Talk:Yellowstone (American TV series)

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

Critical Response[edit]

"The series was met with a mixed response from critics upon its premiere. On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the first season holds a 51% approval rating, with an average rating of 5.83 out of 10 based on 39 reviews. The website's critical consensus reads, "Yellowstone proves too melodramatic to be taken seriously, diminishing the effects of the talented cast and beautiful backdrops."" By contrast, the description of the critical response of Longmire reads in part: "In the aggregate, Longmire received favorable reviews on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. For example, season four received an average rating of 8.5/10 based on seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes." Now, do the critics seriously think that Longmire is more realistic and less melodramatic than Yellowstone? I would say there is a serious issue of consistency here. ---Dagme (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is in need of an update. The entry's stated score of 51% from Rotten Tomatoes is from Season 1. Season 2 has received wide acclaim and currently stands at an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critic perception appears to have shifted on the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.163.232 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence?[edit]

I recently realized that, as far as characters and situation goes, there are quite a few similarities between Yellowstone and The Big Valley. Widow(er) running a ranch with 3 sons (one of which is a lawyer) and one daughter. That's counting Rip as "adopted," and it turns out Jamie is ACTUALLY adoptive. Like I said in the header, is this just a coincidence, standard western situation (ala "Bonanza") or a more tangible influence? The characters don't really match-up, but the frame-work seems awfully similar. The parallel just struck me, and I don't know if it's worth researching (if anyone would even ADMIT to an influence). Jororo05 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A coincidence is always possible, as in it's not categorically impossible. The one thing I have to say about it is that there's nothing as incestuous as the intellectual properties of the movie and TV industry. Producers have approximately zero interest in constructing anything even slightly original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.146.203 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit question[edit]

@Drmies:, I wanted to ask about this edit you just made; from the entry for the lead character, John Dutton, you removed: As the series progresses, he is continually challenged by those who would take his land., and in your edit summary you stated "this presupposes all kinds of things about the conflicts and whether land can be owned in the first place", I was hoping you could expand on that and clarify as, people, interest groups and corporations scheming to somehow take the land that is the "Yellowstone Dutton Ranch" from the Dutton family is a central plot point throughout the series. Thanks (btw- I didn't write the sentence you removed, I was just curious) Cheers - wolf 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in land ownership in the first place. So yes, the way you phrased it, or something like "the land occupied by the YDR" (and "occupied" here is neutral enough because it's "by the ranch", a spatial entity, not a group of people), that would be fine with me. And I think even John Dutton, at least when he's not irrationally angry, would agree that it's not "his" land. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your post, I hadn't phrased, or written, anything in the article, so not sure what you're referring to. The whole "don't believe in land ownership" is an interesting pov to form your edits by. I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, and not looking to get into anything about what drives your edits. I have since made a change to that entry that I believe you'll find suitable. If you disagree, feel free to change it. Cheers - wolf 21:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not sure what you're referring to"? I was referring to what you wrote in this post. The thing is, that one can own land, as a company or a private individual, that's also a POV, just one that is enshrined in US law. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you wrote "the way you phrased it, or something like "the land occupied by the YDR""... that's what I was referring to. But anyway, it's not a big deal. And again, I suppose I was a surprised, at that particular pov being used to make editing decisions, but again it's not a big deal. I was just curious at the time, but it's passed now. Cheers - wolf 06:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

Why are spoilers being added? The discovery that Jamie is adopted is a major development of season three, so having it mentioned in the ‘characters’ section is not only unnecessary, but a spoiler. Explain yourself, wolfperson. RedFiveSB (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RedFiveSB: Content is not removed from Wikipedia because of "spoilers". Again, see Wikipedia:Spoiler. - wolf 20:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Descriptions[edit]

There is significant overlap with IMDB episode descriptions. 79.74.157.187 (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation terminology[edit]

Just an FYI on terms: there is no such thing as a “Native Reservation.” “Indian Tribe” and “Indian Reservation” when referring to the legal entities in the United States are specific terms of law and have a distinct meaning— designated in federal law for Native people. “Indian” is a specific word defined in federal law, and as such is a political, not a racial, designation. On the other hand, “Native American” is acceptable as a generic term for the people themselves, but the phrase was created by academe to distinguish Native people of the Americas from “Indians” from India in East Asia. Most Native people themselves generally prefer to be described by their specific tribal affiliation. When that is not possible, there is considerable disagreement over whether people prefer being called “Indian” or “Native American” (or American Indian, or Indian people, or Native, Native people, or Indigenous, etc…). Where I live (Montana), most people tend to just use “Native” as the colloquial generic—capitalized. But as a rule, “Native American” isn’t going to upset anyone. But references to a reservation should be phrased “[specific name] Reservation” or “Indian Reservation.” If anyone is concerned about this, feel free to ask over at the Native American Wikiproject. We’ve been working on some guidelines for use of terminology over there, but it’s still in development. Montanabw(talk) 04:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indian_reservation would appear to claim otherwise. Respectfully, we should just be accurate with what third party sources say rather than dictating how language is used on the off chance we will offend someone. To be blunt, lots of things on WP are offensive. Buffs (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I reverted a WP:BOLD WP:SPLIT by MrMaster17 who split the Episode list section of this article to Yellowstone (season 1), Yellowstone (season 2), Yellowstone (season 3) and Yellowstone (season 4). I reverted mostly due to a lack of any discussion about whether the split is a good idea and also if this is the correct split for the article at this time. Also per comments by Confession0791 and ErnestKrause on my talk page. I propose instead splitting the section to List of Yellowstone episodes as there is enough content for that split to be supported. Also a list of episodes split is generally done before season articles splits are considered, so this should be done first and then a split to season articles considered. See WP:PROPERSPLIT for process of how to correctly do a split including how requirements of WP:CWW are met. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see four options for this discussion:

  1. No splits at all - leave as a single article
  2. Split to list of episode article
  3. Split to four season articles
  4. Split to both a list of episodes article and season articles
  • Split to list of episodes article – enough content for this split. The split to season articles is something that does not need to be done at all. There is not enough unique content for each season to support articles for each season. What unique content there was can be added to this article without expanding its size significantly. Splitting out the episode list retains a good balance with all the useful information in two articles instead of five. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – For reasons stated above. —Confession0791 talk 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The revert is appropriate. Among other issues already mentioned above, the daily page counts went significantly lower after the previous page splits were done which suggests that it was not the best approach. The suggestion to split to list of episode article seems the more useful option, or simply leave it as a single article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – --Babar Suhail (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2 Split to list of episodes article - Main article is getting too bloated per WP:TOOBIG, but not enough content for four separate tiny articles. —Torchiest talkedits 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this seems like a no-brainer, separate article for episodes seems entirely appropriate. 174.78.93.61 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a month since I started the split proposal. There appears to be a consensus to split out the episode list in this article to List of Yellowstone episodes, no opposition to that has been expressed. Whoever does the split should follow the instructions at WP:SPLIT § How to properly split an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need help with a proper split, if anyone is willing. —Confession0791 talk 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford Brimley[edit]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Wilford Brimley on Yellowstone (American TV series).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, Americasroof, Braybrayfitz97, JuliánLeiva66, Cheezknight, Thecleanerand, Martina Nolte, YoungForever, MrMaster17, ErnestKrause, Aries326, DoubleCross, Thewolfchild, Geraldo Perez, and Racheal Emilin: I am pinging you because you were one of the leading editors of this page and have edited on WP in the last 2 weeks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the next spinoff to be filmed[edit]

Continues after "1923" but in 1944. 

 According to Tom Prince, executive vice president of production at 101 Studios, the project is a follow-up to 1923 
  Per Ravalli Republic, Prince opened up about 1944 during the event at Hamilton City Hall. The producer did not leak too much information about the series, but he did reveal where filming is going to take place.

“Of course, we’ve got 1923, we’ve got the sequel, we’re not letting the cat out of the bag, it’s going to be called ‘1944,’” Prince shared. “My guess is that it’ll be shooting largely in the Bitterroot Valley because it has to take place at what is Chief Joseph Ranch.” https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/why-1944-will-look-more-familiar-original-yellowstone-than-previous-prequels.html/ Peter K Burian (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was already noted in the article. - wolf 11:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when does the series actually take place?[edit]

In the text there are numerous years mentioned - but as far as i can tell, nowhere in the text is it actually stated what the timeperiod of the show actually is. (We can deduce by the prequel names that it is post 1923 - but outside of that?) [Nb: i actually don't know, so can't add it myself] -- Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to separate[edit]

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

Requested move 5 October 2023[edit]

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

No consensus to move. Consensus is closer to being against the proposed move, and I see no reason to expect that further discussion will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone (American TV series) → Yellowstone (TV series) – Clear WP:PDABPRIMARY with Yellowstone (British TV series) (a ~2143:1 pageview ratio). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. Classic case of partial dab. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom and page views. Beth would approve. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I reject the concept of a primary disambiguator. The parenthetical disambiguator is meant for one purpose, disambiguation. And when there are 2 TV series of the same name, just using "(TV series)" for either one as the disambiguator is inherently ambiguous. The articles should be moved to Yellowstone (U.S. TV series) and Yellowstone (UK TV series). Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: (US TV series) per MOS:US fyi - wolf 20:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the parenthetical disambiguators we usually use "U.S." and "UK". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm mistaken. According to this RFC, we should be using "American" and "British". So leave the articles where they are. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page views in the last 30 days are 551,273 for the US series to 283 for the British documentary, so anyone who types "Yellowstone (TV series)" is ~1,948 times more likely to be seeking the drama series. That's the point. The proposed title is favored by WP:CONCISE while being negligibly less precise. Similarly, the title has more WP:NATURALNESS as editors are likely to make links to the proposed title intending to link to the US series, and rather than those links being links to the dab page that require fixing, one should reasonably expect such links will link to the drama series. The proposed move is far and away an improvement over the status quo. If this move doesn't make sense, then Thriller (album) doesn't make sense either. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Thriller (album) doesn't make sense. --woodensuperman 10:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Yellowstone (TV series) is ambiguous, so it needs to be fully disambiguated, per WP:DAB. The guideline to follow here is WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. WP:PDABPRIMARY is not a guideline, and exceptions to articles being fully disambiguated are controversial and extremely rare. No need to make this more complicated. --woodensuperman 10:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:DAB again, specifically the WP:INCDAB section of the page: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Though the pageview ratio I checked suggests that the pageview gulf isn't quite as wide as the nomination stated, it still demonstrates an 896:1 lead in favor of the American TV series, which is clearly in the range where a WP:PDAB is appropriate. The acceptability of PDABs in general was established by RFC consensus, and editors seeking to throw out that system entirely should challenge it at the RFC level instead of opposing individual RMs on those grounds. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the opposers here are opposing on the basis of opposition to any PDAB, not because they believe this case doesn't meet the threshhold for having a partially disambiguated title. Such an attempt for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should not overrule wider community consensus on the overall issue; thus, do not oppose PDABS in individualy RMs; bring up opposition to the wider community in an RfC or other appropriate venue. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan007, Necrothesp, Pppery and woodensuperman. Yellowstone (TV series) is incomplete disambiguation and should redirect, as it currently does, to the Yellowstone (disambiguation)#Film and television page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is absolutely on reason why a non-primary title should have an incomplete title. This does not serve readers nor does it serve editors. Also, side note, articles do not have feelings and they don't care that they aren't at the (non-primary) primary title. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plane[edit]

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

To add to article[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yellowstone_(American_TV_series)&oldid=1209826950"