Talk:Mad Men/Archives/2011/11

End Date on Season Four

Someone edited my original Nov. 1965 to October 12, 1965 or thereabouts. Yet in the season finale Don and others mention repeatedly about the "holidays" and "for the holiday" etc. etc. If these comments were made days before the end date when credits rolled they would have been placed during the first week of October. I would have thought it would have been well after Halloween (at least a week or so after). Can someone clarify where October 12 came from thanks. Hholt01 (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception

This was the first sentence of "Reception":

On June 20 2007, a consumer activist group called Commercial Alert filed a complaint with the United States Distilled Spirits Council alleging that Mad Men sponsor Jack Daniel's whiskey was violating liquor advertising standards since the show features "depictions of overt sexual activity" as well as irresponsible intoxication.

No objection to mentioning this, but seemed an odd place to lead off the section; doesn't seem like the most notable or important response to the show, however you judge that. And that's of a different character to the rest of the information in the section, which focused on critics' opinion of its artistic merit, so seems like the complaint should be placed in its own paragraph.

Episode listing

The episode listing has been moved here until the season ends after the 13th episode. The info will then be moved back into the LOE and the general plot of the first season will be summarized here. Cliff smith 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

The lead paragraph for this article says that show has been "praise for its historical accuracy." In the first episode they claim that Lucky Strike started using the slogan "It's Toasted" in 1960, the year the show is set, when Wikipedia's own article on Lucky Strike says the company has been using that slogan since 1917! The IBM Selectric typewriter also featured in the first episode didn't come out until 1961. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those facts. It appears that they took poetic license on the slogan. The anachronism with the typewriter, however, is fairly arcane, and rather minor, especially since they were only a year off. I think the main thing about the critics citing historical accuracy was with the more obivous facets of the show, like furniture, clothing, hairstyles, architecture, etc. Cliff smith 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem with wikipedia stating that the show has been praised for its historical accuracy -- it has. Regardless of the inaccuracies, it has been so praised. User:Pedant (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the "Medium is the message" reference in season one -- 1960 -- even though that phrase wasn't published until 1964... Perhaps a section on historical accuracy with balancing quotes praising it and a list of minor inaccuracies? 87.127.95.198 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead

The single review of the show from Metacritic doesn't belong in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Cliff smith 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

The quote from Draper is good, but I can't remember which episode he said this in. It should be cited. Cliff smith 19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Which quote? User:Pedant (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Music

Could someone list name of the music and music artists played throught the series categorized by episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.110.62 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that should be in the article; it might be a little bit too detailed for Wikipedia's purposes. But AMC lists the music used in each episode at [1]. Greyfedora 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a music list like that would get rather trivial, and would probably fall under something in WP:NOT. Good link, Greyfedora. Cliff smith 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the song that plays in the titles, RJD2's "A Beautiful Mine" - didn't think I could source youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHS-0xMmlFk - Leland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.147.248 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madmen.jpg

Image:Madmen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode List

While I heartily approve of setting up a seperate Episode List article for Mad Men, I think the identical list in this article should be removed. The wiki cops don't seem to approve of the redundancy. Cranston Lamont 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Specious title trivia

It's been claimed that:

The title Mad Men is a portmanteau of Mad Ad Men.

Can also be spelled as "MAd Men" although that capitalization is only implied in the title.

But are either of these interpretations of the title actually claimed by the creators of the program? It appears to me that the main allusion of "Mad" is "Madison Avenue"--the iconic street of US advertising in the '60s--along with the implication that these men are crazy-mad and sometimes angry-mad. I'll delete these unsourced speculations unless someone can provide a citation supporting them. --Jeremy Butler 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• To me there is a strong sense of "mad" = "crazy" because most of the characters seem to be treading a fine line between sanity and insanity. I'm surprised more isn't made of this in the article. It's really a very dark drama, where everyone seems on the brink of going completely off the edge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.199 (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Roger Sterling (John Slattery) ... makes a sexual advance on Draper's wife (while intoxicated), which Don never knows about ...

I think he did know something of this nature had happened. He walked in on them in the kitchen and it was clear something had been going on. Then Draper took his revenge by arranging it so Sterling would throw up in front of their visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.199 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Draper very clearly knows about the sexual advance because Sterling TOLD him about it. He came into the office the next day with a bottle of liquor and an apologetic story about "parking in the wrong garage", only leaving when he's confident Draper has forgiven him. It's likely for this reason that, when Draper is considering a move to another advertising agency, Sterling sees it as possibly personal - Don's knowledge of the advance itself, however, is unquestionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.105.145 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Salvatore "a closeted homosexual"? Dubious no longer!

Maybe this is a small point, but I think the characterization of Salvatore Romano as "a closeted homosexual" is overstated. I would guess that most gay businessmen in New York in 1960 would have been closeted - suggesting that the term would apply to the character that propositions him - but Salvatore confesses only to having "thought about having relationships with men" (at least according to the article, I don't remember the dialogue very clearly) which suggests that he is gay-curious or bi-curious. There are no concrete suggestions that he is exclusively attracted to men and possibly some evidence that he has never acted on his homosexual desires (as the article states but, again, I don't remember the exact dialogue). I think the character is written and performed with more subtlety than "closeted homosexual" implies: clearly the character is dapper and flamboyant and most contemporary viewers would see him as sexually ambiguous (although there's no indication that his fictional 1960 colleagues see him that way), but at this stage of the program there's no indication that he's homosexual, closeted or otherwise. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.153.156 (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 142.1.153.156 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're on to something. I watched the episode again, and I also checked out Salvatore's official character page on AMC. Rewording is in order, I'd say. Cliff smith (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems to me that it's pretty clearly implying that Sal is a closeted homosexual. He basically tells the Belle Jolie guy that he won't go up to his room because he's afraid of being found out. He also pretty clearly isn't interested in women. I really don't think this is at all questionable - he's being presented as gay, whether or not he's actually had sex with a man before. john k (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think using the term "closeted homosexual" is anachronistic, regardless. In those days the term wasn't in use AFAIK. He might be called a "confirmed bachelor" maybe, without quibble? User:Pedant (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@Pedant--This entry is being written for a 1960 audience?96.247.91.210 (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer "bun junkie"? (1)Using a modern euphemism implies a modern cultural context. (2)Nowhere in the series is Salvatore described as a "closeted homosexual". (3)Nowhere does he engage in any homosexual acts. (4)He is unmarried and has no romantic attachments.

Ergo, he is a confirmed bachelor: the term is quite descriptive and accurate, and no more opaque to a modern reader than "woman of easy virtue". If the show doesn't describe him as homosexual other than by innuendo, I feel a 60's euphemism is entirely appropriate. User:Pedant (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

here it says More personally, he was the subject of switchboard operator Lois Sadler’s crush and the recipient of romantic overtures from Elliot, a salesman for Belle Jolie. The latter invited Sal up to his hotel room after the two shared a few drinks but Sal demurred. -- to demur is to contest (a charge) without admitting or denying (the basis of the charge). User:Pedant (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain I recall the term 'latent homosexual' being used in that era. 'Confirmed bachelor' works for a gay man who never marries. I think a gay man who isn't sexually active in that area or even is sexually active with men but hasn't accepted his own orientation would be accurately called a latent homosexual both then and today.JJ Bosch (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You make no sense, Pedant. You bitch about the term "closeted homosexual" being used because the show is set in the sixties. I ask what's wrong with that, the show may be set in the past but the entry if for a modern audience, i.e. us, people in 2008 who don't need euphemisms of the past. You go on to mouth off incoherently. Discussion over.71.189.237.68 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At least the is 'he or isn't he?' issue is resolved. Brian Batt has been doing interviews here in the US and is quite clear that Sal is gay (as he is himself), as was the content of at least one recent episode. Pedant, I'm finding your logic a bit pretzel-like. I'm not at all sure why use of the term "closeted homosexual" is viewed as inappropriate; it's still part of the common parlance, at least in the US. Moreover, I fail to understand why any level of opacity is needed in the article. Regardless, the article is written for a contemporary audience, and should be written with whatever level of clarity is needed for the reader to understand that Sal is gay, and as the social mores of the time demanded, remains in the closet, now having gone so far as to marry in order to hide, or perhaps deny, his sexual orientation. Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

According to us, the term would have been in use by then. Huw Powell (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, does anyone feel that Bert Cooper's sister might be a lesbian? When they first met, they were talking about Florence, whom the sister seems to spend time with and Bert refers to Florence as "a good companion". Bringing this up because I don't know how well Bert, as a republican, takes to homosexuality. Haracas (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation knows no political affiliation - witness the "log cabin Republicans" Vonbontee (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

main vs. supporting characters

On what grounds is Joan called a main character? Her role seems to be more comparable to those of the various supporting characters than to those of the four main characters. Don, Pete, Peggy, and Betty are clearly the main characters of the piece, and Joan is not at all clearly more important than most of the so-called supporting actors. john k (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at AMC's official cast page, Joan is listed before Peggy. And Roger is second to Don, ahead of Pete. That notwithstanding, I do agree with you. Cliff smith (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, would there be any objection to making a Characters of Mad Men page? The character list here is begging for summarization. Cliff smith (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's five main characets and Joan is one of them. The credits and the opening montage in episode 2.01 is proof. Sterling is not a main character; John Slattery was listed as "special guest star" for the first season.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening credits determine who is/isn't a main character. Five seems like an arbitrary number based on season one; the producers treated six, including John Slattery and Christina Hendricks, as main cast for season two based on the pre-season promotional program that was shown on AMC, and the story thusfar is consistent with that view. Drmargi (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

an IP 173.63.1.83 has added a rather long list of tangential items as a 'see also' section. I have twice removed it. Not wanting to get caught in a 3RR violation I won't revert it again today. Indeed, perhaps some find the section useful. Was it useful? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

US-centric

This article is written by someone from an American perspective (spoilers due to being aired in the US, but not other countries). It should contain warnings regarding anything about season II which is yet to air in other countires (eg. Australia). The ratings parts especially, should contain the words 'US ratings', rather than assume America as the central part of the universe. This article should be reviewed in its entirety with a global perspective. Lemon Pickets (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Accurate but Wrong

"The network was looking for distinction in launching its first original series," according to AMC Networks president Ed Carroll "and we took a bet that quality would win out over formulaic mass appeal."

This may be an accurate quotation from the president of AMC but it is factually wrong. "Remember WENN" was AMC's first original series, back in the '90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.51.11 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wtf. Plot Summary

This is the longest wikipedia page without a plot summary I have ever seen. I have no idea what this show is about. My friend linked me to this page to explain the show, then we both realized it summarized nothing but just gave a bunch of technical details about the show. Plot get. 72.200.206.113 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional External Links

Wanted to propose another Mad Men reference site that I think should be considered for inclusion: an unofficial Mad Men fan site. The content is considerable and updated daily by the community. Thanks for the consideration. 216.168.54.229 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

adding a fansite would, I think, violate the external links policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, see WP:ELNO no. 11. WCityMike (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First Cable Series

In the first paragraph last sentence it says "It is the first basic cable series to win the Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series". Not true. The Sopranos was the first and it won the previous year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknaveed (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

HBO is not basic cable, AMC is from what I understand. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Period

This page, as well as many other sources about the show say it is set in the early 1960's. How can this be so in the early episodes? There is much talk about Dick Nixon's presidential campaign. That would be the 1960 presidential election.

So if the show is talking about his campaign, it would be in the late '50's. Maybe early 1960 if they were getting involved late.

Anyone else notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.121.154 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1960 US Presidential election took place in November of 1960. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

guy who had his foot run over with a lawn mower as an entry in the list of supporting characters

I have reverted (twice) the addition of this character as it seems to me this character is not notable as he was in only a single episode. An IP disagrees. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has not as of yet taken it to talk, yet has changed the article again. I will not get into a 3RR situation here, but I would like to add that if we add this character to the list we ought to also add the couple that gave Don pills that he picked up hitchhiking (for example). The list might get excessively long if we do this. I await your comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted again, but this turkey is an anon IP and is willing to go 3RR with it, that's obvious. He's done something similar with a long-winded and overly crufty description of the portrayal of Conrad Hilton on the real person's page as well. This is clearly a non-notable character. There's a litany of significant-for-an-episode characters such as this one that could be discussed on individual episode pages, but not in the main article. Drmargi (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We're now on our second anonIP making these disruptive edits, claiming they're by "popular demand" (huh?) and refusing to engage in discussion. We've got a disruptive editor, and perhaps even sockpuppetry. Drmargi (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

both are 168.115.xx.xx same ISP, probably just plain ol' DHCP, either way it has to stop.. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to your superior knowledge on the finer points of ISP-hood. The IP traces back to a university in Korea, so small wonder - it's clearly the same person. But you're right - it has to stop. BTW, it's also going on in the article for Conrad Hilton. Drmargi (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Admin Noticeboard report helped: we've got a page protection for a few days, which might slow him down. Fingers crossed. Drmargi (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable character; Guy McKendrick

There has been a repeated addition of overly detailed description the one-episode character Guy McKendrick as "famous", claiming the scene as "the most talked about" and popular demand for the edit none of which can be substantiated. This has been reverted by multiple editors, each of whom have requested discussion to establish notability and to thereby establish consensus. User: 168.115.59.118, 168.115.218.89 and 168.115.218.139, all of whom track back to computers at a university in Korea, claim "popular demand" they cannot source, refuse to engage in any consensus building and have repeatedly violated WP:3RR. STOP this behavior, discuss and reach consensus, or there will be no choice but to report the IP for edit warring and 3RR violations. Drmargi (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And now our friend 168.115.218.139 has added even more single episode characters. Please stop this behaviour, please take this to the talk page. What is next? Shall we add ever extra that has walked by Don Draper's desk? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Other characters

Why are these three characters in particular notable? Each made a brief appearance, three among many who did so. There is no explanation as to why their appearances in particular are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. The article has been protected once because of your refusal to discuss and reach consensus. Please do not continue to engage in edit warring on this page. Drmargi (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of the New Company

Isn't the name of the new company pretty clearly Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce? Definitely no "and," probably no commas either. It wasn't Sterling & Cooper, it was Sterling Cooper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.90.124 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No "and" was spoken when Joan answered the phone, and as for commas, without seeing it in print, we have to assume that the former Sterling Cooper naming style has been continued. I've made the change. Daveharr (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thirdededed. I don't know why that didn't occur to me when I was updating the characters list earlier, so I shall go and fix it there, too.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just finished the episode and it's definitely Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, no and, and no Campbell. Drmargi (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW It seems like a spoiler of sorts to have this in the first couple paragraphs. As yet, it's a fact that has only been integral to one episode and so it should be considered whether it is i) implicitly projecting the future and ii) potentially detrimental to others' enjoyment of the show - to include this in the intro as one of the most important details of the show's "setting."140.247.251.233 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a fan site and spoilers are not an issue per WP:SPOILER. It's reader beware here, I'm afraid. The story, as of the season finale, follows the new Sterling etc. and that should be stated in the article. We can't make editorial decisions on the basis of how they might affect viewer enjoyment of the show. Drmargi (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my take is that based on what's actually been shown on the show, SCDP has received no more screentime than Guy McKendrick (mentioned above as minor and unworthy of mention), and hence it's not really necessary yet to say that the show "is set" there as well, up in the big summary, until more time passes. And so that was the second half of my point, it's not only a relatively big spoiler but it's given unwarranted emphasis.140.247.251.233 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, a one off character is as important as what 3 characters who have been there form the beginning (Roger, Don and Bert) are doing in the final ep? As well, as has been pointed out, spoilers are a non issue here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The unwarranted emphasis argument simply doesn't hold up in this instance. Screen time is far from the only metric of what determines how much emphasis any given event or character warrants. In the case of SCDP, this is a pivotal change in the direction of the series and the lives of over half of the office-based cast. That hardly compares to the minimal importance of a character that featured in one episode as a minor capacity. Drmargi (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

W/e, I'm not arguing Dbrodbeck's caricature of an argument, but if you just read that second paragraph summary with new eyes, note that a full /half/ of it relates only to the one episode, and that just seems awkward and like someone saw the season finale and said "OMG, must go update wikipedia" (the double mention of the new name seems especially gratuitous). Maybe this is a stylistic point, only thought it worth mentioning here since it's page protected. 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.248.121 (talk)

The name is there twice because the name is relevant twice. I'm not sure what shorthand like W/e and full/half/ mean, but bean counting is still no way to make an argument against mentioning the new company. Let's be honest. This isn't about style. This is about spoilers, and the rest is just smoke and mirrors. Regardless, by any standard, the content of an episode of an American show that has been broadcast in the US is no longer a spoiler. That term only applied to content revealed in advance of broadcast. So you can't even argue spoilers any longer. The new corporate name needs to be there, and there is no good argument for removing it. Once it's there, who cares if it's mentioned twice when each mention serves a different purpose? Drmargi (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal:Keep sentence: "Mad Men is set in ...." However, in next sentence, remove the 2 referencees to firm, and instead say something like: "show centers on Don Draper, a creative director, his wife Betty and family, his advertising colleagues, and clients. My problem with the current paragraph is not the spoiler issue, but that the repetition of company name makes the article sound like an annual report or legal contract. It does not convey any of the character-driven, emotional texture of the show . I admit that my proposed sentence could be surely enlivened as well. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty POV reason for the edit, and it removes too much information. I don't see what the big deal is with retaining the firm's name; it's a character in the show in effect, in both its new and old forms. By removing that information, the description of the show and Don loses too much context - creative director WHERE? it's too forced and artificial.

Despite the lack of consensus, the anon IP above made the edits, which I have now reverted both because of my concerns above and because of the lack of any consensus to remove so much key information from the opening of the article. You need the firm's names again for clarity and as referents. Frankly, it's unrealistic to think that such an edit would be allowed to stand for long at all. Drmargi (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name at Don Drapers

Donald Francis "Don" Draper (Jon Hamm): Creative director and eventual junior partner of Sterling Cooper Advertising Agency; Draper is the series' main character. His past is shadowy, but he has achieved success at the agency. He is married to Elizabeth "Betty" Draper and has three children, but has a history of infidelity.[5][19] Draper's real name is Richard Whitman; he assumed the real Don Draper's identity during the Korean War.[20]

I thought Don's name is Dick Whitman? Not Richard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.13.136 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In 1962 (if not before) the Creative Director at Leo Burnett was Draper Daniels. Anybody know if Don Draper is some kind of homage to what was then The Big Agency? [Just happened upon this trivia in a 1962 story about magazines, and he was quoted.] -geo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.57.151 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick v. Richard

Why people keep reverting Don's real first name to "Richard"? The actual name is Dick as very very explicitly explained in the flashback of S3E1. elpincha (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The AMC Mad Men site calls him Richard. http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/episode310 Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect: Why should the AMC site be deemed a better source than actual program footage? The footage should prevail. elpincha (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have every episode in front of me, but I did have the AMC site, which I figured had some authority. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you navigate the AMC site, you can reach a page dedicated to Don, which says that the name is indeed Dick. Methinks after this there is no defending "Richard". I may be wrong, but this is a very good source. Just to top it off, there were several occasions where "Richard" might have been uttered, especially in the train scene where Dick (now Don) delivers the corpse to the family. But alas, no such luck. Therefore, I am reverting back to Dick. elpincha (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care a great deal about the name, but how does one AMC page trump another? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The old Fort Sill army buddy who recognizes him on the train at the beginning of s1e03 calls him Richard Whitman. --216.254.228.33 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the current status of this argument is, but Dick was a more common name back then, albeit as a nickname for Richard in the same way people called Jack were really listed as John on their birth certificates....Just my input.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 08:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Weiner says no more after 6 seasons

http://www.buzzfeed.com/avclub/matthew-weiner-wants-mad-men-to-end-in-2012-tv-oi7/ http://www.avclub.com/articles/matthew-weiner-wants-mad-men-to-end-in-2012,40238/

This should be mentioned somewhere in the article... Apparently they intend to end the show after six seasons. 173.171.65.233 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that he's also said "I have said over and over in public that I want the show to go on and on and on until it has worn out its welcome with viewers and we can’t think of anything more for the characters to do." http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/23/matthew-weiner-contract-mad-men/ Bobomejor (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Founding Partner?

The first para discribes Don as a founding partner. I don't think this is correct, he was given a percentage later. I think Coopers dad started the firm. I belive that is why his sister ownes part of the company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.43.179 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

After correcting this I re-read it, he was infact a founding partner of Sterling Cooper Draper Price, this was the agency founded after the british bought Sterling Cooper. So I undid by correction, since it was already correct. 71.64.26.176 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox cast list.

I completely agree with Dr. Margi's edit about the guest stars, but left them in and implemented them only because they had been included already. (I assumed it was a possible consensus.) Jared Harris might be bumped up to series regular, but we won't know until July 25th!

However, I am on the fence about the 'with' and 'and'. I believe that they are significant, because it mirrors the opening credits. (It also prevents any wily anonymous-IP editors from reorganizing the list due to whom they feel are more "important" cast members.) But I personally can live with it either way. What sayeth anyone else?--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a point, but the trouble is, those designations change from season-to-season. While it's a nice enough addition, it isn't a stable enough one to merit inclusion. Moreover, the 'with' and 'and' designations are often more ego preens than any meaningful method of differentiating actors or roles. And is that really notable enough to merit inclusion? Drmargi (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the long-delayed reply, Drmargi. Been waiting for the premiere re: Harris. Well, that's settled!

Anyway, I'm glad that you've been supporting my listing of the seasons they were regulars of. I thought that was a nice little addition, and it seems you were on the same page, but some others feel it clutters up the infobox. I look at is as a quick fact. So, I'd like input of others.

As for the recurring cast--the ones who are listed in the opening credits following Slattery's name only in the episodes in which they appear--what should be done with them? Should they be included in the same way Lois Smith and Lizzy Caplan are included in True Blood's, despite not even appearing in a full season? I kind of think they should, drawing comparisons to Will & Grace and Karen's maid, Rosario (Shelley Morrison), who I believe was only listed in episodes she appeared in until the very last seasons or so. So that's why I'm not sure whether listing Alison Brie (love her) adheres to WP:INFO, but sometimes, rules could use adjustments since series' opening credits don't follow strict patterns.

You're probably right about the 'with' and 'and'. My only purpose of including those initially was to make the infobox mirror the credits as much as possible. It's getting tougher to decide the order, since Batt, Gladis, and Siff are all off, but now Harris is on. One wonders where Harris would rank if against Siff. So for now, I placed him BELOW those three, simply because his character was introduced in a later season. If I had it my way, I would even be up for an alphabetical list, lead actors be damned.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 07:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd add them in order of credits for S1, then from there, order of entry into the cast. That seems to be the established, and most sensible, way to handle long cast lists. Recurrings can be described in narrative, but don't belong in the infobox. If they're in the ones you describe above, they should be removed; their presence is no doubt based on judgments made by individual editors.

My concern is Kiernan Shipka. Is she really credited as a regular? She was a guest star in the season finale, along with Brie. Drmargi (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, she's officially listed as well. Just finished watching the season premiere. Her name appears in between Sommer's and Morse's names now, as opposed to "Guest Starring". Glad we're in agreement about chronology; makes it easier to enforce the infobox that way. I'll make it a point to examine all other series I've seen later to clean-up their infoboxes. I'll leave True Blood alone, as those credits are just a hot mess, although at least it's alphabetized. But the ones who are listed post-episode as opposed to pre-episode boggles the mind sometimes. Thankfully with Mad Men, they've got a better handle on this.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing list of Mad Men characters

Since there is a page devoted to the characters from Mad Men (List of Mad Men characters), I think it would be good to clean up the list of characters on this page and remove/shorten some of the entries. For example, Sal Romano's listing seems about as detailed as the listing on the Mad Men characters page. And some characters (Jane Sterling, Francine Hanson) do not seem important enough to be listed here. JLThorpe (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)