Talk:Yellowstone (American TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yellowstone (American TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Westerns: Television Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television task force.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

January 2 to 8, 2022 (23rd)

Time to separate

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

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]

Oppose per Rreagan007. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's the point? What is actually being accomplished here? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:45, 12 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. --wooden superman 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. --wooden superman 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

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

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

Kevin Costner announces that he is done with ‘Yellowstone’

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

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

Is it over?

Finale for series?:

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

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

Yes the series has finished, although spinoff(s) are to follow. Despite the fact that its finished, the series still exists and is widely available so there's no need to change the article to past tense. Cheezknight (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still exists but is concluded. Knight Rider still exists but it's concluded. The spinoffs, while part of the universe, are not part of the series per se. Tejano512 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather the Yellowstone universe still exists. The show itself has concluded. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this article about the show and not the universe? Wouldn't a past tense be more appropriate? Tejano512 (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:TENSE - as a general rule everything is referred to in the present tense, even things that you wouldn't expect to do so - Dodo. There are obviously exceptions which MOS:TENSE covers, but this isn't one of them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]