Talk:The Wire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wire task force

Since we have loads of articles related to the show I thought it might be a good idea to co-ordinate management of them using a centralised to do list.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

Can someone define what the title means?

The term 'The wire' refers to the phone tap that the detectives use in the series to gain the upper hand on the Barksdale empire. I suppose it also has allusions to being on the wire i.e. a tight rope as in they are really under pressure to crack the case because of all the pressure being put on them from above. Buy yeah it is a wierd title isn't it... a good one though in my opinion.

Along with the wire tap and the meaning of everything coming "down to the wire" there is the general idea of everything coming down through the grape vine: "I heard it on the wire." This is suggestive of the interrelated nature of the shows plotlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.111.3 (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also the military use of the term, used to signify the defensive perimeter of a position. "outside the wire" implies an area outside the unit's control; unfamiliar. the series involves groups of people interacting with worlds outside of their "wire". Theinterior (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it been suggested (I don't remember by whom) that the title is a reference to the fact that the show itself resembles an actual physical wire (like a piece of string) running through the city of Baltimore, connecting all of its various facets (or institutions) and revealing how they relate to, or parallel, one another.

The statement mentioned above is true and was detailed in both documentaries in the extras' segments of the DVD Box Sets from seasons 4 and 5. Both David Simon and Ed Burns talk about that "The Wire" was first portrayed as a wire tap (the BPD trying to take down the Barksdale Organization) and eventually, because of the specific institutions which Simon and Burns illustrate, "The Wire" became something else entirely, it became the string which tied Baltimore together, from the schools to the docks, drug kingpins to cops, etc. Mike D (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDalbey (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Episodes

"The seasons are twelve or thirteen full-hour episodes in length."

It was my understanding that 12 episodes was the norm, the debut season only having one more because it included a pilot episode. Is this the case? Gram 12:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there are a set amount to be honest one season has had 13 two have had 12 I don't think there is a "rule" that any future series will not be able to have 13 or more. Many TV series have different numbers of episodes in series through out their commission.

Season four has 13 episodes, so "twelve or thirteen" is correct and should stay as is.Andrewjnyc 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But season five has only ten episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.75.191 (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

episode list

does anyone want to attempt to create individual wiki pages for each episode?

• OK I'll have a go now. I'm going to use the format from The Sopranos episode guides.--Opark 77 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I did a guide for the last episode I watched here and linked it in to the episode list and character list.--Opark 77 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Character list

I've set up a character list to include character summary's and lists of appaearances as per other show articles. I've tried to leave a list of all starring characters here on the main page but I think I missed some of them. --Opark 77 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good idea setting up a separate list. That will allow detailed description of the characters witout cluttering this page. I agree that if there is a separate article, we should limit the main page to the major characters. I made one correction to the new list- Ziggy was Frank's son, and Nick was his nephew. That was part of the reason Ziggy always felt disrespected- his father seemed to treat Nick more like a son than he treated Ziggy.JeffStickney
• Thanks Jeff, keep watching me as I often make silly mistakes like that (wish I could say I was just testing)!--Opark 77 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed prodigal from the description of Nick. Prodigal(wastefully or recklessly extravagant) would seem to be a better adjective for Ziggy. Veritek83 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking of season 6, will there be a new season soon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.75.6 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag

I notice that Jeff moved the spoiler tag up to exclude the character list - this seems reasonable. Just to explain why I agreed with it including the character list before. I noticed on one TV program article that made it to featured status it was suggested that the list of actors contained spoilers because it gives the information to first time viewers that certain characters will be leaving the show. On this article they moved the list down so it was not one of the first things seen. Wish I could remember which show it was! In summary I have no problem for it just covering the synopses but wanted to add a rationale for why the spoiler tag might include the character list also. --Opark 77 10:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that is should cover the characters also - besides the spoiling "formerly starring" section, it does tell the new viewer what path the characters follow - such as Rawls and Burrell. 69.116.150.174 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm going to go ahead and move it. 69.116.150.174 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject television guidelines

I think it may be worth restructuring the article around the television project guidelines. The main sections they suggest are:

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 - June 2, 2002 added
• Channel of first and current airing - HBO
• Production companies - HBO
• Principal characters - not done (save for later as so numerous)
• Influence - little so leave out
• Place in popular culture - save for critical response section
• Major Awards - save for critical response section
• Spin-offs - none
• Music or Theme - currently discussed in episode structure

The introduction seems a bit long at the moment and some of the information might be better off elsewhere.

1. Characters - lower down but present, should be altered to prose from list format
2. Plot and Episode listing - need to separate plot summaries from critical response and expand a little
3. Impact of show on society - little to say can be considered as included in critical response, consider adding rating tables
4. Critical reviews - currently intermingled with plot summaries and DVD release details
5. Production notes - perhaps casting and crew should be moved here and maybe origins too
6. External links - present and correct
7. Categories - present but may be redundant in some cases

What do other editors think about these suggestions?--Opark 77 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I was thinking of going by Arrested Development's layout, as it's already an FA, while borrowing a little from Lost (a GA). I'd go:

1. Infobox
2. Lead
3. Overview
4. Origins
5. Themes
6. Characters
7. Crew
8. Episode list - consists only of a {{main}}
9. Plot synopsis
   1. Season one
   2. Season two
   3. Season three
10. Production notes
    1. Episode structure
    2. Music - maybe, as this doesn't really apply to The Wire
    3. Filming locations
11. Response
    1. Ratings
    2. Critical reviews
       1. Individual seasons
    3. Nominations and awards
12. Nominations and awards
13. Broadcast history
14. DVD release
15. Trivia
16. References
17. External links
18. Categories

We should hold off on restructuring until we get a consensus. east.718 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm not sure about having the overview section - the lead is supposed to be an overview itself. I'd keep the awards in the response section as it is at the moment. Perhaps DVD release could stay in response as well. What do you think would need to be done to the existing article to better match this suggested format? I agree that we should hold off on a consensus for moving around exisiting content, but feel we should be bold in areas where new content is needed. --Opark 77 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead would be a little bit long then - WP:LEAD dictates that it should be two, at max three paragraphs. I also agree with your suggestion about awards, but not about the DVD release. We could have just a table under the DVD release section like Arrested Development does, but with critical information included - there's a lot of critical response specifically about the DVDs that are mixed in with the main response right now. east.718 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent compromise on the DVD section. In terms of the overview, I meant that we should move this information elsewhere and keep the essential stuff in the lead. That was my eventual intention when I deleted the header earlier but I should have explained that at the time. How would you feel about that?

Also where would the locations section fit into the new structure? I suggested above that perhaps we should use the production notes header from the wikiproject guidelines to unite sections like origins, locations and casting. Although I am torn by keeping origins at the top and casting at the froint end of the characters section as this reads particularly well. Thank you for your help with this East718 and apologies if I am being pedantic. --Opark 77 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming Baltimore locations to "Filming locations," expanding it, and putting it between episode structure and music? About the overview, we should rearrange the rest of the article, then decide where to put all of it. I'm weakly opposed to combining origins, locations, and casting, as it would make for one overwhelming section. east.718 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The locations renaming point sounds good. I meant rather than merging those three sections they should be united as subsections under the header "production notes"; just to make it more obvious we're following the TV show article template.--Opark 77 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually very fond of the structuring in this revision. What do you think about putting themes in after origins, music after episode structure, and moving crew below characters? Filming locations could go after music. east.718 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding music below episode structure and moving crew below characters sounds fine. I'm not sure about themes straight after origins, it could be a bit in depth for the reader unfamiliar with the show. I think that's why the meat and potatoes sections of plot and character are so high in the template. However, it would relate well to origins so I think we should try it for now and consider how it reads as a whole a bit later on. Could you possibly alter the suggested structure you wrote before so that there is a quick reference here for our (very small) consensus structure?--Opark 77 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, had a go at doing it myself. Looking at it now I would say that the DVD release section seems quite out on a limb, is there anywhere it might fit in?--Opark 77 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a planned section on Broadcast History - this appears in many other TV articles including arrested development and I think we need it to be considered "complete".--Opark 77 09:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ambient Music/Expansion

Bravo- I'm glad to see this series getting some of the attention it deserves.

The note in episode structure about all music being ambient except for the end of the season finales is not completely accurate. In particular, I can think of three instances:

1. In season 1, around episode 6, when Avon, Stinkum, and Stringer Bell are walking through the low-rises on their way to tell D that they "think he has a snitch in the house", music is played and the scene even features slow motion.

2. In episode 11 of the second Season, Greek music plays during the 10 minutes or so preceeding Sobatka's fateful meeting with The Greek and Vondas.

3. During the cold intro of one of the Season 2 episodes, the Cash song featuring the chorus "I keep a cold watch on this heart of mine" plays while during an assortment of shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOcelot (talk • contribs)

I think Simon mentioned that episode six's slow motion and the pilot's flashback were exceptional techniques that HBO forced him to do. Not that it really matters. east.718 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the music is usually ambient this is a good point BishopOcelot. Why not add this information in a music section to the article? I'm not very observant musically so I've struggled to think of things to say about the music so far. You could use {{cite episode}}: Empty citation (help) for citing the episodes which contain these musical examples.--Opark 77 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on point 3 above: Season 2, Episode 10, the opening features the Cash song with various shots of GPS locators being tagged to cars plus other car related intelligence being gathered. I agree with Opark 77 that this should be added to the main article as it is an anomaly worth noting.

Encapsulation

Great work is being done here, but I have one suggestion; let's allow each character their own page. The character page will get extremely lengthy, and it matches the format of the Sopranos.

I personally will help with this, and will begin doing so later this week unless I get a reply convincing me otherwise.--BishopOcelot 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yeah, the flashback in the Pilot is in my opinion one of the handful of weak moments in the entire series. Glad to hear it didn't come from the man.

Thanks for the offer of help, that would be much appreciated. There is actually a discussion that I recently started on the character list talk page about who should get their own pages. Six characters already do have their own pages - Jimmy McNulty, Cedric Daniels, Omar Little, Avon Barksdale, Stringer Bell and Shakima "Kima" Greggs. If you create a page for a character on the list please move the content from the character page and leave a link and a short summary behind (see the McNulty section of the character list for an example).

I personally think a character article is only appropriate if it has the potential to be a non-stub article i.e. single episode or background characters probably don't qualify. There are guidelines for this in place that I found linked to from the television wikiproject. Sorry if all of this was already known to you BishopOcelot, I'm quite new myself so I'm never sure how much is common knowledge on here. If it's not useful to you maybe someone else can benefit from the info. --Opark 77 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I also ask a favour - if you are making character articles please do one for Bunk, I had one almost finished for him and then a crash cost me my hard work. Just can't face doing it again! --Opark 77 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

I made {{TheWire}}, a footer template. Feel free to add it to all related pages. east.718 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FU images

The season covers currently do not have a FU rationale on their image pages, we need to add these in. East718, I know you altered the S3 one form a box to a cover, what was the source of the cover image? --Opark 77 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Amazon. east.718 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks East, they've all got FU rationales now so we should be OK in that regard.--Opark 77 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tense

The only major problem in the article that I see is that some of it is written in the present tense when it all needs to be in the past. My attention span is way too low to fix this all at once, so can some people help out? east.718 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything in-universe (plot summary and character descriptions) should be in the literary present (or in past progressive where needed). Things that happened outside of fiction (casting decisions, an interview being given, etc.) should be past tense. Things like what David Simon or Ed Burns says/thinks about the show can be past or present depending on what makes more sense in context. Andrew Levine 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys have done a great job of fixing the tense, I'll try to keep an eye out but as most of the problems were my mistakes originally I'm sure can tell that I'm not a very accomplished writer. If there's any particular sections that need a look please point me in the right direction.--Opark 77 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Still some inconsistent tense usage here and there in the minor character descriptions - I'll drop in and fix when I have time. Sooo impressed by the work that's being done here, though of course it's what the show deserves!Zephirine 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image captions

I noticed you shortened the image captions East, this is fine just wanted to leave a note to explain my thinking. I read in the captioning guideline about readers who scan articles looking at pictures and trying to use captions to get them interested in the content, by giving brief descriptions I was trying to achieve this effect.--Opark 77 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I really had no problem with the descriptions' prose, just the fact that they made the caption almost as large as the image itself. I don't really think there's any way to maintain prose at that level while keeping the captions succint, but some things just can't be, right? east.718 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What's right is right.--Opark 77 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The IDs of the new characters in season four were incorrect. I tweaked the order (and changed the spelling of one name) per HBO press materials and the show itself (I've seen several episodes in advance via my job) to make the caption accurate.Andrewjnyc 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast history and DVD release

I noticed that Andrew Levine recently collapsed Broadcast history and DVD release into a section called "overseas". I understand his reasons that the information is repeated elsewhere and can follow his reasoning in removing the sections.

I created the sections as part of an effort being made to bring the article close to the template suggested by wikiproject television (see above discussion). I would like to suggest that instead of removing the DVD release section because the info is in critical response we should remove the info from critical response as it is not appropriate under that heading.

The broadcast history section is likely to grow somewhat given time and users in other countries adding further information. One of the articles aims should be to be comprehensive - if some of the information that it ought to include is better provided by another article then that should be clearly stated with a link to that article and a prose summary of the most important points. I don't think that reasoning that the info is in the episode list is enough to remove it.

Does this make it any clearer what my intentions were Andrew? If you still disagree about the need for these sections I'm happy to leave them ou. Is there a third party out there who has any thoughts?

Finally as a British wikipedian I don't like the assumption that the UK is overseas, for me it's underfoot! --Opark 77 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename the section if you like, as I was just trying to avoid using the phrase "outside the U.S." twice in the same section. If you want to call it "In other countries", that seems a suitable fit. The section can also be split again as I recommend below. If more people want to add to that section broadcast info about the show in the Netherlands, or Australia, or whereever, then we welcome that. I share your hope that the section will grow larger.

Anyway, the information on airdates doesn't really work well as prose, it's the sort of thing that works much better as a list. As previously worded, they were a little too detailed and looked a bit strange as prose. I think that this is a place where the guidelines can be bent in the service of what looks better. Also, having fewer short sections cuts down on the table of contents' size, and the FAC process likes that. I think that if you really want for there to be airdate summary information, it can go in the (re-namable) "episode list" section, and it should be no more complicated than saying that such a season aired from such to such month in such a year, leaving out all that stuff about fortnights.

I am not sure about where to put the DVD info except that it shouldn't be there more than once. I kind of like your idea of re-adding the table and removing the info from the critical response section. This re-adds the collapsed section but cuts down more on prose (the reviews of the DVD features).

So a possible slate of recommendations, in line with what you suggest, might be:

1. Restore "Broadcast history" section and add to it the "Main: List of episodes of The Wire" template, the briefer summaries of when it aired on HBO, and the info on where it airs outside the U.S.;
2. Restore "DVD Releases" as a section with the table and with the info on where the first 2 seasons have been released on DVD;
3. Remove the critical reviews of the DVD sets themselves (as distinct from the reviews of the show drawn from the box set reviews);
4. Remove the headings "Episode List" and "Overseas" as there will no longer be anything in those sections.

Andrew Levine 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed over this section before doing my last edits. Feel free to revert, I won't do anything until we get consensus.

I think we should:

• restore DVD releases as section with the table.
• send the {{main}} for the episode list under plot synopsis, then remove the empty section.
• remove broadcast history, as it contains redundant information. If we can get something other than airdates, we should restore it and collapse the broadcasters section into it too.

east.718 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are reasonable sets of suggestions. I do think it's worth keeping the reviews of the DVDs and moving them to the DVD release section. I think I have done this already and if anyone disagrees they should revert it. I think the episode list link is best placed higher up with the plot synopsis. I wonder if it could be repeated in the broadcasting section? --Opark 77 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I used a peer review semi-bot to analyze this article.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm. I haven't found any instances of this. east.718 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

east.718 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Andrew Levine has done a great job improving the prose style and spotting redundancies so far.--Opark 77 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read WP:LEAD and tried to make according adjustments.--Opark 77 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We use summary style where appropriate. Are there further sections that should be summarised out?

Are we ready for a full peer review? I think we're almost there but should wait to produce a stable version of the page.--Opark 77 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the above to reflect new edits, and rigidly complying with WP:SS seems hopeless to me. The largest thing we could splice out is the plot synopsis to season subpages, but that would gut this article. When the page becomes stable enough, I'll nom it for PR and then FAC.east.718 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to merge the character sections in the next few days, and also address the issue of the music samples. To me, those are the only remaining significan tasks. After all that is done, we should put it on Peer Review. That will probably happen sometime this week. Andrew Levine 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the peer review process. In terms of reducing the size of the TOC further we could merge the critical response season subsections so this is one larger section. The same could be done for some of the short one paragraph subsections in the Themes section. I would like to wait and see if reviewers of the article feel the TOC is too large before acting on these suggestions, just wanted to let you know I had considered it.--Opark 77 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it a good idea to merge the critical response sections (the paragraph breaks make the division between seasons pretty clear) but left the individual Themes subsections as you suggested. Andrew Levine 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems with that here. east.718 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging characters sections

Personally I think the major character and recurring character sections should be merged. The line between starring roles and important recurring characters is a thin one; for example, right now Carcetti is listed as a major character and Cutty a recurring one, even though they have both appeared in the exact same episodes and had roughly an equal amount of time dedicated to their respective plotlines. They should both just appear together in the same paragraph as season 3 additions. Also, I don't like the word "guest star" because that to me implies a celebrity appearance like you see on a lot of other shows, when the only people to ever appear on the show who have anything close to celebrity status are Method Man, Steve Earle, and some of the city figures mentioned in the casting section, like Robert Ehrlich. So I will probably take out all the uses of "guest star" in the next few days. Andrew Levine 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this despite it being me that used the term guest stars in the first place. Sorry for causing problems by sticking rigidly to the credit type.--Opark 77 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record I distinguished the characters into two types based on whether they appear in the opening credits or in the also starring list at the end of the episode. I used TV.coms episode guides to work this out for season 3 as I have no source I can check for these episodes. For season one and two I used my DVDs.--Opark 77 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Music samples

According to Wikipedia:Music samples:

Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples may not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter.

Although this is only listed as a guideline and was defeated in a vote on whether to give it force of policy, having the entire opening theme for every season seems excessive. With the nine images, we have twelve fair-use claims for the page -- more than any featured article does, I believe -- and it is best to play it safe here. I would half-follow the guideline and excerpt 30 seconds for each season's theme, using the audio from about 0:06 to 0:36 (which for each sample gets the vocals of the first verse; this way listeners can compare them better). I also think we should be willing to drop the audio samples entirely if the issue is raised during the FA candidacy. Andrew Levine 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll trim them. About the number of FU claims though, you have to remember that it's pretty much impossible to obtain free images given the nature of the subject matter. east.718 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but that still doesn't give us carte blanche to use as many as we want. Andrew Levine 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but I'm sure people voting on FA will keep the fact that we can't obtain free images in mind. Enta Da Stage recently passed, and it has nine fair use claims. Only one objection was brought up about the images, and when they were properly sourced, the person abstained his vote. east.718 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting way too big

We don't need to include quotes from every single interview David Simon has ever done, or from every review of the show. The bloat of quotes and analysis is starting to make this a slog to read, and the social commentary section is beginning to harangue the reader with Simon's opinions. We're better off with fewer quotes and less commentary. Andrew Levine 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we may need to use fewer quotes, I disagree about needing less commentary. The article aims to be comprehesive, that means using all the high quality sources available to us. If sections get too long they should be subarticled, we shouldn't try to restrict analysis of the topic to control article size. We can achieve that by using subarticles. --Opark 77 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try to assess where information can be moved out of the main article.

I think the examples of names and character origins can be cut from origins as they can go with the indivudal characters. Anyone agree/disagree?

Perhaps the themes section could be moved down the article structure as it is heavier reading. Also if some of the quotes could be altered to a more succinct prose summary of the jist of the points made that would reduce the over reliance on quotes.

The current cast and formerly starring tables could be moved to the character list as they are just a summary of what is now in prose. Prose is preferable right?

The plot summary may be over long, but it's hard to cover it succinctly as its fairly complex. Perhaps we should have season subarticles with a chance for the plot summary and season specific critical response and keep even shorter summaries of these sections here. I know East718 has said that this will gut the article and that's the last thing I want. Anybody want to sandbox it to see what it would do to the size and flow of the article?--Opark 77 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the character origins being part of the character articles, and also the idea of removing the character tables. Anyway, I don't want to reduce the plot summary, that much I know for sure. Andrew Levine 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll give that a try.--Opark 77 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Narrated

The lead has said for a long time that the show is narrated from both points of view. This phrasing has always bothered me as the show is not narrated at all. Is this just a personal thing of mine or does anyone else think the wording needs to be altered?--Opark 77 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's narrated in the (very common) figurative sense, not the literal sense. Andrew Levine 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Todays changes 7 August 06

Andrew Levine continues to do a great job trimming the fat of the article and improving wording etc. I think the new lead is preferable to the old one. I notice that the Zap2it link was removed because it was dead. The article still works Ok for me: [1] if anyone needs to use that content again.

The following paragraph was also clipped because it is similar to points made elsewhere in the themes section. I wrote it so I'm not going get completely precious about it and re-add it, I just thought I'd be a little bit precious and put it up here to see if anyone thinks it's worthy of going back in: Simon has described the show as a examination of the way Americans live in modern cities and an attempt to examine what he sees as competing American myths — that if you do better than the next man, you will succeed; and that if you are unable to do better if you work hard every day, there is a place for you nonetheless and you will not be betrayed. He believes that the show illustrates that this second myth is now a lie in cities like Baltimore. --Opark 77 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Burns link

The link to Ed Burns links to "The Brothers McMullin" director, not the Baltimore ex-homicide detective. Someone oughta fix that. Not the same type of writing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elleesttrois (talk • contribs)

Done--Opark 77 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I haven't been able to find any internet refs. to all the drug names used on the show (i.e. WMDs, Spider bags, Pandemic, Missletoe). How would y'all feel about adding this as an item in a trivia section?

• I'd be opposed. I don't want this get cluttered with trivia. Andrew Levine 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• I would strongly oppose this. Trivia is not really encyclopedic. In order for wikipedia to discuss the drug names used we should really first find a source otherwise this is original research.--Opark 77 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see how simply observing and recording the kind of dialogue on the show can be considered original research. I'd be all for a "Langauge and Slang in The Wire" section, but trivia sections tend to piss people off. Stilgar135 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikiproject television specifically says that trivia sections should be removed or incorporated into the text. A list of trivia would harm this article at at FA review and having worked hard to bring it up to FA status I wouldn't want to see it lose that so soon. Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary so a language and slang section is particularly inappropriate.--Opark 77 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• But language and slang are essential to the show. One of the reasons that the Wire is so different from other shows is that it strives for realism in all aspects, including language. A section discussing that would make the article better; a list simply stating all the slang terms would not. Stilgar135 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This would probably best be served with an external link to a website that discusses the use of slang particular to the show. If no such website exists, maybe someone should make one. Andrew Levine 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to agree with both Opark 77 and Andrew Levine. east.718 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Aa article on Baltimore slang would be useful.Comic J 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be. However, Wikipedia is not the place for an article solely defining slang words - we're not a dictionary. An article charting the development of Bmore slang might be useful.--Opark 77 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed Burns

The article, and more the whole article, seem to downplay the role of Ed Burns in the show before his death. On the season one commentaries David Simon constantly states that the show was a large collaborative effort between them re-enforcing them as equals rather than Simon the creator and Burns the writer. Should this be rectified? –– Lid^(Talk) 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed Burns is very much alive. Are you thinking of Robert F. Colesberry? I quote from the "Crew" subsection: "Another The Corner veteran, Robert F. Colesberry, was executive producer for the first two seasons and directed the season 2 finale before passing away due to complications from heart surgery in 2004. He is credited by the rest of the creative team as having a large creative role for a producer, and Simon credits him for achieving the show's realistic visual feel. He also had a small recurring role as Detective Ray Cole." He's also mentioned in the infobox. I think that serves to give him his due. Andrew Levine 04:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably combining two crew members in my mind, but the Ed Burns point still stands in that Simon constantly put it forward as the team of him and Burns. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just relistened to the commentary on The Target and yes I accidently combined Ed Burns with Robert Colesberry, no idea how that happened. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Metacritic

Lid recently added a passage about the Wires high score on Metacritic to the critical response section, I have a couple of questions about this. Is metacritic a suitable source for wikipedia? Also I don't think we need to explain how metacritic works in this article - that information is better suited to an article about metacritic. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?--Opark 77 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no needly for such a lengthy description of how Metacritic works. A single, short sentence ("Reviews from major sources compiled by Metacritic..." etc.) is enough. I think that if we keep the metacritic info we drop the TV Guide quote, since there's no need to beat the readers over the head with the critical consensus that the show is good (and the metacritic compilation shows critical consensus better than the TV Guide bit). Andrew Levine 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Template idea

To deal with the numerous and varied cast, such as the many levels of the police force, and not enough space to do it in why not use something similar to the templates Law & Order use for their cast?

Template:Lawandorderprosecutors and Template:Lawandorderpolice are what they use and I think we could extend use this for The Wire to create seperate templates for the Police, the Politicians, the Street and the Docks. This avoids the problem of having to only have six names listed when the multi-lkayered concept of The Wire means many characters get left out. Take Ray Cole for example, under the current template he wouldn't be listed however under Homicide squad he would be listed. It also stops debates about character longetivity and whether we should replace them or not.

Thoughts? –– Lid^(Talk) 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So we would then only append the templates to the appropriate pages (i.e. only use the docks for S2 episodes)? Perhaps you could make up some examples in your sandbox. How many different te,plates are you thinking of? I think it's important not to have too many characters listed otherwise they become less functional because you have to search through them.--Opark 77 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Names in captions

I've noticed someone changing the names in captions to the full names of the characters rather than their common names. I have changed this back because it disrupts the links to the character articles and is unnecessarily verbose. For the main article we should introduce the characters as they are commonly known and then give more detail on their full names in their individual articles. I wonder if there are any arguments for having the full names in the captions?--Opark 77 08:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

DVD release

I think we can cut everything from this section after the table. There is already a lot of cited praise in the article and the DVD reviews don't really add much to that. It feels like preening. Andrew Levine 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

I have reverted back a sentence in the lead that had been changed twice by another user (who made other very useful edits). I don't think it accurately represents the sources to state that "The Wire has received critical acclaim for its portrayal of urban life and exploration of sociological themes." Hundreds of TV shows portray life in a city, and almost every current American network drama explores sociological themes to some extent. What the reviews cited in the article state, with consistency, is that the show is realistic in its depiction of urban life, and that the sociological ruminations go deeper than most other TV shows. The user mentioned that not all the reviews praise The Wire for these reasons, which is true (only most of them do), but there is no unanimity implied by "has received critical acclaim." Only that some (a lot, actually) praise has been given by some (many) critics. Andrew Levine 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Police Procedural?

Is "The Wire" a true police procedural? To my mind, it's more of a character driven drama, with some characters who happen to be police officers. From the wiki definition of police procedural: "the police procedural frequently attempts to depict the work of police officers in solving multiple crimes simultaneously". Each season and episode of "The Wire" centers around no singular crime being solved; usually one criminal group or enterprise is being pursued by one police group; usually for a large number of crimes. And the current season (four) centers more around the educational and political worlds, with the nominal "police story" on the back burner. When I think of a "police procedural", I think of "Law and Order" or "CSI", not "The Wire". Weirdoactor 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

David Simon doesn't consider it is a police procedural: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3933251 The interview is a few years old but there's no reason to suppose he's changed his mind! Zephirine 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of the wiki definition of police procedural is a little problematic - that page also lists "The Wire" as a prominent example of the police procedural. Someone feel like removing it? Quadparty 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Moves..

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Proposed_moves_for_episodes_of_The_Wire.. someone has decided to request episode pages for The Wire be moved (without notification I add) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you just beat me to it. You could wait more than two minutes before you start complaining, I can't edit multiple pages instantaneously. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bootleg Season 4 DVD's

I believe that the fact that HBO pre-released the entire season to critics, and the prerelease ended up leaking into the black market is notable enough to deserve a mention. I'm having trouble finding non-blog or non-forum references, however. The Baltimore Sun had an article about the bootleg-and-spoiler fiasco on October 18, but it is no longer linkable from their page. It is currently mirrored at [2]JeffStickney 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the Internet Archive seems to have poor mirroring of BS in October [3]. You could reference the paper directly if it came out in that. Nil Einne 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This interview with David Simon discusses the bootlegs and spoilers: [4] Msridhar 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Music Featured on the Show.

Where can the version of "Way Down in the Hole" by Domaje be found or purchased? The audio clip that is on the page for the season 4 opening theme states that the song is around four minutes long. Is there an album that was released? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyghtryder (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Nonesuch records has released a Wire soundtrack entitled "All the Pieces Matter", which includes above track Theinterior (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview

I think we should add "Universally Acclaimed" or some such to the overview, to emphasize just how praised the show is. Funkyvoltron 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The Wire (TV series) → The Wire — The page The Wire currently redirects to the TV series page making the redirect redundant as well as article name consistancy meaning the page should be at The Wire. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support I reverted Chris' edits before noticing this discussion here; my apologies. I think that the vast majority of people typing "The Wire" would be looking for this page, i.e. the HBO series, not the magazine or the DS9 episode. So to me it makes sense that this page be "The Wire" and then the alert "For other uses, see The Wire (disambiguation)" would help those (very few) people who are looking for one of the other uses. --Paul W. 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, the relevant section of the guidelines is here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic ... I think the HBO series constitutes the primary meaning of "The Wire". --Paul W. 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Although "The Wire" redirects here, there is also a The Wire (disambiguation) page which contains 2 fully developed links for a magazine and a Deep Space 9 episode, two red links (yet to be written) for a Canadian TV show and a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode, and a mention of a Dr. Who villain known as "The Wire". Perhaps The Wire should redirect to the disambig page rather than to here, or the disambig page itself should be moved to The Wire, but with the other uses, this article's title is appropriate.JeffStickney 07:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Redirected The Wire to wire (disambiguation) instead. Chris cheese whine 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I concur with JeffStickney. With the other uses around it makes more sense to have "The Wire" link to the disambiguation.--Opark 77 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose move nominated but support redirect move to disambiguation page. There are too many competing uses for "The wire". 205.157.110.11 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. The Wire should be a dab page or a redirect to a dab page. PC78 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

S5 info on David Mills' blog: A reliable source?

David Mills, a longtime David Simon collaborator (he has written for Homicide and The Corner as well as the Wire episode "Soft Eyes") has posted some info on season 5 on his blog: [5]. Among the news: The final season will have only 10 episodes; it will supposedly be "the funniest season ever of "The Wire," if you like your humor dark"; Clark Johnson will have a major acting role as a newspaper editor, and will direct the final episode; and McNulty will have a larger role than last season. My question to my fellow editors is, given the source's status as a bona fide Wire insider, can we cite this blog post and use the info in the Season 5 section? Andrew Levine 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

David Mills is definetly reliable, but I don't think we can use a blog as a source. We should probably wait until an "official" source declares the same information. Qjuad 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 5

Any source explaining why season 5 was shortened to 10 episodes? The current source just says it was shortened. Let me say in advance don't respond to give me your theories I can probably guess why too, just would be nice to have an actual source. Aaron Bowen 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any definitive confirmation that it is linked to the shortening of Season 5, but David Simon is going to be filming Generation Kill, a drama for HBO about the Iraq War, supposedly to start filming after this season wraps. See the Sun article: [6] Andrew Levine 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Maybe in time they'll be some definite info. Although that might not be until long after the show is over. Aaron Bowen 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So Generation Kill doesn't have an article yet? Aaron Bowen 15:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind I just saw it. Aaron Bowen 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Wire (TV series) → The Wire — Unnecessary disambiguation when no other "The Wire" page exists. --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are four articles called The Wire. The Wire was a disambiguation page which was recently cut and pasted to The Wire (disambiguation). I'm not opposing this move though, the TV series still seems to be the primary use here. Masaruemoto 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wire is still a dab, which seems to be a good solution. Most of the other terms listed are clearly less important than the TV series, but the magazine of that name is not. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of The Wire (TV series): it is not the dominant meaning to me. Anthony Appleyard 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • When I nominated the page, I did not know that there was a disambiguation page. I noticed that The Wire redirected to the TV page. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd oppose a move. My thinking was always that the magazine was fairly well known. I certainly heard of it before the TV show.--Opark 77 17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Opark 77.  east.718 at 22:45, September 2, 2007 
• Oppose there was the same request on February but it failed. Reasons to oppose are still same. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• 68.109.27.125 contends (at User talk:Paul Erik#The Wire page) that this discussion indicates that the consensus is that The Wire be redirected to The Wire (TV series). My read of the discussion is the opposite—that most people are stating that they want The Wire to remain a disambiguation page. Am I misunderstanding? Thanks, --Paul Erik 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• No I don't think you are misunderstanding. I can only speak for myself but I think The Wire is best off as a disambig page while this article is in the right place (The Wire (TV series) at the momement.--Opark 77 06:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Character images

I've just removed the Politicians image recently added by Lid (Great job on the image stack by the way). I think the edit summary when the image was added stated correctly that the image was not the best option for the politicians. I think until a better alternative comes around then no image should be added to the article.

Even if an alternative is available we should think twice before adding more image to the main article. The characters section is already quite long but the images still manage to out stretch it on my screen. I think we should think about cutting back the images - having one of the school characters or the docks is not essential and only invites the addition of further images to represent the politicians, the media and other groups. As it stands a fifth image seems like too much non-free content to me.--Opark 77 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the political level of The Wire is one that crosses over every season yet is not represented as such in that section. Davis first appears in season one, the political fucking with the docks in season two, centre stage Carcetti, Royce et. al. in season three and again in season four. Although the image itself may make the list "excessive" the problem still runs that for such an important factor across every season it seems to be de-emphasised over the season centres such as The Docks and The Schools.

I do however agree that if an image were to be inserted a much better one then the one I added would be preferable, I only used that image as it was the only one currently on here that depicts some of the politicians. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that politics is major part of the show but the importance of politicial characters in the first two seasons is minimal. I think having the law and the street only might be most appropriate. This basic delineation understates the complexity of the show but to put any more on the main page would be an invitation for a gut of non-free images. Its most important that the text does the explaining about the range of institutions and characters. Perhaps we should think about beginning a separate Characters of The Wire article like Carnivale rather than simply listing the characters. Discussion of the characters in a real-world context would allow for more images.--Opark 77 (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a conundrum because I don't think if we're going to include images it should just be the law and the street either as that only, truly, depicts the first season which was more in line with the bit by bit analysis of the police, politics, drug users and drug dealers in Baltimore. However in season two they evolved The Wire to be about Baltimore, the city, as an entity. With this evolution the cast has ballooned and its focus has shifted a fair bit simply from its origins of law and the street to encompass several other elements with just as much importance as the first, even if originally they did not. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to send out a "thank you" to everyone involved who contributed to this fantastic article. This is the most in-depth overall look at The Wire anywhere on the Web. And I can certainly see why so many people would be dedicated enough to create an article of this size, as The Wire is definitely the best show on television of the past few decades. Once again, "thank you" to everyone involved. -Sdornan (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement.--Opark 77 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Social vs. Sociological

The word "sociological" in the lead has been changed to "social" several times now, so I thought that my original word choice deserves justification. I can understand the desire to want to use a two-syllable (in American English) word in place of a six-syllable one when their meanings are apparently similar. But there's a huge gap in meaning here.

If we talk about The Wire exploring "social themes" we mean that the plotlines of the show have touched on issues affecting society, like the drug trade, homelessness, political corruption, public education, etc. This is a true statement, but it is also unremarkable, as nearly all TV dramas in the present day incorporate social issues to an extent. You can find important social issues discussed in Degrassi if that's all you're looking for.

However, when we say that the show is sociological in its scope, we are talking about the interactions between different groups within society, the manner in which these groups organize themselves, and the extent to which individual choices can (and can not) affect society. These are not only themes explicitly intended by the show's creators, they are also (as the sentence in the lead says) mentioned by critical reviews of the show. Thus it is more accurate, relevant, and unique to say that sociological themes are considered, by published viewers of The Wire, to be essential to its quality. Andrew Levine (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me something new! That makes perfect sense.--Opark 77 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler policy

I wonder if we should agree a spoiler policy before season 5 begins airing. I know that last year we didn't post spoilers until episodes had aired on HBO proper (as opposed to on demand). What are everyones thoughts about handling spoilers this year?--Opark 77 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that details of episodes should not posted until they have aired on the main HBO network (9 pm EST on Sunday). Andrew Levine (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. Not everyone with HBO has the same access to on demand, and not all cable companies are that timely with their on demand updates.JeffStickney (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While I respect your desire to obtain concensus, the matter is moot. Wikipedia does not remove spoiler information per Wikipedia:Spoiler. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a case of WP:IAR - we have a consensus that we do things slightly differently for the seven day period between on demand and actual airing for this small group of articles and have done so for over a year. If you really want to contribute to Wire related articles there is a huge to do list above.--Opark 77 (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of IAR, as you are preventing users from improving a Wikipedia article with data that is available, regardless of how many people it is available to. If you don't want to see the added information, either don't view the articles or obtain On Demand. I made the argument previously that if I didn't have HBO at all and wanted to wait for it on DVD, I could argue the same thing which are arguing. My argument would be silly, as I view this one. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is that we see making the articles inhospitable to people not fortunate enough to have or use On Demand as damaging to wikipedia not enhancing it. Your argument is indeed silly but it does not equate to this argument because it would involve waiting months. The consensus here requires you to wait less than 7 days.--Opark 77 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Once an episode has aired, whether on HBO On Demand or elsewhere, the plot details are then verifiable. While some may prefer that details not be added until it airs on HBO, per WP:SPOILER, it's not acceptable to remove such information as spoilers. If there are concerns that the material may be original research or have other editorial issues, the article's talk page would be the appropriate venue. Chaz ^Beckett 12:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue is also being discussed on WP:ANI here. Please join in if you wish. Chaz ^Beckett 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm - no edit warring to keep "spoilers" out of articles, please. Once information is in the public domain, legally, it can and should go into articles. Edit warring to remove it will not be viewed well. If you dislike this, I'm sure you could go set up a The Wire wiki somewhere. Wikipedia does not include spoiler warnings, and it is not censored to keep spoilers out. Neıl ☎ 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The ANI has clarified this issue. Please accept my apologies Daysleeper47 you are in the right. If you are going to be adding season 5 information to The Wire related articles I'd ask that you use the referencing style established here on the main article and use the cite episode template to indicate the verifiable source of any information posted as I am trying to do. User:Neil I also work on a Wire wikia here which has been updated with information as soon as possible after episodes air On Demand as there are no editors there who asked for it to be handled differently. Thank you for your interest. I suggested a different approach here because that is what we did last year and I was aware that some editors preferred this approach. Apologies for not being fully aware of the latest spoiler policies and please note for the record that my edits were intended to improve the content for those not watching On Demand.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it was just differing interpretarions. I will work to better cite my edits. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem really, just perhaps an awareness issue. I'm glad to see everyone resolve this amicably. Thanks all. Neıl ☎ 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The On Demand content is acceptable. Still, let's keep anything based on leaked bootlegs out. For me, season 4 was completely destroyed by bootlegs, and people posting spoilers all over the internet months before the shows aired. This may be why opinions were so strong about spoilers.JeffStickney (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New poster art

Good lookin' on the new poster!–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortened fifth season

The article states that HBO "commissioned a fifth and final season consisting of 13 episodes, but which was later reduced to ten." Did HBO reduce its episode order or was this a creative decision by the producers; either way, this should be made clear in the text. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the source its limited to just stating the fact that it was shortened without giving any explanation, re-word as appropriate if you can find more information.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Series Finale Leaked

I see Nadum215 just added a line about the leaks of episodes to the intro. It strikes me that this would be better for a different section, perhaps "Broadcasters." I haven't moved it yet, as I'd like to get some thoughts before moving it. Thoughts? Veritek83 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't mention it on the encyclopedia unless a more reliable source than a blog does.--Opark 77 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i find it odd that the series finale which leaked is clearly from a tape (or dvd) given to journalists for review however it did not leak with the other episodes which came from said tapes and also includes no closing credits past Simon's and the opening sequence lacks titles. in any event it's been brought up time and time again on wikipedia talk pages and the general consensus seems to be that, nowadays everything leaks @ some point so it's hardly encyclopedic.65.43.213.22 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is NOT was

and so it begins...

After the finale airing we had our first misguided change to the lead sentence - framing the series as a whole in the past tense. i.e. The Wire was a TV series rather than The Wire is a TV series. The WP:TV guidelines are clear on this issue - a TV series that has stopped airing new episodes is still a TV series and does not somehow become past tense as a consequence. When reverting this kind of edit in future I think the edit summary below would be useful:

We say "is" not "was" with regard to completed TV series as per the [[WP:TV|television article guidelines]]. See discussion [[Talk:The Wire (TV series)#Is NOT was|here]].

Hope this helps.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a userpage notice for editors who make this kind of change:

== The Wire and tense == Your edit to ''[[The Wire (TV series)|The Wire]]'' has been reverted. We say "is" not "was" with regard to completed TV series as per the [[WP:TV|television article guidelines]] - the show is still a TV series even if it is not airing new episodes. See discussion [[Talk:The Wire (TV series)#Is NOT was|here]].--~~~~

Again hope this is useful.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Character endings in infoboxes

Today has seen a rash of edits across the character articles where the last_cause variable in the infobox has been altered to reflect the character's ending. However, it is my view that this information is not relevant in the infobox and often leads to long and poorly written shorthand summaries of their ending. The ending should be in the biography and should cite a source. What are others thoughts on this? Already when I have removed this information it has been restored by IP address editors. I am loathe to edit was over this and would like to aim to test consensus here and then work to improve the articles to the point where such shorthand summaries are un-necessary because the ending is detailed in the bio.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary.. there were a rash of those today from the same user. I will remove them from the infobox --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama likes Omar... notable?

if you look @ this article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/14/obama-gloves-off/ (search for the wire or omar) obama comments that he enjoys the wire and his favorite character (like most viewers) is Omar. should this be added to the article or not? i think it's kind of notable, but i'm biased as a fan of the show and someone who was already going to vote for obama. would it be more appropriate to include on the senator's article? or not at all?65.43.213.22 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Omar Little's article would be the best place for this.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Starring cast

The infobox lists the fifth season starring cast at present which is 24 actors. Now that the season is over I wonder if it would be more appropriate to list the entire starring cast (36 performers) or perhaps only those who starred for multiple seasons (23 performers). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?--Opark 77 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the multiple-seasons variant, starring cast of a series should be prominent in more than one season. By the way, shouldn't the intro sentence read "The Wire was an..." now? Malc82 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Multi-season for me. In reply to Malc82, The Wire is still a TV series, and it will never stop being a TV series. Andrew Levine (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Malc82 see Is NOT was above for more on this. It is very much still a TV series. It was a currently airing HBO drama but IS still a TV series even if it is not currently airing. With regard to the starring cast I'll get that done today with this small consensus.--Opark 77 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I miscounted there were actually only 22.--Opark 77 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I misunderstood what I was voting on. I meant the other way around. Andrew Levine (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

J.D. Williams. who plays Bodie also played Kenny Wangler in OZ. In the scene where he first meets Cutty Cutty asks him how his brother Kenny is doing. Which Bodie answers Kenny's been dead. It's kinda thin but I think it was David Simon making an in-joke by connecting the two HBO series (the two characters have different names but they could have different fathers especially considering neither of them have any contact with their fathers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weonk (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Richard Belzer had an uncredited cameo as John Munch. Other than that the wire didn't have any crossovers I never caught that about Bodie's dead brother Kenny,while interesting, stating that Kenny and Bodie were brothers would amount to speculation. It is safe to say that The Wire and Oz definitely did NOT share the same fictional universe. Too many Oz actors (many with dead characters) appeared on The Wire. JeffStickney (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bodie's brother was named James. Not Kenny.--Opark 77 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On "Realism"

I can appreciate that The Wire does not idolize police forces as some other media does, but its portrayal is still significantly sanitized. Reading the article, it's easy to get the impression that little or no whitewashing of United States law enforcement occurs in this series.

The first three episodes of the series show police brutality, institutionalized apathy, racism, department cover-ups, and a stifling bureaucracy. What do you feel is whitewashed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.43.221 (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No page for Melvin Williams

I posted this in Wikipedia:Requests for expansion

• Moral Midgetry: The link for Melvin Williams, who plays the Deacon on The Wire (TV series), points to the wrong person. The Melvin Williams who plays the Deacon in the Wire is not an Vice Admiral in the Navy. He's actually a real life notorious gangster, aka Little Melvin, whose story is the basis for many of the characters and scenes in the Wire. I'm surprised there's no page for him. Here is just one story from 2003 about when he was released from prison. Many more sources are available from a simple google search. Kire1975 (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Themes section sucks

These sections are almost always terrible on wikipedia, so this one isn't alone. Why is this section even necessary? The description of the show, along with the origins section should be more than enough. The writing in this secion resembles criticism/fancruft/review and is almost always non neutral and non encyclopedic. It should probably just be nuked. SpencerThiel (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Everything in the themes section is referenced to secondary sources or interviews with the creators of the series. The section is necessary to provide a comprehensive examination of the articles subject.--Opark 77 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters from "Homicide - Life on the street" appearing on The Wire

Does anyone have a list of characters that had appeared on both shows? While watching reruns of Homicide - Life on the Street, I have seen at least 4 characters from that show appear as characters on the Wire. I can list them here if needed, but I was hoping someone had that info... Michael.Urban (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are many ACTORS who have appeared on both shows but with different roles. Clark Johnson, who starred as Meldrick Lewis on Homicide, played Gus Hayes on The Wire. Clayton LeBouef Col. Barnfather on Homicide played Wendell 'Orlando' Blocker on season 1 of The Wire. Gary D'Addario (the real life inspiration for Giardello) played a SWAT commander on Homicide, and a corrupt clerk-of-court on The Wire. Al Brown, who played Valchek on The Wire had a small part on Homicide as a county police officer who kept Munch from opening the bar because of back taxes against the license. Jim True-Frost who played Prez on The Wire played a civilian George Buxton on Homicide (credited as Jim True). I think the only CHARACTER who appeared on both was Munch. Richard Belzer had a cameo in a bar scene in season 5 of The Wire, and mentioned that "I used to own a bar". His name was never mentioned during that cameo, but it was mentioned later in an interview that it was Munch. JeffStickney (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For a comprehensive list see The Wire wikia [7]--Opark 77 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about references

I understand that referencing is the core of Wikipedia articles, but I think it's a little bit out of control here. Look at the season summaries, especially for 4 and 5.

I'm not so much questioning the need to reference, but I'm just making the simple point that at first glance it looks like a mess. The content is great, but it doesn't look good. It's like a site with "busy" design.. animated gifs, flash, etc. that is just plain distracting. I imagine new users would be turned off.

Now for where I may be attacked.. but is it really necessary to reference basic points on a television show? When is it necessary to reference the episode itself and/or the episode guide on HBO?

Take the murder of Bodie. Many thought it was Michael Lee, and it was question of debate. No problem, link to HBO's guide to show it was O-Dog.

What about the drug bust of Marlo's shipment in season five? There are five footnotes for that.. to episodes and the HBO episode guide. What does this add to the article? Is anyone going to question that it happened?

If you're going to reference that, what else needs to be referenced? If in an article you say Marlo is African-American, does there need to be footnotes to HBO's profile of Marlo, all the episodes Marlo appeared in, etc.?

Sorry if this is covering basic Wikipedia points. I just don't agree with it, and back to my original point, it doesn't look good. Thank You

I agree with this sentiment somewhat. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines says that "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. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." Now, this being a FA, are we holding it to a higher standard or something? Because, if not, I think it would be better to remove all these citations in the plot summary seeing as they are not required. It would make the references section clearer, and would probably significantly reduce the file size of the article, which is rather massive. thebogusman (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Just curious, what's a FA? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FA is a featured article. Overall I agree with the general consensus of this thread. There is another case I can think of where footnotes to episodes would still be appropriate. In a character article, if there is a fact that was only revealed in one episode, a footnote may be appropriate. Examples that come to mind are O-Dog's and Bug's real names, Character's ages (Michael's birthday was given in one episode), Johnny's last name, etc. JeffStickney (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff- Thanks for the reply. I agree with what your examples. it's difficult to pinpoint a specific guideline on where it makes sense to reference and where it's extraneous, but I know when I see it. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated below I think plot should be referenced like anything else and should not be given a more lax standard of referencing. If I'm wrong then point me to a guideline. If consensus is against this then I'm not going to fight to keep the references in the plot section. Maybe we should go for FAR (Featured Article Review) to determine what needs to be done to improve the article?--Opark 77 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of over-referencing. Here are just some, from five consecutive sentences:

• These investigators were overseen by two commanding officers more concerned with politics and their own careers than the case, Major William Rawls (John Doman) and Deputy Commissioner Ervin Burrell (Frankie Faison).[65][66][67][68] No need for four (four!) citations.
• Assistant state's attorney Rhonda Pearlman (Deirdre Lovejoy) acted as the legal liaison between the detail and the courthouse and also had a casual relationship with McNulty.[69][70] No need for two citations.
• In the homicide division, Bunk Moreland (Wendell Pierce) was a gifted, dry-witted detective partnered with McNulty under Sergeant Jay Landsman (Delaney Williams), the jovial squad commander.[71][72][73][13] Again, four citations is clearly overkill.
• Peter Gerety had a recurring role as Judge Phelan, the official who started the case moving.[58] Wow, a sentence with a single citation!
• On the other side of the investigation was Avon Barksdale's drug empire. The driven, ruthless Barksdale (Wood Harris) was aided by business-minded Stringer Bell (Idris Elba).[74][75][76][77] Again, four (four!) citations.

In fact, all of the above (the casting for season one) could no doubt be covered by a single footnote. Yet there are at present 15 in five sentences. That's out of control! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What single footnote would be preferable?--Opark 77 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

We need to seriously edit out the spoilers from some of the top of these Wire articles. Every character has how they left the series in their infobox, and there are spoilers without warning elsewhere. I found out what happened to Stringer when I looked him at as I was starting season two and it seriously ruined season 3 for me. We should remove all spoilers from infoboxes and precontents introductions. 93.97.89.55 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is not to concern itself with spoilers. See Wikipedia:Spoiler If you want to avoid seeing information on a subject, an encyclopedia page about the subject is a bad place to go. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point that we shouldn't remove spoilers from the main article, and I accept it is (now) wikipedia policy not to put spoiler warnings in. But the consensus on the spoiler page seems to be that you should put such details under headings such as "Plot" where people could foresee spoilers happening. I am an experience wikipedia user and I only wanted to look up a character to remind myself who he was briefly, and I didn't expect to see "murdered" so obviously at the top of the page. Surely, there is some common compromise we can find here in order to both include the information, and to give people fair warning? 93.97.89.55 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Wire: The Chronicles"?

Came across this short series on IMDb [8]. Same writer, same characters, yet no mention of this in either the main article or the list of episodes. What exactly is this? A collection of specials? I reckon it deserves mention in the article at the very least. -- MiG (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They are very short prequels that were available on various sites when the fifth season comes out. You can access them now at Amazon.com. Just look at a Wire DVD there and links to them will be under the product.

While entertaining, it's really not very insightful into the characters or show overall. Mostly just a promotional thing --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Season List

I think it's a good idea, but perhaps we should start with pages on the seasons.

over-referenced

This article is horribly over-referenced. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Citing every sentence in a plot summary to the episode is ridiculous. It is getting to the point of not being FA anymore imo, as it is not passing brilliant prose. It also seems very long, with 55 Kb readable prose, cf. 40 Kb when it was promoted. Something should be spun of and summarised, or the plot summaries shortened, or something done to make reading this less of a chore.Yobmod (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the primary sources (namely the HBO episode guides) need to go. I know that the Baltimore Sun and Slate did critical analysis for every episode, along with discussion about the production details etc. That might be a good place to start to jettison the HBO refs. east718 // talk // email // 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should the HBO sources in the plot section go? I'm not clear why it is not desirable to reference plot as we reference everything. I think the article is reasonably well referenced at present but welcome any input about areas where we should cut back to improve the article.--Opark 77 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is over-referenced. "His scheme achieves his aims and reduces crime in his district,[188][189] but is eventually exposed to his superiors and city politicians,[190][191][192][193] including Carcetti,[194][195] who uses the scandal to make a grandstanding speech.[196][197]" is but one distressing example of unreadable prose. The irony is that the summaries are well-composed and informative, but reading them becomes extremely grueling when each sentence carries multiple references. There were about 12-14 episodes in each season...I'd suggest not more than 15-20 references in each season summary would be sufficient. At the least, it would be an improvement to restrict references to the end of each paragraph and drastically curtail their volume. --Venicemenace (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that all the HBO web site pages related to the series are no longer available and so are totally useless as references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.150 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What? The HBO pages for the show are still up - [9] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of 5th season

In the summary here, it says that Carcetti was elected governor - I thought he just won the democratic primary to enter the race as democratic candidate? Pexise (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the season ending montage, they showed him as winning the Governor race. See 2nd to last paragraph here. [10] --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing References

Regarding the earlier discussion Talk:The_Wire#Question_about_references and Talk:The_Wire#over-referenced, I plan on doing a mass removal of the references of plot summtaries per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#Plot_section:

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. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources.

This page's load time is completely unacceptable and the guideline clearly states that these refs are not necessary. However, since it is such a big change to a good article, I will wait to see if anyone objects. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For such a big change, it's probably best to receive some support consensus rather than just seeing if anyone objects. So does anyone support? I know there has been talk of doing this before, but that was a while ago. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk)

Definitely support, citations on this page are ri-DIC-ulous.98.194.105.109 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely support, and will help in removing references. I'm assuming most if not all references that lead to the HBO website for episode guides or character pages would be the ones to go? And since the HBO website was updated, the direct links don't actually lead to the specific pages anymore. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Drovethrughosts. I was careful, but someone may want to check that I only removed refs.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job! The page loads fine now. I believe it was 150kb before, now it's down to 97kb. Drovethrughosts (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)