lot.-- TyrS chatties 05:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Guest actors maybe... but "stars"? ...No.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear Paw's editing

The following was originally posted on my Talk page

The Sopranos (episode)

Hello, you undid my edit on The Sopranos Pilot episode article. You seem to disagree with two changes:

The image. I don't understand your argument that the image is of "too poor quality to keep." The picture is of purposefully lower resolution to adhere to the fair use requirements of copyrighted material. As per quote regarding the "Minimal extent of use" criterion: "The image is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original work." Nevertheless, I have since uploaded a somewhat higher resolution of the picture, its original size. Not to mention that the current James Gandolfini photo is completely out of place in that article. This is neither a scene from the subject matter (Pilot episode), nor even a 1999 Gandolfini production still or smth.

The "Connections to future episodes" section. Alright, my argument for the section's removal solely on the spoiler content basis may not be enough if one follows Wikipedia's policy on not removing spoilers just because they are spoilers in a verbatim manner. I welcome and enjoy analyses of episode connections and references. However, I believe these connections should be handled retrospectively, that is, putting them in the very articles of the linked episodes, in their "references to previous episodes" sections, as it is currently done in other Sopranos episode articles. No information would be lost, just moved to its appropriate articles. On an opinion level, here, I view the "connections to future episodes" as largely useless and counterproductive. I believe the majority of readers reading the episode articles use them as episode guides essentially, be it their first or repeat viewing of the series. Hence, a gratuitously spoilerific section (even if with the content disclaimer heading that it includes spoilers) (a section found only in this first episode article too) could, I believe, discourage them from reading other episode articles with concern of accidental spoilers in them as well. This particular section includes some of the most major spoilers for some of the most minor connections. Some of them are easily spotted even without trying to read the section, but, for instance, just by reading the nearby sections and inadvertently glancing at it or smth. The section, I believe, does more damage, then it provides benefit, and, as I said, moving the connections to their appropriate episode articles would not lose any of this data anyway.

--TheBearPaw (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TheBearPaw (talk) for your comprehensive and lucid response to my reverting your editing on a sensitive article. I shall copy this thread to the article's Talk page so that all interested editors may participate.
I shall make the point that this is the pilot episode and references within this article to what will happen are, to me, relevant.
Sincerely,
— Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Gareth, do you no longer oppose using the Christopher Moltisanti image from the pilot episode for this article instead of the current James Gandolfini photo? --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left this a while in the hope others might join in.
To answer your question, I suggest you replace James Gandolfini's image with your higher resolution version and "wait and see". Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 23:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ TheBear Paw Noticed that you have just made the swap.
I approve of the removals made in the prev. rev.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 09:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "Kennedy and Heidi" reference

I removed the "connection to future episode" to "Kennedy and Heidi". I believe this particular one is too great of a potential spoiler to the reader than a benefit for its minor reference value, really. (As per my stance on spoilers, see above talk section). I believe this one, more than others, should just be linked retrospectively to the Pilot episode article from the said episode article. --TheBearPaw (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Pork Store

This article refers to Satriale's in the plot section. However, in this episode isn't the pork store called Centanni's? It wasn't Satriale's until the next episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.180.1 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless you can provide the actual name, or I get my DVD out to check it out, it will have to remain as it is until then. Always pleased of an excuse to see it again. Cheers!— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]