Talk:1883 (TV series)

wrong information

On Y:1883, Tim McGraw plays James Dutton, the great-grandfather of Kevin Costner's character John Dutton, not his Grandfather. 67.140.0.199 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

minor grammar

I did not make the corrections, but all the verb conjugations of "was ran" need changing to either "ran" (simple past) or "was run" (past participle). "Was ran" is grammatically incorrect. 2600:1702:F40:18D0:888D:99E8:3940:20AC (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is John Dutton?

Resolved

There is no introduction of him, yet some characters are explained as his ancestors. Who is John Dutton and why? --直蔵 (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Figured. He is from the original series, Yellowstone. --直蔵 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(un)limited story?

First off, Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. (WP:SPOILER)

Meaning, that Paramount's shenanigans to keep viewers guessing as to the fate of the show's characters by not giving clues by meta information such as "is it a limited series" or "when does season 2 arrive" should not prevent us from providing the full picture.

In other words, I noticed that the previous information was replaced with an attempt to present this show as a limited series, no ifs no buts. But that's a cleaned-up version of reality, and does not meet the standards of our encyclopedia.

Instead, I remind everybody that when a fact is contentious we don't have to talk about it in the lead. In this case (and many others) its best to simply say nothing in the lead when we can't summarize it simply and tersely.

Instead, you'll find a new section I unimaginatively called Future Plans. Feel free to improve both the language and the references; I just took a first stab at explaining to the reader how many versions of plans Paramount has tried to sell us.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Claire Dutton - sister or sister-in-law of James Dutton?

Under guest stars, it lists "Dawn Olivieri as Claire Dutton, James Dutton's widowed sister". If she were his sister, she would have her late husband's last name, not Dutton. My guess is that she was the wife of James Dutton's (unnamed) late brother. rogerd (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Dawn Olivieri is clearly billed as "Claire Dutton" and her character is clearly the sister of James Dutton. No need for guesswork. No need to speculate on why Claire goes by her maiden name either. CapnZapp (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you overlooking the fact that actress Emma Malouff is credited as "Mary Abel Dutton" and Mary Abel is called Claire's daughter by all of the characters? How do explain Mary Abel's last name as "Dutton"? Is Mary Abel also James's sister? Do children automatically change their last name after the death of their father in the United States in either the 21st or 19th century? The easiest explanation is that Claire changed her last name to Dutton when Claire married Mary Abel's father. Also, how can you ASSUME what Claire's relationship is to James just based on Taylor Sheridan's dialog? Does James ever say something like "Hi sis, have you seen our brother Jacob before leaving Tennessee?" Unfortunately, nothing that simple. Since the official transcripts of the dialog of the entire series is available on the Paramount website, I am unable to find anything that would suggest a brother-sister relationship. The dialog between James and Claire could just as easily suggest a relationship brother and sister-in-law or even between first or second cousin or spouse there of. If you do decide to cite the dialog, please include the timecode so we can all read the dialog while re-watching the appropriate scene.

BTW, Any editor who decides to cite Daily Express (express.co.uk) as their source of information concerning the series, please be aware that WP considers express.co.uk as UNRELIABLE per WP:DAILYEXPRESS since the Daily Express is a tabloid known for publishing incorrect information in the past. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources are clear: Claire (Dawn Olivieri) is James and Jacob's sister. Yes, she's named Dutton. Don't speculate on why this is so; we write what our sources say. I've added a pair of credible sources (certainly not Daily Express!) to the existing pair - all four say Claire Dutton is family to James. If you disagree, you need to find sources supporting your point of view, and then argue for switching over from the current sources to your set of sources. Don't perform original research by assuming you know what is right or wrong here. (If you can't find a multitude of good sources for your position, please take the hint) CapnZapp (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The larger question is: What are those "sources" are basing their claims on, definitely not on what Taylor Sheridan had written. Sheridan's writings definitely DOES NOT support the claim that Claire, James and Jacob are siblings (i.e., brothers/sisters).

• HorseyHooves – Does not even attempt to speculate a relationship between Claire and James, which is the best way to handle this. "Mary Abel Dutton is the daughter of Claire Dutton and is very much like her mother... She believes her cousin Elsa is rebellious and regularly makes snide remarks at her." Still, the publication does not speculates a relationship between Claire and James, definitely not a blood relationship.
• Deadline - Deadline also publishes studio press releases; the same publication also reported that "1883 is getting a second season" This source is a basically a studio press release which could differ from the actual production.
• Esquire magazine – Does writes "Claire (Dawn Olivieri) is James and Jacob’s sister". However, the publication has shown that it does present speculations as fact based upon quiet and subtle changes to the original article based on snapshots held on Archive.org. The article is constantly changes each time their speculations is shown to contradict to what Sheridan had written in each succeeding episode. Example, in the 02 January 2023 snapshot, John Dutton (James Badge Dale) is described as "he kicks off a line of John’s that will eventually lead to ol’ Costner himself." But this is replaced by "With his death, the connection from John Dutton Sr. to Kevin Costner's John Dutton III becomes muddied just a bit. Especially since John and Emma were not shown to have a second son yet in 1923." There are more changes between the two versions, so Esquire is presenting speculations as fact. Thus, Esquire magazine should not be considered as a reliable source.
• Elle Magazine - Also presents speculations as fact. In their version of the Dutton family tree, Elle claims that John I and Emma Dutton had two sons, Jack and John II. Well, Taylor Sheridan killed off John (James Badge Dale) before he could have a second child. Thus, Elle Magazine should not be considered as a reliable source.

"Mary Abel Dutton" was born a Dutton. Mary Abel and Elsa call each other "cousin", but it is not necessarily that they are first cousins. The best that I can say is that I am unable to tell you what the exact relationship is beyond that Claire had married a Dutton. Just because some publication publish speculation as fact does not mean that it true especially when a person is unable to find the source of their claim. 50.231.49.42 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to understand that Wikipedia is source-based. If Taylor Sheridan and/or Paramount releases a press release that is intentionally misleading, we use that, at least if it is reprinted in trusted trade magazines (Deadline is very trusted). Until it becomes apparent it is no longer true - because we have found another source we trust more (such as the primary source; the show itself). This obviously does not mean we should write nothing because we can't trust anyone. You need to accept that just because you suspect something to not be "the whole truth", you have to wait until you have sources to back your position up. Again: Wikipedia is source-based. Present your set of alternative sources, and we can discuss shifting to those. But arguing we should stop using the sources we consider trustworthy and instead... use nothing? will get you nowhere. CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The shenanigans Paramount went through to obscure the fact 1883 would actually end with Elsa's death

Look at the Future section, and read the various referenced source articles.

It is fairly clear Paramount didn't want the audience to easily realize there would not be any more episodes - as long as you expect more episodes, you can hope Elsa's story would continue. While the show was still running, Paramount announced "additional episodes" would follow, something that was later revealed not to be the case. The "second season" later turned out to be 1923, a completely new show. Bass Reeves was also billed as a successor to 1883, which, again, a notion that has since been dropped.

Obviously the above ramblings are entirely original research, so it would be great if anyone knows of articles discussing this obfuscation in a direct fashion. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia present third-party speculations as fact?

Many website have published elaborate family trees for and the articles about the Dutton family based upon zero information from the head writer/shows creator Taylor Sheridan with other website/publication repeating the same (mis)information. Should Wikipedia do the same? In this recent archive example of 1883 Wikipedia article, an editor added "Audie Rick as John Dutton Sr., John Dutton III's grandfather,[5] as a young boy." Since the same character, as portrayed by James Badge Dale, was killed off in the third episode of 1923, the probability of this still holding true grows less and less every day. Taylor Sheridan never said that Audie Rick/James Badge Dale's character is the grandfather of Kevin Costner's character, but it is interesting to note how many publications/websites present this speculation at fact, especially as time go on it looks more probable that Brandon Sklenar's character, Spencer, might be Kevin Costner's character's grandfather (we will have to wait for the conclusion of 1923 to find out). This is what we get when editors use a third-party speculation that is being passed along as a "fact" and the editors do not do their do diligence to see if what is published is not just an unfounded speculation. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. After all everything we claim on Wikipedia could be construed as "present[ing] third-party speculations as fact" since our job is to say what our sources say. Instead, the relevant question is: "which sources do we use for our article?" In other words, our work as Wikipedia editors is not to say things we ourselves believe to be true, but to agree to which set of sources to use, and whether to present opposing opinions or to disregard minority views. So, your first job is to find quality sources supporting your position (which I presume is "Claire's married name is Dalton; she isn't a Dalton by blood herself" which necessitates finding sources that claim that her husband Henry is the one related to the Daltons, i.e. Henry being the brother of James (and Jacob). Personally I find that position hopeless, but go ahead. Point is: you can't simply disagree with the sources we have provided, you need to find your own - our articles are source-based, not based on what random editors (like me and you) think is true. CapnZapp (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick addition. Note that at least the Esquire source specifically states "We’ve got your covered with a little help from our friends over at the Paramount Network." As long as we agree this is a trusted source, we can act as if "Clair is the sister of James, despite she and her daughter using the Dutton surname" is fact. CapnZapp (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick addition II: I definitely do not defend using Daily Express as a source. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and remove any and all instances of using DE as a source. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is always good when editors spend the time to explain the reasons for making their edits and not just using the "I'm right and you're wrong" argument. Great job in explaining the decision you had made for using the Deadline article as one of your sources and explaining on this Talk page why you chosed to ignore the "mother-daughter same last name quandary". Would it be just better if we can just follow the HorseyHooves solution and just leave the Claire-James relationship just unanswered like they do in the HorseyHooves article? If we can follow this suggestion, we would avoid the mother-daughter last name quandary entirely (by not being in conflict with it) instead of just let it simmer in the background.

BTW, is the Esquire author even aware of the mother-daughter last name quandary? Would the Esquire author change his article once he becomes aware of it? Looking at the Archive.org archive, the Esquire article is gradually changing after the each release of next episode of 1923. It would be an interesting experiment, if someone (not us) would mention the discussions on this Talk Page to the Esquire author to see if our discussions would influence his article. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Crossovers / Future

Please hash out which section to use.

Nobody benefits from discussing 1923 and now 1944 in two different places.

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Now the "1923 and 1944" subsection contains stuff arguably better placed under Future. (Main point is to collect all development-like stuff to ONE place, not that this place necessarily must be named "Future") The reason for this is that the two sections are too similar. It really needs to be fixed. Pinging @ErnestKrause: who introduced a similar structure for the 1923 article. CapnZapp (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't stuff about 1923 be on the 1923 page, stuff about 1944 be on the 1944 page, and anything about 1923 and 1944, or any other combinations of spin-offs, be on the "Spin-offs" sections of the main Yellowstone page? (at some point we made need a separate "Yellowstone franchinse" or "Yellowstone Cinematic Universe" page, but until then...) - wolf 00:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also inclining to think to use the main page at Yellowstone for the spin-off material. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now considered the material. The chief takeaway is that 1883 has closed its doors, and that various other shows ended up just that... as other shows. When written, while the show was airing or just thereafter, "Future" was a natural section header, since Paramount (quite underhandedly, if you ask me) discussed (or at least pretended to discuss) various approaches to more episodes (maybe Elsa lived after all?). In hindsight, the material is sort-of part of the development of the show. There is no future for 1883, by which I mean it has run its course. I considered having a subsubheader called "Developments" under "Development" :) but in the end opted for the non-standard Production subheader "Sequels". Feel free to improve further. Do note the HTML comment I left to help editors not discuss 1944 or other shows that ultimately doesn't have any direct lineage to this show. CapnZapp (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wolf: I think any material that does involve 1883 merits at least a short mention, or if expansive, a {{Main}} link to the main page you're discussing. So not anything about 1923 and 1944 but definitely anything about 1883 and 1944! If it turns up, that is. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it might be better to keep all this Crossover Talk on the main page for Yellowstone; otherwise the discussion just becomes forked for different editors editing the separate pages in their own way. I'm for keeping all this crossover talk on the main article at Yellowstone, and possibly fully deleting it on these sibling pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I agree we should keep only one copy of the overall summary of various sequels, and the Yellowstone page seems a natural candidate. I do think we can maintain series-specific crossover info on each article without problems or confusion. I never suggested we should outright delete crossover info involving 1883 from this page. If you do decide to do that, please include a short summary of the context and provide a direct link. This is the 1883 page. A reader should not be expected to understand that there is 1883-related information that isn't on this page.

Not for the first time, I removed 1944 info (unrelated to 1883). However. If 1944 contains a scene where, I dunno, Dawn Olivieri reappears as Jacob's sister's ghost to scare Matthew McConaughey (who's rumored to join the Yellowverse), then by all means, include it as a new "1944" subsection of our Crossovers and sequels section. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your idea of integrating everything into the Yellowstone page makes sense; perhaps a 'franchise' page could be created since it is now up to 5 (five) spin-offs? The 1883 page is currently identified as a spin-off both in the lede section and in the development section; is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it wasn't my idea.

What I was talking about when I started this section was that various bits and pieces related to 1923 (and 1944) was scattered over two places, inviting editors to duplicate content. Which is exactly what happened. My recent edits were meant to shut that once and for all. CapnZapp (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images

There are much better Infobox images for both 1883 and 1923 available on Interwiki which might be transferred here. See the nice images being used on Russian Wikipedia for examples for both series images. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Interwiki? Do you mean Commons? Can you provide a direct link to the images you are proposing? CapnZapp (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the 1883 image on Interwiki at the Russian page: [1]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is the one on Interwiki at the Russian page for 1923: [2]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the Russian Wikipedia. Interwiki is the linking of text from one language wiki to another. I don't believe you can do that with imqges. Anyways, images are either kept on individual lang wikis, or at Commons, which is a central repository for all files. fyi - wolf 21:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, just tried it and that image won't post. It needs to be saved at either here (enwiki) or at commons first. But I agree, it is better image. - wolf 21:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Yes I know about interwiki links. I just don't call it "interwiki", which I took as a special place. Now I understand you're referring simply to interwiki links, links to other-language Wikis. Not a specific place. Not even a way to display text from other wikis (at your wiki). Simply links that lead from one wiki language to another.

And the way you reuse the same image across several wikis is exactly what Commons is for. Once you have uploaded an image to Commons (as opposed to locally to a single wiki), you can access it from every wiki language. CapnZapp (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting the sense that you would be a good choice for someone to start a franchise page for the 5 spin-off of Yellowstone. It would be like a smaller version of the James Bond franchise article or the Star Wars franchise articles. I'd support you if you decide you could give it a try. (If you can figure out how to get the images I mentioned on 1923 Talk into Wikicommons, then that would be a plus as well.) ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the 1883 image over at Russian Wiki, I'm afraid it appears to be artwork created by someone else than official channels. The source page claims the image was created/uploaded by "Imzadi" on November 6, 2021. Per MOS:TVIMAGE, we should stick to a screenshot capture of the show's title or a promotional poster used to represent the show (or a home media cover but I see no reason we can't procure either of the first two). Of course, if you are certain these images ARE official promotional content, we only need a better source to verify this. As a (distant) second concern, that image is 680x1000, very clearly failing WP:IMAGERES. Finally, do note that despite me talking about Commons above non-free images - which is what we're discussing here - are not welcome at Commons. They need to be uploaded to each language Wiki. Or at least this place, English wiki does allow fair use of non-free images in certain cases, see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair-use/Non-free images) CapnZapp (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Similarities

Ì love this series, but the similarities between the 1950's movie "Westward the Women" (from a story by Frank Capra) are quit striking. Just saying. Dvedude (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are generally reserved for discussion about the article, (eg: anything that would potentially result in a change to the article's content). That said, if you would like to suggest a change, or make one yourself, regarding the film "Westward and Women" and it's similarities to this show, go for it! But ensure that you have reliable sourcing to support any changes. - wolf 04:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)