Jump to content

Talk:Yellowstone (American TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time to separate

[edit]

It’s time to separate this into Yellowstone franchise then have them all linked into the various spin-offs and original. Especially since now then mob of Stallone will be comjng to town 2600:1700:36D0:4860:8C24:839E:67BD:73BA (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2023

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Consensus is closer to being against the proposed move, and I see no reason to expect that further discussion will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Yellowstone (American TV series) → Yellowstone (TV series) – Clear WP:PDABPRIMARY with Yellowstone (British TV series) (a ~2143:1 pageview ratio). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: (US TV series) per MOS:US fyi - wolf 20:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the parenthetical disambiguators we usually use "U.S." and "UK". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm mistaken. According to this RFC, we should be using "American" and "British". So leave the articles where they are. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page views in the last 30 days are 551,273 for the US series to 283 for the British documentary, so anyone who types "Yellowstone (TV series)" is ~1,948 times more likely to be seeking the drama series. That's the point. The proposed title is favored by WP:CONCISE while being negligibly less precise. Similarly, the title has more WP:NATURALNESS as editors are likely to make links to the proposed title intending to link to the US series, and rather than those links being links to the dab page that require fixing, one should reasonably expect such links will link to the drama series. The proposed move is far and away an improvement over the status quo. If this move doesn't make sense, then Thriller (album) doesn't make sense either. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Thriller (album) doesn't make sense. --woodensuperman 10:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Yellowstone (TV series) is ambiguous, so it needs to be fully disambiguated, per WP:DAB. The guideline to follow here is WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. WP:PDABPRIMARY is not a guideline, and exceptions to articles being fully disambiguated are controversial and extremely rare. No need to make this more complicated. --woodensuperman 10:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:DAB again, specifically the WP:INCDAB section of the page: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Though the pageview ratio I checked suggests that the pageview gulf isn't quite as wide as the nomination stated, it still demonstrates an 896:1 lead in favor of the American TV series, which is clearly in the range where a WP:PDAB is appropriate. The acceptability of PDABs in general was established by RFC consensus, and editors seeking to throw out that system entirely should challenge it at the RFC level instead of opposing individual RMs on those grounds. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the opposers here are opposing on the basis of opposition to any PDAB, not because they believe this case doesn't meet the threshhold for having a partially disambiguated title. Such an attempt for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not overrule wider community consensus on the overall issue; thus, do not oppose PDABS in individualy RMs; bring up opposition to the wider community in an RfC or other appropriate venue. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plane

[edit]

What happened to the people and plane that dropped the clover 2600:1700:6298:AC30:8BB:1CCD:C09C:D903 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

Basic information to add to this article, to help make it more properly encyclopedic: the name of the valley in which the Dutton Ranch is located. Isn't it the Paradise Valley (Montana)? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Costner announces that he is done with ‘Yellowstone’

[edit]

Costner announced that he is not returning. He even posted a video of him saying he's done with Yellowstone, and he's ready to move on. Which means, he won't return for the second half of Season 5 at all. On the www.cbsnews.com, there is an article about him leaving. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-costner-wont-return-yellowstone-season-5-horizon/ RicLightning (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's another article from www.people.com saying Costner has confirmed his departure from the series. Published on June 22, 2024. https://people.com/why-is-kevin-costner-leaving-yellowstone-8667455#:~:text=Now%2C%20the%20actor%20has%20finally,%2C%20or%20into%20the%20future.%E2%80%9D RicLightning (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it over?

[edit]

Finale for series?:

https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/yellowstone-ending-season-5-rcna83045

https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/will-there-be-yellowstone-season-6-rcna184126 Tejano512 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the series has finished, although spinoff(s) are to follow. Despite the fact that its finished, the series still exists and is widely available so there's no need to change the article to past tense. Cheezknight (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still exists but is concluded. Knight Rider still exists but it's concluded. The spinoffs, while part of the universe, are not part of the series per se. Tejano512 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather the Yellowstone universe still exists. The show itself has concluded. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this article about the show and not the universe? Wouldn't a past tense be more appropriate? Tejano512 (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:TENSE - as a general rule everything is referred to in the present tense, even things that you wouldn't expect to do so - Dodo. There are obviously exceptions which MOS:TENSE covers, but this isn't one of them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Tejano512 - your example of Knight Rider (1982 TV series) is correctly referred to in the present tense. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 April 2025

[edit]

Yellowstone (American TV series) → Yellowstone (TV series) – Now that the series has concluded, it's a good time to revisit the case for partial disambiguation here. Users opposing this at the previous RM did not argue the article did not qualify for partial disambiguation, but instead were opposed to partial disambiguation in general; a RM discussion is not the venue for litigating that. That the American TV series meets the criteria for partial disambiguation is beyond doubt: over the last 5 years Yellowstone (American TV series) has 32,375,718 views, for a daily average of 17,721; Yellowstone (British TV series) has 33,963 views for a daily average of 19, thus the page view ratio is 953:1 over that span. The practical reason for this proposal, and for this aspect of the WP:INCDAB guideline, is that 99.9% of users searching Yellowstone (TV series) are seeking the American series and should be brought directly to that article rather than reach the disambiguation page, and a hatnote is the appropriate form of disambiguation for the 0.1% of users seeking the British series. For those users who disagree and are against any case of partial disambiguation having a primary topic, please initiate an RfC at an appropriate talk page rather than opposing an individual requested move on those grounds. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an editor making a link to Yellowstone (TV series) should reasonably expect the link to target the American series, but instead might unknowingly be making a link to the disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTV does not overrule or conflict with WP:INCDAB; if it did, then we wouldn't have other partially disambiguated TV series articles such as Lost (TV series) or other cases listed at Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names#(TV series) or similar, all of which have much lower page view ratios than in this case. WP:CONSISTENT dictates that this article should follow suit until and unless WP:INCDAB (and/or its relationship with WP:NCTV) are reevaluated by the community. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partially disambiguated page names are a rare exception, and thus the very antithesis of WP:CONSISTENT. --woodensuperman 06:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A rare exception? I don't think so. WP:PDABLIST has hundreds of entries. Could be a thousand, I didn't count them. All of these "rare exceptions" make Wikipedia better, because they make life easier for editors and readers. I don't see any good reasons in this discussion why we shouldn't be consistent with these hundreds of examples of improving Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the opposes should be given little weight by the closer, being opposition to the INCDAB guideline, not to the move request. These !votes are blatantly out of line with accepted Wikipedia procedure. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, per Chicdat. The oppose !votes have refused to even consider policy, instead arguing purely based on personal taste. As such, they should not be given much weight. Statements above such as "Partial disambiguation is never a good idea" and "Titles should be fully disambiguated" amount to little more than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Loytra (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they amount to usual procedure! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The disambiguation guideline creates exceptions for "usual procedure" for which a title with a page view ratio of nearly 1000:1 clearly meets. Like I said in my nomination statement, if you disagree with community consensus on the matter as indicated by current guidelines, start an RfC. An admin should do better than exerting their personal preferences in individual discussions in lieu of trying to follow guidelines. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard usage is that we fully disambiguate. WP:INCDAB states: Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page (or to a section of it). That is the overriding guideline here. Calls to ignore this guideline by the "support" !voters should be ignored! ;) We only make the exception if there is consensus to do so. --woodensuperman 14:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard procedure is that full disambiguation is only "usually" necessary". I find it strange that you're wilfully ignoring the rest of the policy, which states: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. Per Mdewman6, considering the page view ratio of nearly 1000:1, this "threshold" has more than definitely been met. Additionally, apropros your comment that We only make the exception if there is consensus to do so, this conversation is about whether there is "consensus to do so", not whether or not partial disambiguation should ever be used sitewide. Your position makes little sense. Loytra (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodensuperman I think the expression "overriding guideline" is mistaken / misleading. You omitted important parts of that section.
    1. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia, not just to follow guidelines. We have to consider why a certain guideline exists. WP:INCDAB continues: "This aids navigation and helps editors avoid accidentally creating new articles under the still-ambiguous title." Neither of these two reasons apply in this case.
    (a) The data shows that the disambiguation page at Yellowstone (TV series) does not aid navigation. In fact, it impedes navigation: by far most of those who arrive at the disambiguation page click through to Yellowstone (American TV series) (see WikiNav data cited above).
    (b) "Accidentally creating new articles" doesn't apply at all in this case. After the move (as well as before), there's no title without a page that might cause that problem.
    2. The guideline says "usually", not "always". There are exceptions, and this case is one of them.
    — Chrisahn (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After reading the above it seems that Necrothesp, Pppery and wodensuperman et al are accurate, Yellowstone (TV series) should continue to redirect, as it currently does, to the Yellowstone (disambiguation)#Film and television dab page.Halbared (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:RMCOMMENT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so." — Chrisahn (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you directed this comment to me and not Chicdat and Loytra, the editors who mention a 'vote.'? Halbared (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No particular reason. I just got the notification that there's a new comment and happened to have time to respond. See my comment below that addresses all opponents of the move and the lack of proper arguments. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far, the opponents of the move have provided zero actual arguments how and why the current disambiguation page at Yellowstone (TV series) improves Wikipedia. They just say "never a good idea", without explaining why. Or they point to WP:INCDAB, without considering why that policy exists. To those who oppose the move: Please explain why you think the disambiguation page makes Wikipedia better. Don't just point to guidelines. Don't just say "not good". Don't just say "we've already discussed this". You have to provide some actual reasons. See WP:RMCOMMENT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments. Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so." — Chrisahn (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Yellowstone (TV series) (the move target) is currently a redirect to the dab page Yellowstone (disambiguation) (specifically, Yellowstone (disambiguation)#Film and television), not a dab page itself. The current disambiguation page Yellowstone (disambiguation) will of course persist regardless of the outcome of this discussion, as Yellowstone is indeed an ambiguous term with a clear primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yellowstone_(American_TV_series)&oldid=1291423431"