Talk:Vito Spatafore

This page was proposed for deletion by Piotrus (talk · contribs) on 12 January 2020.

This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Merge Proposition

I think Vito Spatafore is enough of a major character to warrant his own article, and that the secondary characters article is really for characters who have not had their own storylines.

Re: I agree.

I concur as well. There's simply too much going on with this sole character for him to be "merged" with the two-bit players. --AWF

Voting on the main character list page supports Vito having his own page (as do I). Please add your votes there to give a greater consensus on whether this article is warranted. --Opark 77 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say that Vito have his own page, as he is (or was) a fairly major character... User:Prezboy1 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tone, and references

It says that 2 Lupertazzi associates discovered Vito in a gay bar. I don't think they were Lupertazzi associates. They were from yonkers. - skamd12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamd12 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article has been criticised; could someone please proof read it and alter anything they think necessary? I feel unable to do it as I have contributed a fair amount to the article already.--Opark 77 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the HBO character profile as a reference - some of the information in the article can be verified there. As with most character pages much of the article is written with the show itself as a primary source. I've read the style guide page on citations and couldn't see if it was appropriate to reference an episode of the show, does anyone know more about this?--Opark 77 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Opark77, thank you for your note on my talk page. I apologize for the delay in responding; I've been away for a time. What I mean by 'encyclopedic tone' is that the article should be written in that formal prose commonly expected in publications such as encyclopedias. This really means clear, slang- and jargon-free writing. For examples, take a look at some sample articles in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Encyclopedia Brittanica , or Wikipedia's own Featured articles. By this I do not mean 'stuffy'; I mean clear, precise and unambiguous. Always remember your audience—a young lady in Beijing with moderate education should be able to understand a Wikipedia article on a person. Examples of phrases not suited to an encyclopedia article are: "the captains should take him down", "Two low-level wiseguys", "Perhaps more important is that Vito has a big mouth and doesn't know when to keep it shut", "used to work construction". The phrase "point of contention" is misused (it is also cliché). The article also contains grammatical errors. Furthermore, the piece is written as if addressed to another Soprano afficionado—you would already have to have considerable familiarity with the subject matter to be able to understand parts of it. To prevent such writing in future, it is a good idea to imagine that your article is going to be read by, say, a 25 year old English speaking chap with a BSc from India. Or better still a Martian scientist. Do you think he will understand what you're trying to say? If not, write more clearly. Don't use American slang, or other forms of informal speech.
With respect to the references, please be aware of the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be a cogent, systematic summary of accumulated research and reporting on a subject. By definition, an encyclopedia article may not be written on a subject that has been little studied and/or reported. On Wikipedia this requirement has to be adhered to especially strictly, because most contributors to Wikipedia are to all intents and purposes anonymous or pseudonymous; our articles are not signed by recognized experts, they undergo no peer-review, no editorial oversight. Our entire basis for any kind of accountability, our entire basis for any claim to encyclopediability, lies in fastidious attention to sourcing statements in articles to reputable, reliable sources that everyone can check and verify for themselves. Where such sources do not exist, an article may not be written. Where reliable sources do exist, but only to matters tangentially related to the proposed subject, other alternatives to a separate entry are preferable.
Now, there is no doubt that an entry on The Sopranos may be written for Wikipedia—there are a great many secondary sources on the show. The article here however is on a minor character, Vito Spatafore. A lot of what has been written seems to me to be speculative in nature, and border on original research; furthermore, I wonder if there is a paucity of sources on the subject that would necessitate a different approach altogether. I hope you will address these concerns. Regards —Encephalon 11:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear advice Encephalon. I've read (or re-read in some cases) the policy pages you suggested. I've attempted to formalise the wording and tone of the article. I've also started adding references to the article, since this is a television programme the references are mostly from articles written in newspapers or magazines by crticis, I believe these meet the policy guidelines and I hope they are acceptable. Please could you review the wording and remove the formal tone tag if you think it is appropriate. How many references should we aim to accumulate before the reference tag can be taken off? --Opark 77 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having waited a week I'm going to remove the reference tag - it states that the article does not cite it's references but the article now does acknowledge it's sources. --Opark 77 14:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibly"?

he carried on extra-marital homosexual relations, making him possibly bisexual or gay.

Possibly? I thought it was general knowledge he was gay. --DrBat 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

I do not want to screw anything up on the article so I am asking someone to make a minor correction. At the very beginning of the article it states that he was revealed to be gay in Season 6. That is not the case and it conflicts with the correct information further down in the article. He was revealed to be gay in Season 5. --unusualpsycho 12:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--CyberGhostface 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informant?

In the first episode of the third season Vito is seen cooperating with the FBI in the surveillance set-up for the Sopranos. It's been a while since I saw the rest of the season but was that ever followed up on? Or was that not supposed to be Vito? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.214.217 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that episode, but for the rest of the series Vito was never an informant.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gannascoli portraying character in earlier episodes

Was that not Vito, or the actor that plays him, as bakery customer in season one? I think it's in the Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti when he walks into the bakery, when Christopher is annoyed at waiting, and later shoots the assistant in the foot?

Image copyright problem with File:Jackjunia.JPG

The image File:Jackjunia.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Spatafore character inspired by real-life mobster John D'Amato

No doubt this character was inspired by mobster John_D'Amato — Ana Bruta (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spatafore and Spatafora

Out of curiosity, the correct spelling of Spatafore in Italian is Spatafora (Italian pronunciation: [spataˈfɔra]), a most typically Sicilian surname and basically a variation of Spadafora (both Calabrian and Sicilian). In Sicily, Spadafora is also an ancient noble family and there is even a town named after this family in the Metropolitan City of Messina, Sicily. In turn, Spatafore (/ˌspætəˈfɔːr/) is likely an American misspelling based on a loose pronunciation of Spatafora, possibly with roots in the Italian-American parlance. That is why Vito's last name is turned into Spatafora in the Italian dubbing of The Sopranos. --Teno85 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]