Talk:The Sopranos/Archive 1

message: Enjoy. Andrew Levine 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: What is meant by "The timeframe is not accurate however more approximate judging on weather, media and climate."
What does the climate and weather have to do with how long a season last and when it is aired?
*What it means is that we don't exactly know what year it is until they tell it which is why you look what season it is:
Here's how I broke up the time difference between the seasons
*Season 1: 1999, introduction year.
*Season 2: 2000, a year after last season's events
*Season 3: 2000-2001 Seeing Meadow graduated in June of 2000, and returns to college in September when the FBI plans their surveillance it would make sense.  ...To Save Us All From Satan's Power is a Christmas-themed episode which would be Christmas of 2000. The following episode Pine Barrens would take place around January 2001 since it was winter. 
*Season 4: 2001-2002: Season 4 is probably the hardest because there is no mention of a year. We assume it begins in fall of 2001 since Uncle Junior's trial starts in October. And there is really no winter so it jumps a few months into '02. 
*Season 5: 2004: takes place two years after Tony and Carm's separation. Season 5 seems to jump a lot of the seasons: with a few episodes being in the spring, summer, fall and finally the winter (in the season finale).
*Season 6: 2006: According to producers, Season 6 takes place two years after the death of Adriana and arrest of Johnny Sack.Sfufan2005 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe? 

message: But paulie also says he "loved big paulie as a brother". The term "loved" is used as a symbol of terrible loss if anything, not an indicator of "tony's best friend." I agree that it is Artie Bucco as he is the only character who makes a major mistake (loaning $50k and losing it) who is not family and is not punished.Ryan Matthews 18:03 December 12
There is no "best friend" scenario in the mind of Tony Soprano. If anyone could be called his friend it should be Dr.Melfi, she listens to his problems, offers her advice and asks for nothing (nor offers)in return. Artie may have the distinction of being Tonys longest non mobbed up associate but once he tried to be involved in the game he lost the role of friend.--Jasklo 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Pussy

message: I propose to move the recurring characters to their own article since they are taking up way too much room on the main page. I was thinking of what the users on the Lost page, there are series regulars on the main page with just their name:
e.g.
*James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano
*Lorraine Bracco as Dr. Melfi etc.
And on the characters page which is already in existence, we have the full list of characters with their linking page and for those characters who do not have a page, they receive a summary on the Characters page. If you don't understand me just check out Characters of Lost for more information. I just wanted to alert everyone before I started cleaning up the article. Sfufan2005 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major characters vs. Recurring characters

message: Anyone reading this entry in order will not appreciate the mention and analysis of multiple parodies of the title theme appearing so early in the article.  (this is a wikipedia tendency to come accross references to, say, the simpsons in some place where they really aren't of much use).  Anyone agree?  I'd like to just remove it but maybe someone wants to move it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.246.230 (talk • contribs) 
::I agree with you, I'll move the second half of the Title sequence section to the Praise/Criticism section. Sfufan2005 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parodies

message: This section has gotten extremely long. I am planning on reducing it to just KEY events (maybe 10-15 per season). I would like to move what's there right now to a new subarticle, called The Sopranos timeline. That way, people who just want a quick recap (not every single detail) of what happened in past seasons, can just skim through a section in the main article. Thoughts? --W.marsh 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A short synopsis for each season would be nice on this page with a Timeline on a separate page like you said. I have to admit it is becoming quite long since several bullets come from one episode alone. I'm for whatever you present to us. Sfufan2005 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I have the time to totally rewrite as a synopsis, but I am currently working on weeding out some of the more mundane points (Tony gets food poisoning, Meadow throws a party, etc.) and getting it to just things of central importance to the season/series. The section was actually 44k in size, over half the size of the article. Anyway hopefully once its reduced to the key points of each season, someone can rewrite that in prose. --W.marsh 22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do move it to a separate article (which I think is a good idea) please don't edit information out of it. I think a separate article with a detailed timeline is a great idea, especially since minor events often take on greater meaning in subsequent episodes. It would be great if the timelines of the earlier seasons were as detailed as seasons five and six. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, I propose to preserve all of the existing content, just as a subarticle. I think it's the best comprimise. People will also be able to add to that article in greater detail if they want. --W.marsh 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of a synopsis more like this, don't worry if you don't have the time... I'll try to help out the best I could since I'm spending a lot of time on the episode articles. Sfufan2005 22:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable plots and timeline 

message: This was in the criticism section of the article:
Other criticisms (pointed out by journalist Eli Evans) include that the show has become formulaic with characters placed as foils for Tony Soprano, following the formula of the character being introduced at the beginning of the season, disobeying Tony repeatedly throughout their run on the show, then eventually getting killed (or targeted) for their insubordination, usually towards the end of the season. The major examples of this are Mikey Palmice in Season One, Richie Aprile in Season Two, Jackie, Jr. in Season Three, Ralph Cifaretto in Seasons Three and Four, and Tony Blundetto in Season Five.
I think it's a very valid point, but it really feels like independent reporting or editorializing.  The only citation is the name-dropping of "journalist Eli Evan", with no indication of who this is or where/when the opinion was published.  If a notable journalist (or cluster of lesser-knowns) have published this in their review of later seasons, by all means cite the sources and re-instert this bit of information. --72.224.150.233 04:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Criticism 

message: I need to do some checking on this, and once I do, I will make some changes in The Godfather section, but I am certain that, on a number of occasions, when Silvio is doing his Al Pacino impression, he actually mangles the quotations.  This has to have been done on purpose by the writers, and I think it's hilarious! --Charles 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quoting The Godfather

message: I like this new title, it is more fitting.  However, the content of the section is now being expanded to encompass an overall sense of the perceived ineptitude or buffoonishness of the mobsters in general.  This is not in keeping with the title "malapropisms," which refers specifically to the problem of mispronouncing words, misunderstanding their meanings, and/or using the word(s) incorrectly. --Charles 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in the content but someone changed the title.  When you really think about it, much of the popularity and humor of the show is based on the stupidity of the mobsters.  I think the title of this section will evolve over time, but its a good start.  There is a lot of bathroom humor but we don't want to go there yet.  Lgreen 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a relevant and interesting section. However, we could do with some references to support it or it's our original research. Also is it really symbolism? I always take symbolism as a visual thing where part of an image refers to something other than what it shows. Malapropisms are symbolic of the mobsters lack of education - I understand that - but I still think that as they're a dialogue/writing conceit they belong outside of symbolism. Certainly a section detailing the ineptitude of the mobsters is not symbolic of anything. Some of the stuff to do with the Godfather and Goodfellas is also not really symbolism - the death's are but the cast links (which I admit to adding a lot of) are more of a genre link than any kind of symbolism..  --Opark 77 08:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think everything was just put in "symbolism" because its the biggest subcategory here.  Much of it is relevant but cannot formally be defined as symbolism; probably should have their own categories.  Lgreen 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malapropisms

message: Hi.  Does anyone knows about the troubles that led to production of the show being suspended in 2003 (Season 4 ends in 2002, but Season 5 premieres only in 2004...)?  I remember something about the show almost being cancelled, and that the source of the problem was (allegedly) James Gandolfini (maybe something about his salary?).  I was surprised to see that there's no mention to it in the main article, and that really catches the eye when you're reading the episode list: you see that odd gap in production and naturally turn to the main article for an explanation... but there's none. Regards, Redux 22:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Added March 2006 premiere (with 12 eps) in addition to the final 8 eps airing in January '07. Sfufan2005 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gap in Production

message: In the section regarding season one it reads "Meadow and Hunter try to score Crystal Meth from Brendan and Chris in order to stay up late and study for their exams."
Although I am not an expert I am quite sure that some students use Crystal Meth (Speed) for the sake of recalling memorized facts better during exams, and not to be able to stay up longer.
Any opinions on this?
:You are definetly not an expert.  Meth will not improve your memeory.  Trust me, I'm an addict.  C-Meth will keep you awake for days, and the last think you will care about (in most cases) is an exam.  Especially when you're dealing with someone who does not have a tollerance.  They will tweak like mad, and enjoy it so much, they won't be able to ground themselves enough to study.  Only a functioning addict could attempt to study for a test. —This unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs) .
:I'm pretty sure they were just after amphetamine, not methamphetamine.  a short term effect of amphetamine is that it increases your concentration, similar to ADHD medication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.99.79 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal Meth and learning

message: My contribution to wikipedia, when I get around to it, will be to generally update entires (sic) on brain science to reflect newer, ascendant theories incorporating non-linear dynamics and notions of embodiment.  (in case you don't get it, I'm freakin smart a'ight?!) So, I feel at least potentially justified in asking why it is that the sopranos, which is probably the most ambitious, most subtle piece of drama ever to appear on TV in any country during my lifetime, receives such a tiny entry when compared to the ridiculous star trek. Bear in mind - I've been watching star trek since I was very young. I love it. But, it does not merit extensive coverage; it makes only very rudimentary points about, well, anything interesting before it retreats into simple wish fulfilment and fantasy. 
Might it be a worry that wikipedia in general somehow makes a correlative retreat? 
I'd be keen to open a discussion about that, and mechanism to remedy the problem. 
C dot M dot REVELEY ===?AT?=== SUSSEX dot AC dot UK
The amount of mention that each topic merits on WP is a matter of opinion, and WP does not make it its policy to opine on such things.  Rather, advocates of either property should simply contribute material that they feel is appropriate.  If you feel The Sopranos is missing info that you could add to it, then do so.  It is a non-sequitur, however, to argue that the validity of its content should be judged solely by comparing it to Star Trek.  Like it or not, Trek has been a cultural phenonmenon for almost 40 years, and because its canonical output alone includes six television series and ten feature films, it is natural that it will have more extensive coverage than a TV show that's only been on for several years.  Since it probably has more worlwide fans of several generations, it is understandable that more Wikipedians will have an interest in contributing to its articles, which is what determines their extent. Not one individual's opinions of which is more "ambitious" or "subtle" or marked by "wish fulfiment" (unless there's a WP policy that I've missed. :-))Nightscream 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sopranos v star trek

message: Just to make things clear: John Patterson directed the fourth season finale episode "Whitecaps" so whoever continues to change that is wrong. Sfufan2005 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia- Whitecaps

message: Currently says "Associate in Ralphie's crew, Christopher's friend and partner in crime" for Jackie Jr. Here's Jackie Jr's story arc: Jackie wants to be in mafia, Jackie dates Meadow, Tony doesn't want Jackie in Mafia, Jackie breaks up with mafia, Jackie leads poker-game heist, Jackie is wacked. Look at the Jackie Aprile, Jr. wikipedia entry. He's not an accoiciate with Ralph, Ralph is merely giving him bad ideas (and that's just Ralph pretending to be a father).  I definately wouldn't call him Chris' "friend and partner in crime." How about something along the lines of, "Son of former boss, had brief relationship with Meadow Soprano, desperate to make name for himself in the mafia." - Tim 06:54, Jan. 18, 2006 
: He actually in one episode he acts as a driver for chris in a robber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:: Still doesn't make him "friend and partner in crime." Chris used him to drive once. It's also not the most important thing about the Jackie Jr. character. The most important thing about him is 1. his relationship with Meadow and 2. his desire to follow in his father's footsteps. Tim 02:35, March 18, 2006
:::There's another scene from the pizza joint, where Chris and Jackie discuss business and Chris tells Jackie that Tony has no business telling him how to make a living. As far as being in Ralph's crew, you do see Jackie and Dino kick up to Ralphie and they ask him to watch their backs, so I would consider them associates. --M vopni 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackie Jr

message: Every time I try to fix one minor bit of wording, it seems the bottom half of the page gets blanked, and now even trying to restore prior versions isn't working.  This is an aspect of WP that I admit I'm kinda in the dark about, so I'm sorry about that.  If anyone else knows how to fix this, please go ahead and do so; I think I'll stay away from this article for now. :-( Nightscream 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies for the Accidental Blanking

message: How large is the dimeo crime family.
: They don't exactly say. Do you mean just made men or including associates?  Considering that there are 5 crews in the family and each crew has around 5-8 made guys in it, I say the total number is probably in the 30's plus another 40 associates. 
: To compare, Tony says in Season 6 that Phil has 200 soldiers in his family and it is one reason why he doesn't want to start a war. This would imply that NJ has far less members and would lose the battle on strength in numbers. --M vopni 19:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with some of this. The show gives us an in depth look into two crews in the family - Tony's old crew and the Aprile crew - and a close look at Junior's crew. In Tony's crew the most made guys at a time was 7 - Pussy, Sil, Tony, Paulie, Chris, GiGi and Patsy. In the Aprile crew GiGi, Ralphie, Vito and Gene made 4 at a time. Junior's crew once contained Junior, Mikey, Chucky, Beppy, Murf, Bobby, Bobby Sr., GiGi, Patsy and Philly - 10 guys. I think 60 made  guys is an absolute maximum in the shows timeline and today with so many killed and so few new made men it's probably dwindled to around 40. The number of active associates in a crew is probably at it's highest right now - Chris' crew has Benny, Little Paulie, Murmur, Bissel, Cary DiBartolo,  Perry, Corky Caporale and possibly Frankie Cortese just 8 associates. I think 100 guys is a maximum if we're feeling optimistic back in the family's early days. I'd guesstimate somewhere closer to 2-3 made guys per crew and half a dozen associates, around 50 total family members in 2006. --Opark 77 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimeo crime family

message: Tony styles himself as a father figure towards Chris. However Tony clearly is to young to be chris's father, what is their age difference?
*Well, Christopher is Carmela's second-cousin and Tony thinks of him as a "nephew" since they were always close like a "father and son". If Tony was born in 1959, he would be 47 in 2006 and since we don't know Christopher's age I'll use Michael Imperioli's age (40) as an example. So Tony would be about 7 years older. Other examples are that TOny and Tony B. went up to Uncle Pat's farm when they were about 18 and Chris was around 11 or 12. Sfufan2005 02:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chris and Tony

message: Who is the boss of the family? 
Tony, Mr. Dimeo, or Junior?
*The boss in name is Uncle Junior. Dominic DiMeo was charged with a life sentence in 1995 and therefore loses his privledges as mob boss. Jackie Aprile was acting boss until his death in '99. Tony nominated Junior who took the role. However after the attempt on Tony's life (end of Season 1), Tony took away everything from Junior except his title. So Tony technically is considered the "street boss". Sfufan2005 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much farther apart do you want them to be? Junior is 75 and Tony is 47. I say around 30 years is enough --M vopni 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information see DiMeo Crime Family --Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boss of the family

message: Who owns the Bada Bing? Tony or Silvio?  
Most mobsters operate legitament bussiness or go through the motions of holding a regular job. They sometimes do this to advance money laundering.  They also do this to give themselves a err of respectability. Whats Jobs/ bussiness' do the sopranos use as cover?
::Silvio and his wife own the Bada Bing. Tony owns a percentage of Barone Sanitation, The Casino in Kearny (joint between NY & NJ), Satriale's Meat Market and the Stugots I & II. Sfufan2005 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: finance

message: Besides his on going arrest has uncle junior or toneys father spent long periods in prison? 
*Please discuss on Junior Soprano--Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Juniors history

message: Who was the first person Tony ever killed? 
*Please discuss on Tony Soprano--Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's history

message: If Tony dies from juniors shooting him (which is unlikely) who would likely take over as boss?
::I think Paulie would, since he is the Underboss and Junior is incompetent. Sfufan2005 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This encyclopedia is not the best place for speculative discussion try HBO.com, imdb.com or televisionwithoutpity.com - all have active Sopranos message boards. --Opark 77 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's succesor

message: I take issue with the summary points for Epidsode 2 from Season 6 where it states that Christopher "is" an informant for the FBI. Just because there was one scene where he discussed Tony's condition in the Deli it doesn't verify that Chris is indeed a sell-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.208.60 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi. Are you referring to this?
::Eugene Pontecorvo, a Soprano family soldier who became a made man in the same ceremony as Christopher, is revealed to be an FBI informant
:That is saying that Pontecorvo is an informant, not Christopher... and that's correct information, right? I couldn't find anything else on the page about Chris being an informant. If it is actually there, please fix it, or let me know which passage you're referring to so I can. Thanks. --W.marsh 00:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6; Episode 2: Chris an "informant"? 

message: I don't know if it's worth mentioning or not, partly because it cannot be confirmed, but the entry does include a section on the show's momentary adaptations of murder's portrayed in classic gangster films.  I believe Vito's murder was a reference to "Casino," in which Joe Pesci, playing the role of "Nicky Santoro" (who portrayed notorious gangster, Tony Spiloltro), meets the same fate; he's beaten death in the presence of actor John Vincent, playing Santoro's former right hand man.  Anyone think that's worth mentioning?
:Yeah I think that's worth an entry, although these should all really be referenced with someone else noticing the connection otherwise it's original research. The actor is Frank Vincent (not John). Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) --Opark 77 07:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vito's murder

message: Anyone have any strong feelings about keeping the external links to the French, German and Spanish fansites?  What purpose does this serve on the English Wikipedia? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - spam? 

message: I'm going to either way, this show is EXTREMELY VIOLENT
:Please sign your posts on talk pages using 4 tildes (~). We could mention the graphic nature of the show if we have a reference from a reputable source that talks about it. --Opark 77 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, aside from a little blood, I would not say that there is HIGH GRAPHIC CONTENT.  Agree that there is some...and a lot of swearing.  Lgreen 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we talk about it's HIGH GRAPHIC CONTENT? 

message: It seems to me that Funerals are a key device used in this series.  What do you all think of adding in a "Funerals" section to this page and/or a "Funerals" section to each episode.  I know there is a "deceased" section for each episode, but sometimes the funeral shows someone who passed away outside of the direct events.  Lgreen 18:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure if it needs a section in the episode guides. Have you found any external sources that discuss funerals on the show? --Opark 77 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funerals?

message: This article contains a wealth of information and could be very useful. At the moment I think it lacks enough citations, several important sections are underdeveloped or absent and there is far too much original research and speculation. To compare it to the suggested sections in the wikiproject television guidelines:
#Articlename - present and correct
#Infobox - present and correct
#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; Channel of first and current airing - HBO; Production companies - HBO; Principal characters; Influence; Place in popular culture; Major Awards; Spin-offs; Music or Theme; The introduction seems a bit long at the moment and some of the information might be better off elsewhere.
#Characters - lower down but present, should be altered to prose from list format 
#Plot and Episode listing - There is no plot synopsis on the main page beyond the overview. I know that there are extensive episode guides and a timeline but the article would benefit from having a succint 1 or 2 paragraphs per season synopsis.
#Impact of show on society - this is mentioned in the introduction and perhaps the awards section should be included here
#Critical reviews - criticism and praise section
#Production notes - perhaps casting, pre-production and locations should be moved here from trivia
#External links - present and correct
#Categories
Sections not included in the guidleine but present in the article include:
*Title sequence
*Symbolism
*Social commentary
*Depiction of brands
*Video games
*Life imitating art
*Trivia
Could we work on coming up with a guideline for structure to marry the current state of the article to something closer to featured TV articles like Arrested Development, Dawson's Creek and good articles like Lost?--Opark 77 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken article 

message: In concert with my above question about restructuring, I think the trivia section is too long for the main page. There are several points that I think could be moved out of trivia. As I said above some of the sections are about production and would be suitable for production notes. Sections about individual characters are better placed on their character pages. Finally I think that the long section on deaths on the show might be better place on the List of deaths on The Sopranos article. Any thoughts?--Opark 77 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've acted on these suggestions since they were not met with any opposition. Should have just been bold I suppose.--Opark 77 08:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: In the first episode of season two ('Guy Walks Into a Psychiatrists Office...')Silvio does another Al Pacino impression. After the traditional "just when I though I was out", he does the scene where Michael's hysterical wife was asking him if he'd had the brother-in-law murdered ("Just this once, I'll allow you to ask me about the business"(sic.), etc.). He was just doing it at Pussy's request, Pussy just having returned after going on the lamb at the end of season one and it was pretty funny (especially the part where he does the wife). In the same scene, he also says "our true enemy is yet to reveal himself" and straight afterwards it cuts to Pussy for the briefest of seconds. I'm sure there's more Goodfellas/Godfather references that aren't mentioned but that's my favourite Silvio impression and I felt it deserved a mention. Oh, and in seaon one ('A Hit Is A Hit') one of the 'gangsta' rappers calls Chris 'Donnie Brasco'.Godforce 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Godfather reference 

message: In regard to the statement: 
"...Dr. Melfi once remarks that she enjoyed the movie "Prince of Tides" and Tony shows up at his next appointment brandishing a gaudily wrapped bottle of "Tide", a detergent; both a hilarious misunderstanding and a product placement..."
Tony did not give Dr. Melfi the Prince of Tide gift basket in person. It was delivered with a card saying it was from the "Prince of Tide". It was clearly intended as a pun and. Dr. Melfi recognized it as such. I proposed the quoted statement be deleted.Albany1976 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Correction to Malapropisms Section of Sopranos Article 

message: This article contains a lot of trivia does most of it belong in an encyclopedia? Aaron Bowen 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no. Aaron Bowen 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No.--Opark 77 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to get into a big dispute over this, how should I go about deleting alot of it? Aaron Bowen 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? Aaron Bowen 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to reduce the trivia section itself as much as possible by moving info out into episode/character entries. For the sections that have been tagged as inappropriate for a long time you can just delete them; editors who wanted to keep them have had plenty of time to improve them. If you think something is inappropriate tag it as such, wait to see if it is fixed and then delete.--Opark 77 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, I'll try to do that, as per WP:BOLD. Aaron Bowen 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Article looks better now, still needs work though. Aaron Bowen 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: In the lead it says the show's "groundbreaking view" this show is great and I love it but it's not groundbreaking. The show's creator openly admits to borrowing heavily from the Godfather and Goodfellas, so I don't consider it groundbreaking. The show reminds me so much of Goodfellas at times I wonder if Scorsese is directing it.
I run into the same problem here that I run into when discussing The Wire people always says The Wire is "so complex" it's a tremendous show but I've watched it once through on DVD rentals and never felt the need to rewind it or had trouble following it, hey it's not differential calculus. In both cases I think it amounts to fancruft and overhyping of what are already great shows and don't need them. Aaron Bowen 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundbreaking? 

message: Really? No free image of David Chase? C'mon, people! If someone out there has taken a photograph of the old geezer, please donate it or at least upload it to flickr or something.–FunkyVoltron talk 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Chase image 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: (re 23:15, 9 March 2008 edit) Patrolling recent changes I noticed 69.232.234.143 has judged the Sopranos cover of Vanity Fair as "very inappropriate."  Since "The Sopranos" has adult content, and "Vanity Fair" is sold on news stands, this seems a strange value judgement, but I'll leave it to those who have an investment in this page to handle this as they see fit. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i've reverted. wp isn't censored. people however, are weird. Anastrophe (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Anastrophe. NOTE: Not that it matters :), but looking at the enlarged photo of the cover, I see the woman isn't nude (unlike Demi Moore in two Vanity Fair covers in Wikipedia) e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vanity_Fair_August_1991.JPG :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, i noticed that too. on the flip side though, the actual image is really dancing at the edges of qualifying as "low resolution" per the fair-use rationale. might be trouble at some point, but for now....Anastrophe (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE: 69.232.234.143 deletes the Vanity Fair cover photo as "very inappropriate" 

message: Thought I'd put it here, but on the entries for individual episodes somebody has put sections for 'references to future episodes'.  This seems somewhat bizarre and unecessary.  It's also a bit spoiler-ish, although I know we're not supposed to consider that for Wikipedia.  Surely it would be better to have 'References to previous episodes', since I don't imagine that the writers were deliberately referencing things they were going to write in later seasons, but I imagine they were later referring back to thing they had previously written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to future episodes? 

message: Might be worth a mention that the very final scene of “The Blue Comet" where Tony lays down on the bare mattress could be a literal reference to the phrase “going to the mattresses” of godfather fame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaX (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and allusions, go to the mattresses 

message: This entire section and its sub-parts are uncited. Parts of it basically an amateur interpretation of the significance of character behavior and events, with no academic backing whatsoever. 
Ex: Tony, having virtually abandoned his new philosophy, considers killing several of his associates for relatively minor infractions.
This is open to interpretation, to put it mildly; Tony does not seem to have abandoned his new philosophy completely, on the contrary, his Mescaline experience alone is utterly inconsistent with this idea, that and also the argument that Tony isn't a guy who overlooks any of his options at any point as boss. 
The only associate Tony actually kills is Christopher, this being an impulsive decision. In "Remember When" he glances at the knife on the boat several times as the camera demonstrates, but this does not defacto indicate consideration to kill, only his anger at Paulie's betrayal of Ralph to JS. Additionally, the argument for Bobby can be made, but the evidence here is also scarce to nonexistent. 
This type of problem needs to be fully-addressed in order to allow for a more balanced description of the series' plot.
Kst447 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in season summaries 

message: I remember once at a hotel browsing through the channels, I saw Sopranos, but it was not HBO, I can't remember what it was now.Xbox999 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has. Edited versions are broadcoast on A&E.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine how many things they have to edit out for A&E.  Maybe should list it on the main page, it is some useful information.Xbox999 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the language is toned down and the stripper scenes are replaced with them wearing bathing suits. And some of the violence is edited. I know there were a number of reviews talking about it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the sex scenes, I know there are alot with Tony in it, they have to edit them out completely, because they can't refilm those. Xbox999 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I haven't watched the show in a while, and I've never watched the A&E version, but I figure unless they show explicit nudity (and I know they have at times) it shouldn't be too much of a problem. From what I heard, the language is what gets edited the most. The violence is still there, just not as much. (For example, you saw someone got shot and the blood splatter but you don't see brains sliding down the wall) I did a search to see if there's a site that chronicles all the changes but nothing yet.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're responding to a sockpuppet who is trying to obfuscate an outstanding SSP case against them. You probably don't need to worry about any further queries from this user. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sopranos ever been re-aired on a network other than HBO? 

message: I'm not quite sure what the standard practice is, but would it be acceptable to use just one citation each, both from the appropriate areas of the official HBO website, to cite the character and plot sections? I'd like to have both sections properly cited, but I personally don't have the patience to tack on a citation from each individual character profile and each individual episode summary; for the plot summary especially this would be really tedious and in some instances unfeasible for multi-episode arcs. What I'm suggesting is that we cite http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/cast/ for the characters section and http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/episode/index.shtml for the plot summary. Is this cool? I won't make any changes until there is some kind of consensus or authority on the matter. thebogusman (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:TV style guidelines say, "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." So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags calling for citations in the plot summary section. Hopefully no one has a problem with this, but since no one responded to my original message I'm doubting anyone will. thebogusman (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for characters/plot synopsis 

message: Appart from the hints in the ending (with more that one person wants to kill him in the restaurant) Chase has given an interview were he says "This wasn't really about leaving the door open. There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view — a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter. " but goes on to say, "There had been indications of what the end is like. Remember when Jerry Toricano was killed? Silvio was not aware that the gun had been fired until after Jerry was on his way down to the floor. That's the way things happen: It's already going on by the time you even notice it." From this I believe it is clear that, "trend on view" is that (like Jerry Toricano) Tony will be killed, before he even notices it.  
From reading the synopsis of the final season on this page as it stands you'd think that it all ended happily and peacefully.--Timtak (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ending Again 

message: See Talk:The Sopranos/to do - I would imagine that since this To do list was last edited in November 2007 - it is probably no longer accurate or reflects the article itself and should probably be changed/updated. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list at the top of the talk page 

message: Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance and not a genre so it be incorrect to say its a drama as all t.v programs are drama. So what is the genre of the Sopranos? Pro66 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre is drama? 

message: A link to the phrase "that movie", regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, goes to the article on the film Thirteen Days, but I think Christopher could have been referring to the 1974 TV movie The Missiles of October, which was shown in some high school social science classes in the 70's and 80's (and maybe later) -- when Christopher certainly could have seen it.  But being the movie fan he is, he no doubt would have seen the Kevin Costner movie, too -- so he coulda meant either.
BRumbles207.19.143.2 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pine Barrens episode -- Christopher's "that movie" comment 

message: We need some information about the ratings.
--IceHunter (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Here are the ratings for the first five season premieres and finales: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/03/the_comeback.html. I think that's helpful.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And here are the ratings for the first four episodes of season six.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: ===Season 2===
"...and Tony realizes he is an FBI informant. Tony, Silvio Dante, and Paulie Walnuts kill Big Pussy on a boat then wrap him up in chains and throw him overboard."
:This sentence is introduced too early.  It should be held until the end of the next paragraph.  Introduced as early as it is, it causes chronological confusion for the reader when Big Pussy suddenly reappears to assist Tony "...while Tony and Big Pussy murder Matthew soon afterward."  
:It also is introduced too soon because Big Pussy's murder does not occur until well into the closing of Season 2.
—24.170.242.101 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot details 

message: "...and Tony realizes he is an FBI informant. Tony, Silvio Dante, and Paulie Walnuts kill Big Pussy on a boat then wrap him up in chains and throw him overboard."
:This sentence is introduced too early.  It should be held until the end of the next paragraph.  Introduced as early as it is, it causes chronological confusion for the reader when Big Pussy suddenly reappears to assist Tony "...while Tony and Big Pussy murder Matthew soon afterward."  
:It also is introduced too soon because Big Pussy's murder does not occur until well into the closing of Season 2.
—24.170.242.101 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 2

message: Is there no critic at all to the fact that the serial is somehow belittle a really cruel and evil organisation? The Mafia is a terrible reality and in the serial it's like a "normal job" with somehow sympathic personal. How would the reception be if the concept would be transfered to something comparable like Taliban Drug-Warlords, SS KZ-guards or Pol-Pot's massacre troup? Is there any serious (academic) critic to the serial or really only statements like "best thing ever showed in TV". I am just wondering...
--93.221.214.241 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd be quite interested in seeing a Sopranos-style drama based around a group of Taliban drug-warlords. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't put this in the article, because it is simply my own observation, but the primary focus of the series seems to be the psychology of the characters.  It is exploring ideas about what makes a mobster "tick" so to speak.  The scenes in Melfi's office are the key to the whole show, as you can see the ideas she brings up manifesting themselves in Tony's actions time and time again throughout the series' run.  The fact that he is in the Mafia is incidental.  The day to day problems that he deals with, including normal human problems such as family and anxiety, are the meat of the series.  I'm sure I could have said it better, but anyone who imagines the life of a criminal to be completely devoid of normal mundane conflicts and interests is completely blind to reality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.70.2 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Critics 

message: Editors should be careful when changing text to source the new text correctly, particularly if the existing source does not support the changes being made. Footnote 2 may well have been a correct sourcing for the original text but it doesn't appear to be now. The cited NYT article doesn't specifically mention The Sopranos' "high level of quality in every aspect of production and is particularly recognized for its writing and the performances of its lead actors." In fact it mentions, "The show lost its way when it put murders and mischief aside and weighed itself down in ponderous character sketches and too many Bergmanesque dream sequences." 
I suppose the footnote is still there because the positive comments did include something about "cinematic stylishness"(=production?) complexity and wit (= writing?) that could be used:
:The series lowered the bar on permissible violence, sex and profanity at the same time that it elevated viewers’ taste, cultivating an appetite for complexity, wit and cinematic stylishness on a serial drama in which psychological themes flickered and built and faded and reappeared.
Remember the strict requirements for sourcing: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."WP:Verify  Eudemis (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care should be taken when sourcing as well as when reverting if doing so may affect sourcing. Example: The second lead paragraph's "most financially successful cable series in the history of television" was reverted to unsourced. The same paragraph's "twenty-one Emmys and five Golden Globes" was also reverted to unsourced. There shouldn't be any reason to unsource exiting text unless the source does not "clearly support the material as presented in the article."  Eudemis (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct sourcing 

message: A customer review at Amazon.com claims that the tv series is based on the book SQUEAL by Lester Coleman and Richard Pedemonti from 1982. (See: Talk:Lester Coleman#SQUEAL by Les Coleman and Richard Pedemonti) Is there any truth to this claim? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQUEAL by Les Coleman and Richard Pedemonti 

message: The cast list in the infobox seems entirely too long.  Why not remove it and include a link to the cast section? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the fact that there has been no response in the month-and-a-half since I made this suggestion, can I assume there is no objection?  If not, I will make the change. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm all for it; it is a lot of names for an infobox--Opark 77 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the impetuous revert. The decision is fine by me but, of course, this raises the question: should this apply to all television articles that have a credited starring cast of 20 actors or more? Perhaps it should be discussed in Template talk:Infobox television as well.–FunkyVoltron talk 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology necessary.  A wider conversation would probably be a good idea, actually.  I have very few television shows on my watchlist, but of those I do watch, NYPD Blue and Homicide both have considerable cast lists.  In cases, such as these, in which there is a large cast, with numerous cast members departing, returning, others joining, etc., it is best to discuss such things in a cast section, rather than belabor the infobox with an especially long list.  With this article, the infobox is rather long already. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast list in infobox 

message: Hey guys, I think we should start doing articles for seasons of the show. How bout that? Oh babe (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea--Opark 77 (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season articles for The Sopranos 

message: I included a fact about Lady Gaga appearing on the show in 2001, but it keeps getting removed for being "irrelevant" and because the source is "doubtful". CBS News is a very distinguished news outlet, and it's no less relevant than any of the other actors listed. PhysixRox (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this would be important to understanding what "The Sopranos" is.  It doesn't sound as if her character was significant to the plot of even the episode in which she appears, much less the series as a whole. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but I'm not sure it's so important that it should be included.  In what way do you think that this is important to the show? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree I removed it on the grounds that it was trivia with no real relevance to the TV show. Mo ainm~Talk 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

text: You haven't offended anybody here, but did Lady Gaga have a part or was she an extra? Was she even listed in the credits of the episode that she was in? If she was listed in the credits then I wouldn't have a problem with her name being added to the casting section. Mo ainm~Talk 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Gaga 

message: "Before creating The Sopranos, David Chase had worked as a television producer for over 20 years.[8][9] He had been employed as a staff writer/producer for several television series (including Kolchak: The Night Stalker, Switch, The Rockford Files, I'll Fly Away, and Northern Exposure[10][11]) and had co-created one short-lived original series, Almost Grown, in 1988.[12][13] He made his television directorial debut in 1986 with the "Enough Rope for Two" episode of The New Alfred Hitchcock Presents. He also directed episodes of Almost Grown and I'll Fly Away in 1988 and 1992, respectively. In 1996, he wrote and directed the television movie The Rockford Files: Punishment and Crime.[11] He served as showrunner for I'll Fly Away and Northern Exposure in the 1990s. Chase won his first Emmy Award in 1978 for his work on The Rockford Files (shared with fellow producers) and his second for writing the 1980 television movie Off the Minnesota Strip.[14][15] By 1996, he was a coveted showrunner.[16]"
I have to wonder how much of this is relevant to this article.  The article reads a lot better without this paragraph.  Isn't this better addressed in David Chase?
-173.27.0.222 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginnings section 

message: The Controversy section explicitly spoils the ending of the series without any warning at all. My viewing experience has been greatly affected, and it shouldn't happen to anyone else. I didn't read enough to spoil everything, so I'm posting here hoping someone will change it someday, because I'm certainly not going to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.83.18 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: It is not clear wether the show is still playing or it was cancelled.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.145.126 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The finale, "Made in America", first aired in the United States on June 10, 2007 on HBO.  However, A&E continues to air reruns (which have been somewhat shortened and modified for TV), while full episodes are available in various forms (via downloads and online streaming, Blu-ray, CD, DVD, HD DVD, and VHS) and in various configurations (per episode, per season, per multiple seasons, and per entire series) with and without bonus features (e.g., see Amazon.com's Sopranos offerings). - Froid 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: This article describes The Sopranos as "a seminal work of fiction." Merriam-Webster defines the word, in its figurative usage, as "containing or contributing the seeds of later development."
Could it really be said that The Sopranos contains or will contribute the seeds of later development in a field as vast as fiction? Madame Bovary is a seminal work of fiction; so is Metropolis. But The Sopranos? Can we really tell at this point whether it contains or will contribute to later developments in fiction? Wouldn't that only be discernible from a much greater perspective in time? To describe it as "a seminal TV series" would be more natural, since TV of course has a much shorter history than fiction, making it easier to measure its influence. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your comments, although I'm not sure that personal opinions about the show have relevance here. The question is really whether The Sopranos can be viewed as a seminal work of fiction, when fiction has a history that is over 4000 years old. I agree with you about Charles Dickens; he certainly produced seminal works of fiction. Maybe in 150 years we can evaluate whether The Sopranos was equally seminal; at this point in time, however, it's surely too early to tell. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a seminal work of fiction" 

message: Would another, uninvolved, editor, or more than one, even, please take a look at Gareth Griffith-Jones's recent edits, please?  I have been involved in a back and forth with him for several days, and it is going nowhere.  If other editors could take a look, and state here whether they feel his edits are or are not helpful, I would appreciate it.  I have tired of the edit war.  My feeling is that he adds unnecessary details, or makes changes in wording (i.e., from "murder" to "assassinate"), that are unnecessary and unhelpful.  Please, someone else have a look, thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]]'s edits 

message: A recent edit added to the lead section: "which is loosely based on the real life DeCavalcante crime family of northern New Jersey that Chase saw growing up."
However, the source cited does not say any of this; it says only that the DeCavalcante family 'bear more than a passing resemblance to "The Sops."', and its earlier references to David Chase are prefaced with "maybe" - it's pure speculation on the part of the author.  Instead, what Chase has actually said is that while "90 percent of [the show] is made up. . . . it’s patterned after" the Richard Boiardo family. AV3000 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sopranos "loosely based on the real life DeCavalcante crime family" 

message: I should like to apologise to User:68.165.77.245 for my "undoing" his revision ( March 8 ) regarding the matter of the 11.9 million yesterday, and also, to thank AV3000 for reverting my incorrect action later yesterday.  I had noticed this edit's bouncing to and fro, previously, and made the mistake of not checking the facts.  The final episode, "Made in America", was filmed in February and March 2007 and marks the first time Chase has directed an episode since the pilot. It attracted 11.9 million viewers on its premiere date. The initial critical response was mostly favourable and since the episode's original broadcast that appreciation has grown considerably, ranking it as one of the best television finales. The episode was nominated for a Directors Guild of America Award and won an Emmy Award for writing and an Eddie Award for editing. "Made in America" and its closing scene have been the subject of discussion, criticism and analysis; parodies of the final scene have also appeared in popular culture
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the follow-up. 68.165.77.245 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "11.9 million viewers is right answer!" 

message: A main article doesn't need every single tiny minute detail exhaustively explained. This is completely standard operating procedure across WP:TV, and the obsessive nature of the Season 6 summary is a complete detriment to the article. Please justify reverting my trim - there is no "precedent" clause on Wikipedia. 108.45.142.234 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An experienced editor does not have to "justify" reverting the deletion of a huge block of text, this is standard operating procedure.  When you were reverted you should have posted here, rather than revert. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

text: If you continue, I will report you for edit warring. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, as someone who has been uninvolved here, I think 108.45.142.234's edits improved the article; I agree that it was overwritten. Can we discuss instead of edit-warring? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all in favor of a discussion, but the anon. needs to check his attitude and stop reverting.  That one comment above, and the comments he has made in his edit summaries, are not helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overwritten 

message: Prior to this change the introduction claimed
: "The Sopranos is the most financially successful series in the history of cable television"
without any cited reference.  The reference should include an explanation about just what that summary statement means.  It's fine to have such an introductory assertion as long as details are provided somewhere in the article, probably in either the production or reception section, depending on what the criteria is for "most financially successful"... 68.165.77.245 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone inserted a couple of sources for this claim, but I just checked them and neither actually do support it, so I have removed the superlative claim about financial success. 99.192.61.219 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most financially successful 

message: There seems to be some info missing ... notably why the series ended. Was it always planned to only be 6 series? Similarly most of the production notes only seem to go to the pilot and nothing after that, surely ther must have been something that happened during the years it was produced? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: For reasons fairly simple to comprehend, the article could be changed from The Sopranos to The Sopranos (TV series). This means the message at the top trying to prevent confusion would be defunct, and would make for a generally cleaner article. Edfilmsuk (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose since the TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and any disambiguation is unnecessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support as per WP:2DABS but it's not a big deal. Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose No disambig in the title is more aesthetically appealing. TheBearPaw (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change of article

message: I'm sure this has been discussed a bunch of times previously, but I've somewhat recently finished watching the series and plan on making some edits to the page. I've noticed the infobox just list five actors from the show, which seems a bit odd. I know the series has a very large starring cast, and I'm not suggesting to add every actor who was featured in the opening credits. My suggestion (at the very least) is the addition of Dominic Chianese, Tony Sirico, Robert Iler, and Jamie-Lynn Sigler. Adding those would be then be all the actors that were credited as series regulars for all six seasons. That's pretty reasonable. It just seems very odd why they're not included, especially when the infobox lists series editors who don't even have Wikipedia articles instead of listing the obviously more notable list of actors who played major roles. My second suggestion would be adding Aida Turturro, Drea de Matteo, and Steve Schirripa, who were all also essentially part of main cast for most of its run. That would bring the list to a clean dozen, and the 12 actors with the most episode appearances. At the very least, those four should be added. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't do it!You are correctall been said before.The clue is the line following the five listed: and others Regards, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the reason though? How is someone who edited 20 or so episodes of the show who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article more important to list in the infobox than Dominic Chianese or Tony Sirico? Come on... The actors are the most important pieces of information when it comes to a TV series. The infobox should reflect the most important things. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all recorded in the archiveslook it up! Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through the talk archives and read the conversation, and it didn't seem like there was any consensus to this, unless I'm missing something. Sorry to stir up an old conversation, I just feel pretty strong regarding my suggestion, as it's quite reasonable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was involved in the earlier conversation, and was very much in favor of the truncated list.  That said, I would not object to the addition of the first four names you mention, for the reasons you give.  But, I would object to adding the other three. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, as long as those four actors get added, I'm happy. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that I should concede to that, providing it stops there. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, looks like we're in agreement—Chianese, Sirico, Iler, and Sigler can get added to the infobox. Before I add them, what order do we use? Since I notice Falco is listed second, although is billed third after Bracco (though I understand why you guys list her second on here). Either we use the billing order (Gandolfini, Bracco, Falco, Imperioli, Chianese, Van Zandt, Sirico, Iler, and Sigler) or the order on the official website, which is the same except Falco is before Bracco and Sigler is before Iler. We shouldn't mix and match like how Imperioli is bumped up. Final thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the billing order — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus never took into consideration the facts of what makes a character main versus primary or secondary, which is billing and casting.  The main characters are the select 14 actors who were credited for episodes they did not appear in.  The list is relatively short and is fact.  The list should go as seen below, and anything otherwise is subjective.  I opt to reopen the decision based on this fact. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast list in infobox

message: From our reliable sources, http://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/family-drama-d944
"A popular and well-worn genre, the family drama centers on conflicts at the heart of family life and family relationships. Not to be confused with family-oriented drama, family dramas can touch on such adult topics as incest and political violence. Though some American directors such as William Wyler, Orson Welles and John Ford have produced some defining works in this genre, the family drama carries a particular potency in Asia where the conflict between duties to family and individual desires are more charged. The preponderance of work by such Asian masters as Keisuke Kinoshita, Yasujiro Ozu, Mikio Naruse and to a lesser degree Hou Hsiao Hsien have been family dramas. Significant films in this style include Fanny and Alexander, Tokyo Story, City of Sadness, Magnificient Ambersons, Mrs. Miniver and Pather Panchali. ".
How does Sopranos not fit this genre? 177.102.44.19 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Family drama

message: I removed two of the genres in the infobox, psychological drama and family drama, because the articles they linked to were not sufficient.  Psychological drama was a piped link to psychological novel, which article never mentions tv or film examples, so is of no value to an article about a tv show.  Family drama was a piped link to drama (genre), in which article there is no mention of family, except in regard to horror films, which is not relevant to this article.  Crime drama is the only genre that has content relevant to this article.  Those genres should not be reinstated without a good explanation. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmovie lists the series as family dram, psychological drama and the main one crime drama, I think all those should be linked to drama (film and television) Darunia02 (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the only relevant genre listed in that article is crime drama.  Neither psychological nor family drama are listed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . More than anything else, The Sopranos pertains to organized crime. That's the only aspect of the series that is consistently found in every episode. As such, the best descriptor is crime drama. If I look around the internet, I'm sure I could find half a dozen other genres used to describe the show, but that doesn't mean they should all be in the infobox. Infoboxes are succinct overviews, and there is no need for less significant genres that are questionable. Sundayclose (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres in infobox 

message: I enjoy when movie and tv shows have detailed plot summaries, and wanted to expand on the sopranos page. I wrote a detailed and, more importantly, accurate summary for season 5.
TheOldJacobite rejected the changes outright.
Is there any way to change this guy's mind? Some of the season summaries are not only too concise, they contain inaccuracies.
Is there any way to change this admin's mind about improving the plot summaries? Anything I can do?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzy3113 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot summaries should be as concise as possible, since Wikipedia is not a recap website. I suggest reading MOS:PLOT. If they contain inaccuracies, then they can be fixed, but they should definitely not be expanded, as they're quite lengthy already. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . Additionally, every episode has a separate article. Readers interested in more detail very likely will click on a season link, then click on the episode link for more details. This is the parent article for all articles related to The Sopranos, and as such it should not be dominated by one aspect such as plot summaries. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of plot for each season 

message: I believe lots of sources list Sopranos as a gangster show. Why does that cat have to be removed? Deloop82 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the program centered around mobsters/gangsters would appear to make it a valid candidate for inclusion of the category as a defining feature (per WP:CATDEF).  is there a reason you continue to remove it? Your edit summaries calling the edit "stupid" and "idiotic" don't impart much explanation as to the actual reason why the category doesn't apply in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots  18:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it conflict with :Category:American crime drama television series perhaps, being too narrow of a category to use?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots  18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Gangster cat should be kept because there are different types of crime dramas, for example, Godfather is a crime drama and is gangster film, meanwhile Drive (2011) is a crime drama but mot a gangster film, it just happens that the main character is a criminal. I still defend that we add Category:Gangster television series to the Sopranos. Just like CSI is a crime drama but it's not a gangster show, but a police procedural.Deloop82 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am dubious about this new category – in part for the reason given above by Ponyo: it is so narrow the category will remain under-populated simply because there are very few relevant programs to put in the cat.  I definitely oppose adding Mob film to the genres in the infobox, as that article is only about Mob films, and there is no relevant article for gangster tv shows, which is another problem with the new cat. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree about the film genre addition to the infobox, it doesn't apply.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots  21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gangster categorization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Sopranos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/383832%2CCST-CONT-sopranos13.article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726085435/http://gawker.com/5016985/how-and-why-tony-soprano-died to http://gawker.com/5016985/how-and-why-tony-soprano-died
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Sopranos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116222056/http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2354 to http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2354
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When a TV series includes a gay character (or lesbian, bisexual, transgender), the category identifying the inclusion is added to the article. It does not render the series a "Gay" or LGBT series. It only acknowledges that the TV series includes L, or G, or B, or T characters. In regards to this series:
Gay ‘Sopranos’ mobster finds a bit of fame
April 10, 2006
Today
NBC
https://www.today.com/popculture/gay-sopranos-mobster-finds-bit-fame-wbna12250822
Pyxis Solitary talk 07:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay characters 

message: So what's the problem with the Sopranos page? You said my information has nothing to do with the Sopranos article? Can you explain how the Sopranos HQ, which was featured in every single episode, has nothing to do with the Sopranos? I'm getting a little annoyed at your arrogance, can you please explain your problem? I reverted it then your reason for deleting my information was "it always was", what the hell does that mean?? ThePlane11 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the addition has nothing to do with the Sopranos. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Agreed as well, doesn't belong in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

text: No, not relevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it was good to get a second opinion on it. Personally I thought it mattered as it's a very important location and I specifically put the information at the location & sets section on the Sopranos page. ThePlane11 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Ahh I understand your meaning now Vaseline. It wasn't always closed though, it was a popular attraction for Soprano fans. I think it's still shut down and the situation was extensively covered by several online news websites, but I know my place in regard to the information so it doesn't matter now. ThePlane11 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that now you apply yourself to studying how to behave in a civilised manner when posting on User's Talk pages.. Oh, and brush up on your arithmetic too ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A copy, cut'n'paste from [[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|my Talk]] 

message: has made major changes to the voice of the article. I have reverted and as such am beginning a discussion. I can't see any justification for disposing of the passive voice, in fact I expressly support its use. Regardless of my opinion, however, I think this is a clear case of MOS:STYLERET . NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. --Mazewaxie 09:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The mass removal of all the wikilinks should also be reverted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, he did the same not too long ago at Bad Blood (TV series). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it should be reverted too. He removed way too many wikilinks. --Mazewaxie 15:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support restoring links where appropriate. Bear in mind that some of the removals were necessary (HBO was certainty linked far too many times). If another editor could do this I'd be grateful as I'm keen not to appear too zealous.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored some of them in the lead section and infobox. --Mazewaxie 17:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing wholesale changes to the voice of the article 

message: The "Conception" section should begin with what is currently the second paragraph:
The story of The Sopranos was initially conceived as ...
Currently the section begins with a long paragraph about David Chase's background.
David Chase had worked as ... a coveted showrunner.
This definitely should not be the first paragraph.  Don't give background and build up to the conception; instead, summarize the conception, then spell out in more detail.
The background information could be moved further down the section, or maybe it fits better in the David Chase biography page, I'm not sure.
I will leave this here for comment.  If no one objects, I may return and make the change myself.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes, I agree with . I suggest that you make the revision now, utilising the  mantle of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conception: state definition at top of section 

message: *  - Could be for the cultural depiction info
*  - About some of the vocabulary
*  - About some vocabulary
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some additional sources: 

message: This part of the page seems to be incredibly lacking in information. No mention is given to the original UK releases of the first three series (Series 1 & 2 in 2001, and Series 3 in 2002) on DVD. I have the first UK release of Series 2, which comes in a box containing six of the cardboard "snapper" cases; so not only is the Region 2 release date of 2003 incorrect (although I am aware of the reissue in 2003), but the disc number is too. This is a fatal issue with the "Discs" column; there is no way of telling whether it refers to the Blu-ray release or the DVD release, or which region is supposed to have that number of discs. For the first series alone, there are three different releases which each have their own unique number of discs; the original US DVD release has four, the original UK DVD release has six (with the 2003 UK reissue only having four), and the 2009 Blu-ray release has five. Some new system of displaying is needed very badly in order to avoid all this confusion; either the table should be split into three tables, one for each region, or more rows should added inside the existing table.
James Arthur Sturgess 21:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in "Home Media" section