Talk:Twin Peaks season 3

The Roadhouse

Why is The Roadhouse referred to in the article as "Bang Bang Bar"? Yes, I know about the neon sign but that bar has always been referred to as "The Roadhouse" by everyone (literally, everyone in the series). JanBielawski (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Easy answer. The Bang Bang Bar happens to be a roadhouse (see Roadhouse (facility). As it's the only roadhouse in town, there's no real need for locals to call it by its proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.217.239 (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, can we get Hudmo to be credited as "Himself," as per the Episode 9 credits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:403B:7300:A81B:23B8:B6D5:6257 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A whole article about a new season?

Why the new article? It's like the new season of The X-Files. This is not a separate series, it's just a new season. --Batman tas (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's all very confusing. Imdb is also treating it as a separate show-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4093826/. This article, which comes from a site called digitalspy.com says it's going to be a new season-http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/twin-peaks/feature/a601713/twin-peaks-returns-the-cast-the-plot-the-characters-and-everything-you-need-to-know-about-season-3/, though I'm not sure if this info is in any way reliable. It could end up being a miniseries. It's possible.Radiohist (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We really have no idea whether it's going to be a season or a separate series. David Lynch is being intentionally very quiet about the entire thing, even down to who's playing whom (aside from returning actors). Considering how Lynch has filmed this project (basically as one massive movie), it's looking like it'll be a standalone miniseries or a conclusion to the cliffhangers the second season left behind. Either way, we are 100% certain that we're not sure what direction Lynch and Frost will take, and won't have many clues until the Secret History book release in mid-October. Joethetimelord (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We can have articles for specific seasons of television if there's enough information to fill them and editors who care enough to write them. I think the issue here is that this article's called Twin Peaks (2017 TV series) rather than Twin Peaks (season 3). —Flax5 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Page should be Twin Peaks (season 3). It's not a spinoff, reboot, etc. It has same characters with same actors, themes, and even reminds us of the "25 years" tie-in. — Wyliepedia 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's warranted because it's not just a next season, it's a new season after 25 years. This is not very common, to say the least. JanBielawski (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

now that we've seen more than half the season, it is clearly Season 3. It is clearly a continuation. The fact that it happened 25 years later is remarkable and noteworthy--note that in the intro, but new article? I had trouble finding this site. Makes no sense. Also, anybody looking at the old page will think Season 3 was never made.24.215.166.115 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that based on the independent coverage of this season, it deserves its own article. How many TV shows have separate articles for individual seasons anyway? Many. Here is the category for 2017 TV seasons for American shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Is it confirmed which characters the returning actors will play? Sheryl Lee played also Maddy Ferguson in original series, although the character died in the series. Anyway she is not only returning actor who's character died in original series. --188.67.86.85 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, some of the actors on this "returning" list are dead. Don S. Davis, for example. I think someone has simply dumped the entire extended cast of the original show into this article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No, any actor listed in this article is sourced per the official cast list that was released or an actor that is credited in the end of credits of these new episodes. Davis is listed because he appeared via archive footage and is credited for it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

It appears the title of this is Twin Peaks: The Return per the Showtime website. Should we move the article under that name instead? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing here isn't really clear, but I think this page might just be saying that "The Return" is the name of the two-part premiere. Either way, we should find out pretty soon. —Flax5 15:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's true it's not completely clear. However, (to put my detective cap on) The Return is the title on the tab for this "season" on the website under "Episode Guide", like season 1 and 2. "Parts 1 & 2" is in the spot where the episode titles go while "Twin Peaks The Return" is in the spot where season/episode numbers go; just compare it to another episode page on the website here. Anyway, we should know soon enough. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There's only one thing for certain - there will be some damn fine coffee. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Frost said it's simply Twin Peaks: https://twitter.com/mfrost11/status/850055977609056257 - MrBelpitsLegs (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Watts and Deadline

The source for Naomi Watts being in the cast is this article from Deadline. How reliable is this publication or the author of the story? The article starts with "I have learned that Naomi Watts is the latest big name..." To me it just feels unreliable. Now the added problem is that this dates from more than a year ago, so there's no shortage of other online sources stating that Watts is part of the cast, but I suspect they've all used the same base information to proliferate this story. I appreciate this will be cleared up one way or another in a month or so when the series starts, but I'm seeking people's opinions about this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Deadline.com is pretty much the most reliable online source for TV/entertainment news. They seem to break news or have exclusives more than any other outlet, especially when it comes to casting. As for "I have learned...", that's simply the writing style of the journalist; because that's her job, to acquire insider information. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DTG. I've seen the site used as a source before (I've probably used it myself from time to time), but just wanted to check. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte missing in description of Episode 5?

Someone attempts to kidnap a girl t the Roadhouse. Looks like this part is missing in the description of an episode. Is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.108.116 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard Horne grabs and threatens her but it's not a kidnapping attempt. If it winds up being important to the plot, it can go in, but it seems to just be showing what a nasty piece of work he is. --Canley (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Article titles for episodes of this series

Hypothetically speaking, if individual episodes were to be created for this series, what would their titles be? I'd like to have a crack at starting one for Ep.8, as there's a ton of reviews and resources online for it. But we already have Episode 8 (Twin Peaks) for the old series. Would this be Episode 8 (Twin Peaks (2017 TV series))? It seems a bit clunky to me. Or would it be Episode 38 (Twin Peaks), based on this? Also ping @Grapple X: too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Provisionally, the former is probably correct if clunky, though it might be worth seeing how they're titled on the inevitable home release. To cut down on nested brackets, maybe Episode 8 (2017 Twin Peaks episode) would work, but it's a different kind of awkward. GRAPPLE ^X 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

How about Part 8 (Twin Peaks)? That seems to be what the official site is calling it. —Flax5 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, this could be more confusing than the episode itself! I'll go with the more clunkly name for now, and it can always be moved if/when another name is given. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Part 8 (Twin Peaks) is probably the best way to go since that seems to be the official title, and it ducks the issue nicely. I came to this talk page specifically to see if anyone was considering creating a page about this specific episode given the volume of critical discussion around it, so I'm glad to see that's what was happening! 147.9.65.120 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Lynch has said that these are not "episodes", but "parts", because he views this season as one 18-hour long movie. Therefore, Part 8 (Twin Peaks) would be the appropriate choice, though I don't think a separate article is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In case you missed it, an editor has gone on and created Part 8 (Twin Peaks). Since it was such a monumental episode of TV, I feel it can be expanded and improved much further; more critical analysis, especially regarding about how the atomic bomb is connected to the TP mythology. Pinging interested editors: Lugnuts and Grapple X. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - a great start. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Taglines, on their own, are not notable

The taglines of each episode, in their current form, have to go, as there's nothing notable about them. So what if an episode had the tagline "Don't die."? Why is that of interest to the readers, and why is it in the plot section of each episode? Should we also include the runtime of each episode, for example, because it's another trivia piece of info we know?

However, if we establish with reliable sources, that for example (and I haven't bothered to check if this is true), because of the lack of proper episode titles, the taglines have been widely used by the media as alternate episode titles, then that's a good reason to keep them.

Note that the info about whose quote is it, and when they said it in the episode, will still have to go, as even if taglines are notable enough to include, that information continues to be non-notable. Freemanukem (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are they non-notable and "have to go"? The original series had the same setup, with the list of episodes showing them, and it's a Featured List too. The taglines are used here in the UK, and I'm guessing in the US too. Is that widley used? Yes, I think it is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Those from the original series are not taglines, but regardless, as I said, if something is notable you have to establish that. That article does establish it, look here: List of Twin Peaks episodes#Episode titles , it provides an explanation which uses reliable sources. The same thing has to happen for this article; establish why they are notable, establish that they are widely used. Then, it would be ok to use them. Freemanukem (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm struggling to see why they're useful myself. They're not episode titles. Popcornduff (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mr. C

This has been re-added, so I'd like some consensus (or sources put forward). I see no reason why Cooper's doppelganger should be referred to as "Mr. C". Many commenters seem to have latched on to this moniker, but fact is the doppelganger is referred to in this style once and otherwise a natural variety of "Dale", "Mr Cooper", "Cooper" - because he has replaced the "original" Dale, after all. He is not named or referred to any differently to the original Dale within the narrative. So let's leave this bizarre "Mr. C" stuff to fansites, OK? If there are any sources for the Mr. C moniker being used by the production or promotion of the series that I haven't seen, then they need to be cited for it to be included. U-Mos (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree - remove it. It's in the same vein as Gordon Cole calling him "Coop". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

But what is this show about?

Did I miss the part where there's an explanation what this show is about??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.3 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To quote the article's introduction, this show is "a continuation of the 1990–91 ABC series of the same name." This continuation picked up right where the old series left off, and more information can be found in the main Twin Peaks page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.217.239 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinions are needed

For anyone interested, please see the discussion on the original Twin Peaks talk page here regarding adding links to the official Showtime website for Twin Peaks in the various episode articles for the series. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast list

The cast list is getting a bit excessive in my opinion. It appears editors are adding every single actor that has appeared in this series. I think we need to stick to notability here, per MOS:TVCAST, "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". We need to just be listing notable actors (who have Wikipedia articles), actors playing recurring roles, or if they just appear once it should be a notable one (say, the Woodsman or Señorita Dido). We should be cutting the fat here and remove the unnotable and extremely minor roles. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I named Jade, Naido and The American Girl (in the purple lake portal) to a plot summary. I don't think Naido and TAG will be relevant later but until the series concludes, we don't know. I don't think it hurts to use their names instead of 'prostitute' or 'two women' as Lynch took the time to credit those names. Nafessa Williams does have a page, but Phoebe Augustine has a short acting credit list (mostly all Lynch), yet Nae Yukki seems notable enough in Japan to go by the mononym 'Nae' and has a Japanese Wikipedia article [1] to link to. Is she notable enough to translate to an English page?

How about trimming after we've seen all 18 episodes? 97.85.173.38 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Phoebe Augustine should be listed because she appeared in the original series, I'm more talking about new actors. But yes, waiting after all 18 episodes have aired sounds like a good idea. Thank you for your comment. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

To use the name "Jade" in plot summaries is okay as she is actually named on-screen. The same cannot be said for the women in the metal box in space. And since they do not appear again (thus far), their names do not help referencing them throughout the plot summary. Note that the summaries are there to inform readers of the notable goings-on, not about any detail.

I think the cast list is getting excessive too, especially when it comes to non-characters like "background singers 1 and 2". But it doesn't hurt to keep them until the show has concluded, when we really know who's important or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Names seen in the credits still appear on-screen and are part of the show, so it's perfectly valid to use them in plot summaries. This sort of thing is a recurring theme with Lynch works – few of the names in Eraserhead#Plot are seen before the credits roll, for instance, but they're still helpful in explaining the story. —Flax5 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "names seen in the credits" are equally part of the show. Names mentioned by other characters certainly seem to be more important. In any case, the deciding factor must always be the value of including such names to the reader of the plot summary. Using names is useful if that character appears again and again, if only to avoid repeating explanations. Hence it's "Anthony" and not "the insurance agent Cooper called a liar". But there's no value in using the name "Naido" (and even less so in verbs like "greets, then silences"). Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use the names Naido and The American Girl in a plot summary, even though they only may likely appear once. They are named in the credits, one of the actresses has a Wikipedia page, and the reader of the plot summary is better informed than just seeing 'two women protect', which isn't accurate as they protect him serially, not together. Also, one of them seemed to sacrificed her life to give him entry into Earth. Cooper needing to have another sacrifice their life to get him back to the world, after the box route failed, seems a detail that Lynch wanted us to note. He used a Japanese film actress, notable for tragic parts in the sacrificial role. It turns out that Naido didn't die and was found in the woods in ep 14, (which I'm not at yet). Her being in multiple episodes is another argument for including her name in part 3 summary. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Before Naido appeared again, these names had zero information value. In a sentence like "Naido then The American Girl" (without a comma) it is not even clear whether Naido and TAG are two persons or just two names for the same person. If they are recognised as two, we learn nothing about them apart from TAG being "American"(-looking) and a "girl". And what's a >>banging "mother" entity<< supposed to mean? (Doesn't it sound a bit "suggestive"?) You must put yourself into the position of a reader without any knowledge to write a proper summary.

However, now that Naido has reappeared I'm all for mentioning her. I have said that all along. We also need to mention her fall as she apparently landed in the forests of Twin Peaks. That also satisfies your wish to note Naido's sacrifice (even though it wasn't included in the latest "banging mother" version. (And if we mention Naido, we might as well mention TAG.) Str1977 ^(talk) 14:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

TAG called the entity 'mother'. I suspect that will be important at a later stage, but maybe fluff thrown in. 'Banging' is descriptive of the sound being made (it sounded like the banging someone would make crawling through an A/C duct). Anyone that just watched the episode would readily recognize the description. I have always been for mentioning the fall and their names.

To be clear. I am watching the episode as I type in my changes. I even rewind and watch again to be accurate. I am not going by memory.

Maybe things will be smoother from now on. The last edit is agreeable. On Ep 4 it would be nice to have tiny bit more detail what 'misgivings' they have. They do indeed specify their misgivings. The doppleganger is behaving abnormally (but they use extended language). Oh, Don S. Davis posthumous appearance was in 3. His head floats by under the machine saying "Blue Rose". Is a posthumous appearance notable enough to mention?97.85.173.38 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Anyone that just watched the episode would readily recognize the description."

Such an argument is the root problem. The summaries not just writte for those who has "just watched the episode". They should be comprehensible to anyone (as far as this is possible when it comes to a work of David Lynch) regardless of whether they have seen the episode or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of unsourced names/roles for very minor parts. Looking just at the Las Vegas section, you have: Stephanie Allynne as Soccer Mom, Sean Bolger as Detailer, Jay Jee as Patrol Officer, Malone as Man in Urinal (!), Sawyer Shipman as Little Boy, Bill Tangradi as Jake, etc. I don't think any of them are needed. I do agree with waiting until all the episodes have shown, as these could be very important parts later on! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that the series is over, I think it time to start trimming the cast list. Generally, I think who should be removed: any actor that does not have a Wikipedia article who plays a very minor role or isn't recurring. I say we go section by section (location) and agree on who should be cut. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Here - have I missed any non-notable cast members or removed any that should be kept? —Flax5 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Only note I would make is Andrea Hays (who was removed), as she is reprising her role from the original series. It's a fairly minor character, but since we're listing Toad (the RR cook), we should maybe add back Hays. I've trimmed the Government and Las Vegas sections. We also don't necessarily have to keep everyone who has a Wikipedia article; for example, Jesse Johnson who plays "Younger Man" could probably go, plus it would get rid of the Philadelphia section, which only lists him. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mostly good job. But I think the following should be kept:

• Jay Aaseng as Drunk - he is a recurring character and even mentioned in the plot summaries.
• Andrea Hays as Heidi - she is a returning character from the original series where she has two very short but notable appearences. Why remove her but keep Mike Nelson?
• Sarah Jean Long as Miriam Sullivan - another recurring character important for a noteworthy angle.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Musical acts

Bluerules constantly bloats the musical acts section with edit summaries like the following:

"This is a cast section, these bands and artists are real, but they are playing themselves and performing as themselves in a fictional world. The focus is on the individuals, per the credits. No reason to include details outside of the cast members."

Some of these statements are simply pronouncements of his preferences. Contrary to what he says, this section is not about actors playing characters (with the exception of James Marshall/Hurley) but about a recurring feature of the new series, the musical act. The musical acts are real and hence they should be treated as such - e.g. the members of Chromatics do not by coincidence get together in the show to portray a band also called Chromatics, they appear AS A BAND and ONLY as a band (again, James is the exception). In a way, these are extended cameos. (For that reason, IMO Moby should be included among the musical acts. If considered a "character" called "musician" he is neglible and should be removed alltogether after the season concludes in the purge of minute characters - see section above).

Hence the statement "focus is on the individuals" is beside the point. This constant X as him/herself is a waste of WP space and a waste of reader's time.

It also doesn't matter that it is a sub-section to "cast" as "In memoriam" is such a subsection too but merely notes the title cards remembering deceased actors. Maybe these should be separated from the "cast" section.

Removing the distribution among parts (a novelty introduced today by Bluerules) removes any recognition of this recurring feature status of the musical act and also glosses over the fact that some appeared more than once. This is taking Bluerules's invented "This is just a cast section" to the extreme.

Finally, James Marshall is BOTH a musical act and an actor playing a character. As he performs his music in character he deserves the "as James Hurley" note. Sheryl Lee and Lara Flynn Boyle - even if they actually sang on the recorded song - do not deserve inclusion here as they do not appear (similar to any unseen personnel contributing to the Chromatics "Shadow" recording). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

PS. Note also the inconsitency. Most artists are credited as him/herself, Band members are credited as portraying a supposedly fictional band. Since the ""The" Nine Inch Nails" absurdity suggests we should only parrot the credits, it is illogical that the following credits are treated differently:

Ruth Radelet      Chromatics     |      Sharon Van Etten                 Sharon Van Etten
Adam Miller                      |      Carolyn Pennypacker Riggs
Johnny Jewel                     |      John Phillip Irons III
Nat Walker                       |      Zeke Hutchins

Why do the names in the first column "portray" a band called "Chromatics", while the names in the third column do not portray "portray" a band called "Sharon Van Etten"? The format of the credits are totally identical.

Or maybe our job here is not to merely parrot the credits after all.

First of all, my edits are a reduction of the musical acts section. My edits also provide rationale for all my actions. There has been no explanation previously given for why it is necessary to mention the specific episodes that each artist appears in. The underlying purpose of the cast section is to focus on the cast; we do not mention which specific episodes other cast members appear in. That's for the episode summaries. Str1977's edits likewise are pronouncements of his own preferences ("if Moby isn't relevant then neither are James's or Sharon Van Etten's background - these bands exist and hence are not character roles - it is actually Chromatics performing, not someo people as Chromatics") and do not follow consistency, which I am seeking to bring to this article.

I have never said this section is about actors playing characters; I have said this section is for the real-life musical artists. I have repeatedly acknowledged (including in the quoted summary) that these musical acts are real. However, as a cast section, the focus is supposed to be on the individuals, not the bands. I do not see how crediting the members of the Chromatics "as Chromatics" treats them as fictional characters who "by coincidence get together in the show to portray a band also called Chromatics". They are Chromatics; that's what the edit says and that's what the ending credits say. The ending credits say they are "Chromatics", but it's clear that "Chromatics" is not a fictional character. And while these may appear to be extended cameos, they are still a prominent part of the show, and there are a number of musical acts present, which is why they have their own cast section the page. The reason why Moby is not included among the musical artists is because he was credited as "Musician" in the actor section of the credits, not in the artist section, which is separate from the supporting cast section for the actors. He received no credit for the song being performed. It is inconsistent to also list him as an artist when he was not credited as such. If he is a minute character, I am not opposed to his removal.

Str1977's paragraph does not explain why the focus on the individuals is "beside the point". This is a cast section, not a band section, and the cast section's focus is clearly on individual cast members. These bands and artists appear in the show and although overall brief, have a prominent role in the show. It is not "a waste of WP space" when these artists are a prominent aspect of the show. It is not "a waste of reader's time" when readers are going to want to know who the artists were who appeared on the show. The artists mentioned on this article right from the start, before I subdivided the cast members into specific sections.

It does matter that this is a subsection to the "cast" because that's how it is currently presented in the article. As one of the "cast" subsections, it needs to be consistent with the rest of the "cast" subsections. We have "Monica Bellucci as Herself", but we can't have any of the musical artists listed as themselves? I am actually opposed to the inclusion of the "In memoriam" because it is redundant and originates from a portion of the credits that is not in the cast portion - unlike the musical artists. I am in favor of having the "In memoriam" section removed altogether because we can make note of who died before the show aired in the background sections of the article.

The distribution among parts, which I have removed from the beginning, was removed because it is not necessary. We already know it is a recurring feature because the musical acts have their own section. They're obviously on the show; they wouldn't appear in these article otherwise. We do not make mention of cast members appearing in specific episodes because that is what the summaries are for. If we want to specify that certain artists appeared more than once, we can just put (x episodes) next to their names, which is the standard practice for most cast members on a TV series. And if we do that - which I am not opposed to - we have to do that for all the cast members for consistency purposes. This is "just a cast section"; I'm not the one who invented the original section. It is what the top of the section says. And the subsections of the section must be consistent to keep the article organized and prevent anyone from making the subsections reflect only what they want them to reflect.

To put James Marshall as both an actor and a musical artist (the latter of which he was not credited as) is redundant. He's already listed as an actor in the Twin Peaks subsection; we don't need to mention him twice. Chrysta Bell, Miguel Ferrer, David Lynch, and Laura Dern all appear in the South Dakota storyline, but they're only in the Government subsection because that's where they're primarily associated with. Eamon Farren and George Griffith appear in Montana, but they're in the Twin Peaks and South Dakota subsections respectively, because those are their primary areas. Marshall may perform his music in character, but he is still a fictional character primarily associated with the fictional characters in Twin Peaks. The musical artist section is for the non-fictious artists because they don't have any other subsection they belong to. As a fictional character, Marshall is clearly different from the rest, which is why he does not deserve to be in this subsection and listed twice. He already has a subsection for him. As for Sheryl Lee and Lara Flynn Boyle, the point is that we know they performed on the song that appeared in the episode, they were shown performing it on the original show, and the two backup singers were clearing "performing" their vocals, which is why their inclusion is deserved. We don't know if there were any unseen personnel contributing to to the Chromatics "Shadow" recording and there is no reference to them. But the point stands that this subsection is intended for non-fictional music acts because there are no other subsections for them, while Marshall and the everyone else playing a fictional character already have a subsection for them.

As for the "inconsistency", what is "illogical" about it? Only two, not most, artists were credited as themselves - Hudson Mohawke and Rebekah Del Rio. Everyone else was credited as a band. And I have never argued the bands are supposed to be fictional, ""The" Nine Inch Nails" credit is simply what they were called in the episode and credited as. Why do the names in the first column "portray" a band called "Chromatics", while the names in the third column do not portray "portray" a band called "Sharon Van Etten"? Because those artists with Sharon Van Etten were actually performing alongside Sharon Van Etten. The logical is simple; both credits are crediting the people who actually performed. Mohawke performed by himself and since no one else alongside Del Rio received credit, the implication is those individuals on-screen did not actually perform on the song. So the format of the credits should be identical, and the treatment is the same, because both are giving credit to those who actually performed.

Bottom line is, our job is to "parrot" the credits, or at least use them as a primary basis for the article. We need to use something as a basis for this article; we can't perform original research. The credits come from the show itself and that's where information for this article comes from. We bill the actors, save for MacLachlan, with the alphabetical order in mind, not how we want to bill them in how we perceive their prominence, because that's how they're billed in the ending credits. The credits are an undeniable source of information that unless it contains missing details or misinformation (neither of which is the case here), we cannot argue against. If we are liberal with the information provided to us, we run the risk of too much original findings, which we are not permitted to do. Bluerules (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bluerules,

while our latest edits were an (extreme) reduction of the section, your earlier edits were bloating. You basically added words without any information value (as herself) and then cut down informative words.

You sort-of gave a rationale but it is based on nothing but your pronouncement that this is a part of the cast section. But has never been a list of cast (just as the In memoriam hasn't been one) until the very last, when you made it one. So in resonse to "The underlying purpose of the cast section is to focus on the cast" - no, it hasn't. Not in this sub-section.

There was "no explanation .. given for why it is necessary to mention the specific episodes" because it was never questioned until you removed them at the last minute. But there you go: Mentioning the episodes has various advantages: 1. it helps readers who want to get to a specific act quickly find the right episode, 2. it shows returning acts, 3. episode-specific information might keep editors from moving the acts into the plot summaries. OTOH, I can't think of any downsides to this format.

No, my edits are not "likewise are pronouncements of his own preferences, e.g.

• "if Moby isn't relevant then neither are James's or Sharon Van Etten's background" - I was just asking for consistency in including background musicians (especially since Moby's prominence would rather justify the opposite) But actually I don't care whether to include Moby and Sharon's backing musicians.

"these bands exist and hence are not character roles - it is actually Chromatics performing, not someo people as Chromatics": that's hardly controversial. The are actual, real bands and they are performing as such.

If you're not saying that these are "actors playing characters" then any reason for putting in "as herself" falls flat. You have thus far said they are but your edits are otherwise.

Since it's not a cast section, the focus need not be on, as you call them, "individuals". But since this about "musical acts" (note the section header) the individual (i.e. undivisable) units actually are the bands. Chromatics never appear divided.

Of course, "as Chromatics" makes them into characters. It notably treats bands quite different from singles acts which do not get a Sharon Van Etten as Sharon Van Etten treatment.

They are prominent parts of the show but not as characters but in their own right.

There is no "actor section" in the credits. There are just credits. And if we bury Moby there (and his appearence is very much a cameo) he will in the end be removed.

Monica Bellucci is no counter example as she actually took part in the plot, albeit in a very small, dream section. The musical artists don't (apart for James M/H, who basically does double duty).

If you're opposed to James appearing as a musical act, we can discuss that. But then we would have to put more info into the plot summary. But he has been there every since the episode aired (without controversy thus far) and since the "musical section" is not a cast section, he is not mentioned twice. He is listed as an actor/character in the cast section and his performance in the musical section. Just as Lynch's son is mentioned twice because he played a character in one episode and performed music in another.

"I am actually opposed to the inclusion of the "In memoriam" because it is redundant and originates from a portion of the credits that is not in the cast portion" - that's your prerogative but you cannot (and do not) assume your opinion to be the rule. Neither can you do that for the "musical artists" section, which YOU and ONLY YOU and ONLY TODAY turned into just another list of cast.

It is not obvious that it is a recurring feature. If musical acts only appeared once in a while in the show, we could have such a list. Now, we have the introduction saying "most episodes" and clearly show that it has been almost every episode.

"Chrysta Bell ...because that's where they're primarily associated with" - no, they appear there because the cast is divided into groups and they are part of the "government" group while those coming from "South Dakota" are part of that group. Eventually, most main characters (if alive) will probably end up in Twin Peaks.

I doubt that you actually know whether Sheryl Lee was really singing in the old series nor that it's lip synching. It's both probable but we don't know that. But they surey don't appear now. And if it really is lip synching then the background "singers" do nothing but stand there.

My second post was reductio ad absurdum. If you think we must inanities like ""The" Nine Inch Nails" (which I cannot even type without going back), then we must parrot the credits everywhere and hence Sharon Van Hetten and her backup "portray" a band called Sharon Van Hetten. (The same holds true for all the other bands including NIN).

"and since no one else alongside Del Rio received credit, the implication is those individuals on-screen did not actually perform on the song" - nonsense. Why are they then not listed as actors? You cannot draw any valid conclusions from the credits like that. And that would really be Original Research.

"So the format of the credits should be identical, and the treatment is the same, because both are giving credit to those who actually performed." - That's not what you're doing (not that you should but you are claiming equality falsely.)

"Bottom line is, our job is to "parrot" the credits" - no, it's most definitely not. We're writing an encyclopedia. The sources are the basis but we organise the information in a sensible manner. "as Chromatics" and "as himself" is not sensible.

"not how we want to bill them" - so I must have missed where in the credits actors are separated into groups like Twin Peaks, government, supernatural, South Dakota etc.

Bottom line is: we organise the information. Neither the credits (which yield the content) nor you dictate how we do it. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"while our latest edits were an (extreme) reduction of the section, your earlier edits were bloating. You basically added words without any information value (as herself) and then cut down informative words."

The only "bloat" you could argue I made was the additional detail about James Marshall's performance, and if Marshall is to be included, I maintain that it is necessary to establish the difference between Marshall and the rest of the musical artists. Marshall was playing a fictional character, the rest of the artists were not, and the rest of the artists are performing new songs created for the show, whereas Marshall was "performing" a song recorded over 20 years ago. Adding two words ("as herself") is hardly a bloat and it establishes that the artists are appearing as themselves (further contrast from Marshall). The words I cut down were redundant words that did not belong in the subsection - we know the artists appear on the show by simple mention of giving them their own section and we do not mention the specific episodes that any cast members appear in because that information can be placed in the episode summaries. The cast section is for identifying who is on the show, not which specific episodes they appear in; episode summaries provide information for the latter.

"You sort-of gave a rationale but it is based on nothing but your pronouncement that this is a part of the cast section. But has never been a list of cast (just as the In memoriam hasn't been one) until the very last, when you made it one. So in resonse to "The underlying purpose of the cast section is to focus on the cast" - no, it hasn't. Not in this sub-section."

It is not my "pronouncement" that this is a cast section, it is a fact that it is a cast section. It is intended as a list of the cast and no arguments or deflection can change that. The "In memoriam" subsection is the only deviation, but even then, it is still a list of the actors who had episodes dedicated in their memories. Again, I do not believe this subsection is appropriate for the article, and I am in favor of removing it. I did not create that subsection. But regardless, this was created a list of the cast and it always had been, even before my edits. It was originally a list divided into a subsection of the returning cast members and a subsection of the new cast members. All I did was create more subsections for coherence purposes and nobody changed it, and editors have added to them since. You fail to explain why the underlying purpose of the cast section isn't to focus on the cast, giving no reason to back up your assertion. Nearly all of the subsections focus on the cast and if you believe the focus in the musical artist subsection should not be on the cast, then that is inconsistent with the other subsections. I see you have since put the artist subsection into a different section, which is debatable because the "In memoriam" subsection is redundant, and the artist subsection is the same format as the rest of the cast. The artists are in the same underlying section as the rest of the cast.

"There was "no explanation .. given for why it is necessary to mention the specific episodes" because it was never questioned until you removed them at the last minute. But there you go: Mentioning the episodes has various advantages: 1. it helps readers who want to get to a specific act quickly find the right episode, 2. it shows returning acts, 3. episode-specific information might keep editors from moving the acts into the plot summaries. OTOH, I can't think of any downsides to this format."

I have removed the specific episodes from the beginning, I assume you simply did not notice their removal before. To the alleged advantages, I say this: 1. How many readers are want to see the episodes just for a specific act? And regardless, they can quickly find the right episode by simply placing the artist in the episode summary, which again is what the summaries are for - they identify who is in and what occurs in the episodes, 2. Returning acts can be shown by simply placing (x episodes) next to their names, which is the standard method of identifying multiple appearances in a series, 3. What is the harm in moving the acts into the plot summaries? That is what the plot summaries are for. If they're concise, they can handle a few extra words. The downsides to the format are that it's inconsistent with other subsections, inconsistent with cast sections in general, and adds information that is better suited to the episode section.

"No, my edits are not "likewise are pronouncements of his own preferences, e.g. "if Moby isn't relevant then neither are James's or Sharon Van Etten's background" - I was just asking for consistency in including background musicians (especially since Moby's prominence would rather justify the opposite) But actually I don't care whether to include Moby and Sharon's backing musicians."

You are pronouncing what you perceive as a consistency issue. Moby and Sharon's backing musicians were not billed the same and to make it seem like they were goes against consistency. Moby was billed as a standard actor, separate from Rebekah Del Rio, whereas Sharon's backing musicians were billed alongside her. I don't care about Moby, but Sharon's musicians were billed in the same subsection as her in the credits. As for James, he was billed as a standard actor, so his backing singers were at least in the same subsection as him. But I believe James does not belong in the musical artist section for that reason (not being in the same credit subsection as one), among others.

""these bands exist and hence are not character roles - it is actually Chromatics performing, not someo people as Chromatics": that's hardly controversial. The are actual, real bands and they are performing as such."

But I'm not arguing that they are real, actual bands and performing as such. You are pronouncing that writing the subsection as I have makes it seem like they are fictional, even though the credits don't give that implication, and you appear to be overlooking the fact that they are real, they are putting on a fictional performance in a fictional world.

"If you're not saying that these are "actors playing characters" then any reason for putting in "as herself" falls flat. You have thus far said they are but your edits are otherwise."

Even though that is the standard practice for people who portray themselves in fictional forms of media? They are still appearing in a fictional world, which is why they receive credits like "as herself". You may interpret this as them playing characters, but since other cast sections typically use "as himself / herself / themselves", it appears others disagree as your interpretation. They may not be playing fictional characters, but they are appearing in a fictional world, hence why they appear "as themselves" - and hence what my edits reflect. "Herself" is not a fictional character, it is who the individual actually is, and that's what my edits say.

"Since it's not a cast section, the focus need not be on, as you call them, "individuals". But since this about "musical acts" (note the section header) the individual (i.e. undivisable) units actually are the bands. Chromatics never appear divided."

But it is a cast section and this cannot be reasonably argued against when the section clearly says "cast." The section is for the individuals; it for identifying the individuals who appear in the series. "Musical acts" is not its own section; it is still a subsection of the cast section. The members of the band are still individuals themselves who, unlike a band, are truly undivisable. Even if the bands never appear divided, they are still comprised of individual members who take priority when the focus is on the undivisable - as reflected in the credits.

"Of course, "as Chromatics" makes them into characters. It notably treats bands quite different from singles acts which do not get a Sharon Van Etten as Sharon Van Etten treatment."

That is simply your interpretation - the members are Chromatics and "as Chromatics" establishes that. Bands are treated differently from singles acts because they are different - they're not going by an individual's name. They are all the units of the band, whereas Hudson Mohawke and Rebekah Del Rio are one unit. Sharon Van Etten's and Lissie's band members were also billed "as Sharon Van Etten" and "as Lissie", which I personally prefer having in the article if others agree.

"They are prominent parts of the show but not as characters but in their own right."

But they are still prominent cast members of the show who appear on the fictional show. They may not be fictional characters, but they are in a fictional world, and they may not have involvement with the plot (save for maybe Riley Lynch), but there is clear focus on them.

"There is no "actor section" in the credits. There are just credits. And if we bury Moby there (and his appearence is very much a cameo) he will in the end be removed."

That is not correct. Specifically, there is a "supporting actor" section where all of the standard actors, save for MacLachlan are billed alphabetically. The musical artists do not appear in this section. Instead of being billed alphabetically alongside the rest, there is a clear break in the credits between the supporting actors and the musical artists to emphasize the divide of the subsections. So it is not "just credits". Moby appears in the supporting actor subsection as opposed to the artist subsection that Rebekah Del Rio appeared in during that episode. If Moby is removed, especially considering that his appearance is very much a cameo, I have no issue with his removal.

"Monica Bellucci is no counter example as she actually took part in the plot, albeit in a very small, dream section. The musical artists don't (apart for James M/H, who basically does double duty)."

And I say so what? She may have actually took part in the plot, but she is not playing a character, she is playing herself, and you seem to have indicated that including "as herself" means she's playing a fictional character. Even if she has a role in the plot and the musical artists don't save for James and Riley Lynch (who also appears as an actor, mind you), you previously said "If you're not saying that these are "actors playing characters" then any reason for putting in "as herself" falls flat". Now you're disagreeing with your own argument and acknowledging that crediting Bellucci "as herself" does not mean she is an actor playing a character.

"If your opposed to James appearing as a musical act, we can discuss that. But then we would have to put more info into the plot summary. But he has been there every since the episode aired (without controversy thus far) and since the "musical section" is not a cast section, he is not mentioned twice. He is listed as an actor/character in the cast section and his performance in the musical section. Just as Lynch's son is mentioned twice because he played a character in one episode and performed music in another."

We do not have to put more in the plot summary; the plot summary already mentions his appearance and performance. He has been there every since the episode aired without controversy thus far because it's not of interest to other editors, just as my changes have not faced resistance from other editors except for yourself. The "musical section" was still a subsection of the cast section, prior to your division, which is why he had been mentioned twice. He was listed twice in this section before you created the "recurring features" section. To which I say that section is not necessary because the musical artists are still credited as being part of the cast, even if it is a subsection of the credits. However, James is not mentioned as a musical artist in the actual credits; he is mentioned as an actor. Riley Lynch, on other hand, was with a real band and performed a song created for the new series, while receiving special artist credit for his music appearance and received actor credit for his second. James did not, despite only performing music in his second episode appearance. Nevertheless, I am open to discussing his appearance as a musical act.

""I am actually opposed to the inclusion of the "In memoriam" because it is redundant and originates from a portion of the credits that is not in the cast portion" - that's your prerogative but you cannot (and do not) assume your opinion to be the rule. Neither can you do that for the "musical artists" section, which YOU and ONLY YOU and ONLY TODAY turned into just another list of cast."

Which is why I have not removed it. Do not lecture me on prerogatives when you assumed the musical artists belonged in a "recurring features" section and created the section without consulting anyone else - using your own opinion as a basis for the rule on a "musical artist" subsection. The "musical artists" subsection was part of the cast section for months. I made it into "just another list of cast" months ago when I created for subsections for consistency and coherency purposes. Nobody disagreed with me on this, nobody else disagreed with it being "just another list of cast", and it remained in the cast section for months. YOU and ONLY YOU and ONLY TODAY took the initiative to create a new section and dump it into that section without consulting anyone else, when you appear to be the only one who disagrees with the "musical artists" subsection being part of the cast section.

"It is not obvious that it is a recurring feature. If musical acts only appeared once in a while in the show, we could have such a list. Now, we have the introduction saying "most episodes" and clearly show that it has been almost every episode."

It is obvious because if it was not a recurring feature, the music acts would not have their own section, there would not be a good number of musical acts, and the musical acts might not even appear on the page since they would be cameos with no relevance to the plot. Yet they are prominent enough to have their own subsection, which makes the "most episodes" redundant. We don't need to say that "most episodes" take place in Twin Peaks, Las Vegas, and / or South Dakota because giving those locations their own subsection establishes that. And adding (x episodes) would make their prominence even more clear and be consistent with other cast sections. The "most episodes" introduction is redundant when the acts are clearly prominent enough in the series to warrant their own subsection, even more so when you put them under a "recurring features" section because they obviously appeared in a good number of episodes to be a "recurring feature".

""Chrysta Bell ...because that's where they're primarily associated with" - no, they appear there because the cast is divided into groups and they are part of the "government" group while those coming from "South Dakota" are part of that group. Eventually, most main characters (if alive) will probably end up in Twin Peaks."

Which is what I said - they are primarily associated with those groups that I divided because that's where they came from. Where they probably end up doesn't change that, and I gave the "government" group one that wasn't dictated by location because I assumed they would be the most fluid of the cast, as opposed to the residents of the various locations. But likewise, James came from Twin Peaks, he is part of the Twin Peaks group, which is why it was redundant to also put him in the "musical artist" subsection while it was still part of the cast section. And if it gets placed back, it still will be redundant because those other actors who appear in different locations sure don't appear in different cast-based subsections.

"I doubt that you actually know whether Sheryl Lee was really singing in the old series nor that it's lip synching. It's both probable but we don't know that. But they surey don't appear now. And if it really is lip synching then the background "singers" do nothing but stand there."

I was going by what the article on Twin Peak's music said. If there's evidence against what the article says that confirms someone else was singing, so be it. But if it is Lee's and Boyle's voices, they are appearing voice wise. And unlike the other songs, James' was recorded long ago. It is being lip synched in the new series because it's the same recording from before. So what if the "background "singers" do nothing but stand there"? It's not live, it's a fictional show. It's just meant to give the impression that they're singing (which is also why I added the detail about who the real singers were). Technically, the rest of the artists are probably just standing there as well, while their own recorded music (that was at least performed and recorded by them, which is difference here), was added in post.

"My second post was reductio ad absurdum. If you think we must inanities like ""The" Nine Inch Nails" (which I cannot even type without going back), then we must parrot the credits everywhere and hence Sharon Van Hetten and her backup "portray" a band called Sharon Van Hetten. (The same holds true for all the other bands including NIN)."

Yet identifying Carel Struycken's character as a bunch of question marks before he was identified was acceptable? I fail to see how that's more ridiculous than saying Sharon Van Hetten and her backup band were portraying "Sharon Van Hetten" and even more so with ""The" Nine Inch Nails." In fact, I fail to see how ""The" Nine Inch Nails" is an inanity - is including ""The"" really such a big issue? These are just nitpicks with the apparent issues of "parroting" the credits because they are minor details (only a few characters), and again, labeling a character as a series of question marks wasn't an issue for anyone.

""and since no one else alongside Del Rio received credit, the implication is those individuals on-screen did not actually perform on the song" - nonsense. Why are they then not listed as actors? You cannot draw any valid conclusions from the credits like that. And that would really be Original Research."

Yet you are not backing up a single claim of yours. Besides, I said the "implication", not that what I said was a fact. First of all, Moby was listed as an actor (in the supporting actor subsection) and the rest not being listed at all is contradictory to how Sharon Van Hetten's and Lissie's bands were credited. But again, I wasn't drawing a valid conclusion, I said "implication". And it's an implication I can draw from the credits when they're not consistent in crediting certain individuals. Regardless, since that information came from the credits and had a source - the credits - it's not quite original research either.

""So the format of the credits should be identical, and the treatment is the same, because both are giving credit to those who actually performed." - That's not what you're doing (not that you should but you are claiming equality falsely.)"

Which you're again not supporting. My edits include who is credited as performing (i.e. the artist subsection in the credits) in the "musical artists" subsection. You provided nothing to prove the contrary.

""Bottom line is, our job is to "parrot" the credits" - no, it's most definitely not. We're writing an encyclopedia. The sources are the basis but we organise the information in a sensible manner. "as Chromatics" and "as himself" is not sensible."

You cut out the bit where I said "or at least use them as a primary basis for the article." Since we are writing an encyclopedia, we do need a source. Again, you do not explain how "as Chromatics" and "as himself" is not sensible, and contradict your stance by supporting "as herself" for Monica Bellucci, because even though she has a role in the story, she is still appearing as herself and not a fictional character. What is not sensible is to create inconsistencies in the article by not billing all of the cast members with "as", even when the credits (our source) bills them as such, and the original section (which others didn't disagree with), was focused on specific individuals.

""not how we want to bill them" - so I must have missed where in the credits actors are separated into groups like Twin Peaks, government, supernatural, South Dakota etc."

And I must have missed where the credits billed every actor who appeared on the show, regardless of if they appeared in the episode. Like I said "a primary basis". The groups aren't how I "want" to bill either; I have no control over which group they belong to. If you believe putting all the cast members together in one section, which will be a chore to read, be my guest. And the credits actually do separate Kyle MacLachlan from everyone else and separate the artists from the rest of the supporting cast. Bottom line though, is that the group division still puts the focus on the individuals, like the credits.

"Bottom line is: we organise the information. Neither the credits (which yield the content) nor you dictate how we do it."

Except the credits do dictate how we organize the information. Or at least they provide rationale for how the information is organized because it gives a source and a reason for the organization. By yielding the content, they provide details on organizing the content. We cannot organize the content a certain way simply because that's how we prefer it to be organized. You do not dictate how the information is organized simply because you prefer how it is organized. You alone do not dictate the rules on anything. This is not your personal website and this is not your personal article on Twin Peaks. Bluerules (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

TLDR. Please can you sum whatever this is in a couple of lines? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. My proposal for the musical artist acts subsection is for it to remain in the cast section because the artists are technically part of the cast (per closing credits) and "recurring features" is too open-ended, remove details not necessary for the cast section (specific episodes and an explanatory opening paragraph), not include James Marshall because he is already listed in the cast section and appears as a fictional character, whereas this section is for artists who appear as themselves, and include "as (x band, artist or himself / herself)" next to the names for consistency purposes. I am, however, open to not including the last portion because although I believe this section should focus on the individuals who comprise the bands, not the band entity (also per credits), repeated "as himself / herself / themselves" can seem redundant. This is how it currently appears in the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these appearances seem to be just the bands themselves (for the most part) showing up at the club so 'as themself' is redundant. Watched a lot of TV and having a musical act every episode is abnormal. It's more like a variety show, which would have the musical act credited in each episode. I like, and think it would be useful to the reader, to have the episode number attached to the band. It doesn't have to add but about 10 characters per line. We could have a note at the top of the list stating the bands are listed in episode order, but if there is ever an episode with no band then things get confused.97.85.173.38 (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the band/artist appearances at the club (save for James Marshall) are just themselves. If we were to put the focus on the individual members like the credits do (e.g. "as Chromatics"), there would be less redundancy since only the individual artists would be listed "as himself / herself", but that depends on if people want focus on the individuals or the band. If we focus on the band, then it's apparent that they're all appearing as themselves, not making that detail necessary. In any case, this entire show is supposed to be abnormal. But I wouldn't describe it as a variety show, because Twin Peaks is still a scripted series telling an underlying story, with the bands / artists playing pre-recorded material. After all, it's not filmed in front of a live audience. It's not uncommon for works of fiction to give credit to musical guests (e.g. Tony Bennett in Bruce Almighty) because they're still part of the cast. If anything, musical acts are almost always credited in fictional material that's not live because they are cast members who filmed scenes for the work, even if the work doesn't have the abundance of bands and musical artists that Twin Peaks has. The issue with attaching the episode number to the band is it's not suitable for the cast section. It's not consistent with cast sections; the section is for identifying who is the show, not which individual episode numbers they appear in. We can list the amount of episodes they appear in, which is common for television series here, but mentioning specific episodes is getting too detailed. Even if it doesn't add a lot of characters, attaching the episode number doesn't match with the purpose of the section, which is for who appears, not when they appear; readers already know they appear by virtue of them being in the cast section. What would be useful to the reader is to mention the musical guest in the episode summaries and that doesn't add a whole lot of characters either (e.g. "Musical guest: x). The episode summaries are where readers find out if cast members appear in a specific episode, or are at least referenced, and the musical artists are still cast members. The summaries are where the cast members go, including the musical artists, when readers want to know if they're in a certain episode. The problem with having a note at the top of the list stating the bands are listed in episode order is that there are episode that don't have bands / musical artists; "Part 7" and "Part 11", and arguably "Part 1" and "Part 13" (the former because it aired as a two-part episode, with the band appearing in "Part 2", the latter because the "musical artist" was a fictional character). Plus, two of the bands (so far) have made more than one appearance, which could make it more confusing. Bluerules (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The only precedent I can think of for a scripted fiction series with guest musical performances in most episodes (right down to the detail of including a fictional act) is the sitcom The Young Ones (TV series), the article for which handles it with a table laying out episodes, bands, and songs to the "Music" section. Not necessarily advocating that, though I can imagine readers coming here to a list of songs and being frustrated not to find one. (Incidentally, The Young Ones officially was a variety show, in order to take advantage of BBC budgetary regulations, so I guess a case could be made to classify Twin Peaks as one too.) —Flax5 17:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There really aren't going to be a lot of show's that follow Twin Peaks' precedent of being a scripted fiction series with guest musical performances in most episodes (fictional acts included or not) because this series has always been about blending different styles and making them its own (e.g. Part 8). Don't know how they were credited on the show, but The Young Ones' article is able to handle a table laying out episodes, bands, and songs because as you stated, the musical artists have their own "Music" section. The musical artists here are of course a subsection of the Cast section and while they are a prominent part of the show, they're not prominent enough to warrant their own section. I can understand why readers might be frustrated by not finding a list of songs if they came here to find one, although the The Young Ones article also includes the musical artists and the song they performed in the Episodes section, which I have a suggested. Additionally, a list can be provided on the Music of Twin Peaks article, which a link can be provided to (similar to how the characters have their own article for a list) and it is my understanding that the songs featured in the series will appear on its soundtrack. The Young Ones may have officially been a variety show, but let's not forget that was the early 80s and those were by BBC/British network standards as opposed to Showtime/American network standards. After all, The Young Ones qualified as a variety show to take advantage of BBC budgetary regulations, as opposed to being "light entertainment", which appears to come from the BBC (at least that's what its article implies) and I don't believe anyone would classify Twin Peaks as "light entertainment". Plus, aside from the fact that Twin Peaks isn't having musical artists perform to take advantage of budgetary regulations, at least Part 7 with its floor sweeping wouldn't classify as a variety show. At least that's the case against Twin Peaks being classified as a variety show. Bluerules (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Here's my take on your suggested "compromise".

While I don't see it as much of a compromise - it's basically your preferred version sans the "as themselves/Chromatics" part and that (most silly) part you argue for again above.

Nevertheless, I could accept it as long (and only if) we mention the episode/s the musical acts appear in. It's a service we should provide the reader with. And we are writing for readers, not to satisfy some ominous rule about what's "suitable for" or "consistent with", especially if it is not an actual cast section.

Also, I'm trying to keep that absurd notion that we have to parrot credits on the show out of the equation - you uttered such on the talk page but it doesn't much affect the actual article. (And in response to something you said above: the credits do not divide the cast per locations but neither do they have one big list. They have a cast list for the individual episode, with characters sometimes changing names from one episode to the other.)

Finally, no, TP is not a variety show (if anyone was suggesting this.) Str1977 ^(talk) 12:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

PS. The "In memoriam" is even less "suitable for"/"consistent with" a cast section. And the inclusion of the Log Lady (Part 15) makes the exclusion of James very dubious. I'm for restoring him. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

PPS. I actually like the idea of following "The Young Ones" example. The songs are listed in the credits as well and we are, I am told, supposed to parrot these. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry for the delayed response. Here's my take on your suggested "compromise"."

Is this necessary at this point? I though we were working towards a comprise, which we can do without the snark. Besides, I at least I'm willing to alter the way my edits were originally presented, whereas you went right back to inserting the "recurring features" section, which opens too many possibilities. Because what else is a recurring feature - death scenes? That's also recurring on the show.

"While I don't see it as much of a compromise - it's basically your preferred version sans the "as themselves/Chromatics" part and that (most silly) part you argue for again above."

You don't "see it as much of a compromise" because it doesn't conform to how you want the article written. But it is a compromise because I was willing to remove a component of my edits that you disagreed with, which you feel the need to call a "(most silly) part", despite not elaborating why. I was also willing to include a description at the top of the page and that's with the assumption that when the show ends and the cast section is trimmed, the rest of the cast receives descriptions. In turn, I see removing James Marshall and Moby in your latest edit as a compromise, but it would have been preferable if you at least waited to see what others thought about a "recurring features" section before you re-created it.

"Nevertheless, I could accept it as long (and only if) we mention the episode/s the musical acts appear in. It's a service we should provide the reader with. And we are writing for readers, not to satisfy some ominous rule about what's "suitable for" or "consistent with", especially if it is not an actual cast section."

Then why did you move the musical artists subsection back into the "recurring features" section and add the episode(s) the musical acts appear in without consulting anyone? That service we should provide the reader with by mentioning the episode(s) they appear in can easily be added in the episode section (which The Young Ones article does). Never said we weren't writing for the readers. That "ominous rule" is meant to be suitable for the readers and consistent with what the readers are reading to not throw them off. And it is an actual cast section because the musical artists still are cast members and even the show refers to them as such. A "recurring feature", like I said above, applies to too many aspects of a show.

"Also, I'm trying to keep that absurd notion that we have to parrot credits on the show out of the equation - you uttered such on the talk page but it doesn't much affect the actual article."

Actually, you originally uttered "that absurd notion that we have to parrot credits on the show" as a strawman to discredit my notion that we use the credits as a primary basis for the cast section. I've established that the credits be used as a primary basis from the start. In any case, the notion of "parroting" the credits certainly is affecting the article, seeing that Carel Struycken's character was referred to as "???????" for quite a while (and still is on the Part 8 article) and the notes at the bottom make certain to mention Struycken's character, Madchen Amick's character, and Erica Enyon's character were credited as different names in different episodes.

"(And in response to something you said above: the credits do not divide the cast per locations but neither do they have one big list. They have a cast list for the individual episode, with characters sometimes changing names from one episode to the other.)"

Didn't say the credits had one big list either. Like I said, "And I must have missed where the credits billed every actor who appeared on the show, regardless of if they appeared in the episode." My point was that the cast list was for the individual episode and as I noted above, the characters sometimes changing names from one episode to the other is reflected in the article. Because we have one big list because we have to organize all of the information, unlike the credits which doesn't need to divide the cast per locations / descriptions, we have to divide the cast per locations / descriptions. If a subsection is too big, it becomes an eyesore. And while the cast may not be divided per locations, they still are divided into three sections - MacLachlan the star, the supporting cast, and the musical artists. Again, primary basis.

"Finally, no, TP is not a variety show (if anyone was suggesting this.)"

At least we can agree on something.

"PS. The "In memoriam" is even less "suitable for"/"consistent with" a cast section. And the inclusion of the Log Lady (Part 15) makes the exclusion of James very dubious. I'm for restoring him."

I have said I am against the "In memoriam" subsection from the start and I am requesting input from other editors on if it should be removed. Naturally, it's "even less "suitable for"/"consistent with" a cast section" because unlike the musical artists, it doesn't even appear in the cast portion of the credits, it has its own "In memory of" portion. I didn't include the Log Lady (Part 15) in this section and I find her inclusion in the article to be unneeded as her "In memory of" was a tidbit for the fans and further tribute to Catherine E. Coulson, who was already referenced. Regardless, this doesn't quite make the exclusion of James "very dubious" because at least Margaret Lanterman received an "In memory of", whereas James Marshall was billed as a supporting actor instead of a musical artist. You can be for restoring him, but are you also for including a fictional character in a section intended for real-life individuals, especially when the real-life individual who played the character is already there?

"PPS. I actually like the idea of following "The Young Ones" example. The songs are listed in the credits as well and we are, I am told, supposed to parrot these."

The Young Ones' example means creating a music section for the musical artists, so where would the "In memoriam" subsection go? What would happen to the "recurring features" subsection - would the "In memoriam" subsection be left by itself, making it now a "recurring feature" section and defeating the point of having subsections? The "In memoriam" subsection isn't long enough to be its own section, which is what would happen if we followed The Young Ones' example and gave the musical artists their own section. The songs may be listed in the credits as well, but they're in their own portion, whereas the musical artists still appear in the cast portion, so "parroting" the credits wouldn't produce the example you seek. Plus, there are other songs listed in the credits - are they to be entirely omitted from the article? Well, that's what a music / soundtrack section is usually for, a listing of all the songs in a work and the artists who performed them. You haven't argued against Margaret Lanterman being in the "In memoriam" section, the "In memoriam" section in general, listing the characters how they were originally billed in the bottom notes, and having Monica Bellucci listed "as herself", so are you truly opposed to "parroting" the credits? But in all seriousness, I have no issue with a music section - just be sure to include a link to the article on the music on Twin Peaks, like how there's a link to the characters article, so all the songs get their due credit. Bluerules (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would still suggest putting "In memoriam" and "Music/musical acts" (among which I prefer the latter, as it clearly draws a line to music that is only played from ZZ Top to others) under this common header. I don't care which goes first but the Memory section doesn't quite fit under cast, especially after Part 15's Log Lady.

I haven't "argued against Margaret Lanterman being in the "In memoriam" section" because under my logic - treating the In Memoriam as a recurring feature, she presents no problem. She only does if this is seen as an extension of the cast list.

"The songs may be listed in the credits as well, but they're in their own portion" - since we needn't parrot the credits, I don't see a problem with combining artists and songs.

If you want to we can add the songs not performed on stage too - in a separate list - in the same section.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"I would still suggest putting "In memoriam" and "Music/musical acts" (among which I prefer the latter, as it clearly draws a line to music that is only played from ZZ Top to others) under this common header. I don't care which goes first but the Memory section doesn't quite fit under cast, especially after Part 15's Log Lady."

But what common header is there for both "In memoriam" and "Music/musical acts" to be put under? The headers are intended to be specific with a specific set of information to be organized underneath it so that information doesn't go wherever it wants. The problem with "recurring features" is like I said, that doesn't just refer to the musical acts and the in memoriam portions, it can refer to anything that's recurring and featured in the series, like death scenes and dialogue that needs to be subtitled. I'm not necessarily opposed to "Musical acts" as the header since it draws a line from the "live bands" and the other music that is simply part of the soundtrack or like what was only played from ZZ Top, although that's also why I included the link to the music article; that's where readers can find all of the songs from the series. Cast aside, I don't feel like the memory subsection fits anywhere, even before Part 15's tribute to the Log Lady, and it's redundant. In memoriam sections are common in works of fiction and other shows that do this don't have their own subsection for it as far as I'm aware (for example, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. paid tribute to Bill Paxton and Powers Boothe, but I don't see any mention of that in the article). It might be best to just include a note next to the actors who died, saying that they died before the series aired.

"I haven't "argued against Margaret Lanterman being in the "In memoriam" section" because under my logic - treating the In Memoriam as a recurring feature, she presents no problem. She only does if this is seen as an extension of the cast list."

However, Margaret Lanterman being in the "In memoriam" subsection stems from the credits; it's where she received the same detail as the real-life individuals who died. Even treating the "In memoriam" as a recurring feature and not as an extension of the cast list, it still presents a problem because it's not a true "In memoriam" dedicated to a real person, it's fanservice for a character from the original series and further tribute to her late actress. It's a unique case from the rest. And again, regardless of which section "In memoriam" appears under, the fact remains that the only reason why Margaret Lanterman was put in this subsection is because of the credits. That's a reason why I believe the credits are a primary basis as opposed to something we simply parrot. Whether or not the "In memoriam" subsection should even exist is another issue, but I digress.

""The songs may be listed in the credits as well, but they're in their own portion" - since we needn't parrot the credits, I don't see a problem with combining artists and songs."

Which I'm fine with as well, so long as the artists aren't in the cast section and in a suitable section, which we're making progress on. Like I said, the credits are a primary basis, not something we flat-out parrot for conciseness and consistency issues. If we combine the artists and songs from the credits, then we probably both agree that we don't need the artists in the cast section when we already have them listed.

"If you want to we can add the songs not performed on stage too - in a separate list - in the same section."

We can do that, although it's probably best to just provide a soundtrack list, which will include the all songs (or at least should) featured in the show. My idea is when the soundtrack for this series is released, we just include a link to its section on the Music article (where I assume it will go) above the artists who physically appeared on the show so we don't include too much detail / information in the article and make it too long. Bluerules (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Str1977, I just squashed your last changes in an edit conflict. Sorry, ugly way to deal with a conflict, but as I think the edits are not improvements I went ahead with it and now will explain my rationale:

• "(that a man is turned into a machine is not "just as likely" as him talking from inside one (and we must note Bowie's absence)" - You can't object to us saying Jeffries is now a machine and then insist on saying he's INSIDE the machine when we don't know that either. This is a show in which a character previously played by a dwarf is now portrayed by an animated tree, after all. Bowie's absence is irrelevant to the plot summaries.

• "restore (hidden) link to Sunset Boulevard" this is an Easter Egg link - see WP:EASTER. It also isn't an important detail when the word limit for episode summaries is so tight. We do have to be ruthless about what we include. Popcornduff (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Also would be good if you could explain why "Cooper falls into the glass box in New York (just as Sam Colby is outside to welcome Tracey)" is "vital information" instead of just claiming that as if it's obvious - if I agreed with it then I wouldn't have trimmed it. What does it change? Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, saying that "Jeffries is now a machine" is way more speculative. And even if he is a machine he is nevertheless talking from inside the "machine". We actually do not see a machine but some metal casing pretty much similar to the one we saw with Naido and the Giant.

• This is the same show in which a man has become a tree, another man has become a ring, and a woman has become a doorknob. Your opinion about what's more or less likely is exactly as you put it - speculative. We don't know for sure what or where Jeffries is now, and we don't speculate in plot summaries. For that reason we shouldn't claim that he's now a machine, or in a machine, or whatever. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I see you've now added "Jeffries (hidden in a metal container)". Do you not accept that this is personal interpretation? Popcornduff (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I still prefer Sunset Boulevard to be mentioned or at least linked to, given its importance to David Lynch and his character's name. Content is more important than some arbitrary word count.

• But you have to explain why this particular content is so critical to summarising the plot, especially when we do have such limited space, like it or not. The fact that the real-world Sunset Boulevard inspired the real-world David Lynch has no bearing on the events of the TV show. Could be covered elsewhere in the article if you find a source connecting the scene to the film and its influence, etc. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning "Sam welcoming Tracey" is vital because it shows that the timelines are not linear on that count. The Experiment killing Sam and Tracey broke the glass box and ended the whole secenario. Hence Cooper must have appeared first.

• Good point, thanks for explaining. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally, you should be more careful with your "let's shift this to another episode" attitude. These are supposed to be plot summaries of the episodes, not paragraphs in an overall season summary. Your removal of Miriam, even to the next opposite, is bordering on falsifying episode's plot content.

• In that episode, at that moment, it's not important that Miriam saw the hit-and-run. She only becomes relevant to the plot in a future episode, whereupon we can introduce her and explain why she's relevant at the same time. It just kills some redundancy, because we don't have to say twice that she witnessed the hit-and-run. "Bordering on falsifying content?" Wouldn't you say that's a little hyperbolic? Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Str1977 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

PS. Also you should not re-add things that are incomprehensible to reader such as "room key 315" or insert grammatically wrong commas and thereby introducing false references you then have to recitify by splitting the sentence. I don't object to the split sentence but my sentence was perfectly fine before you inserted the wrong comma. Grammar is indeed not optional. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Also you should not re-add things that are incomprehensible to reader such as "room key 315"" - I didn't knowingly re-add those things, and didn't write them in the first place. If I put them back, I apologise, it was a mistake. You did a lot of good work in the summaries in naming and introducing characters and elements properly on first mention.

• As for the comma, I introduced a mistake and fixed it literally seconds later. Let me off the hook for that one, at least, sheesh. Splitting the sentences allows us to avoid the awkward mix of tenses in your version. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"I didn't knowingly re-add those things, and didn't write them in the first place. If I put them back, I apologise"

I never thought you knowingly re-added these things. But it was frustrating to see "key 315" appear again and again. Apologies wholeheartedly accepted.

Thanks also for the understanding. Sometimes conflicts arise from not explaining one's actions properly - I plead guilty to that. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to say it's great work from both of you to try and summarise each episode so succinctly. I had a go at trimming some of it a while back, and it's tough going. Personally, I think Sunset Boulevard should be mentioned, but that doesn't mean it must be mentioned. Str1977 - as a happy-medium, and if you're up for it/have the time, creating an article for Part 15 would go a long way to address all the points that can't be summed up in 250 words (or whatever the word-count is). Looking a reviews and coverage online, there's a ton of stuff out there to use and I'd be happy to help with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to write a Part 15 article. While I don't object to trimming, I think that word-count is overrated, especially at the moment. Once the season has concluded it will be much clearer which element are relevant to the overall plot and which ones are just clutter. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified criticism

This article has been ruined through over-editing by over-zealous wiki-trolls with nothing better to do. This does not represent editing over the past month, this trolling represents destroying and demoralizing the participation and contributions of potential Wiki users. Seriously, how many times do you edit something until it becomes the poor quality we see now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B4D:A600:8B6:9114:59AD:1FC4 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the "poor quality" you're describing? 06:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have been following this article from the moment the show started you would certainly know. The watered down and ambiguous plot lines have been edited and reedited so many times there is no value or coherence. Seriously, these non-static and over edited pages demoralize potential wiki contributions and serve up the continuing lack of quality shown. Wikipedia has become the platform of a few betraying its original mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B4D:A600:C8B4:3676:3F58:69CB (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you just say what your actual problems with the article are? This talk page's entire following is maybe a dozen guys who like Twin Peaks, so you won't have much luck revolutionising the wiki here, but if you make valid suggestions for the article they'll probably be taken on-board. —Flax5 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A dozen guys who rule the page with an iron fist and delete solid contributions thereby watering down the content. You are the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B4D:A600:4C6B:8391:CD98:5889 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You're proving my point of how you lack the control to be a positive force, and deleting any criticisms of your many, many deletions. This is Wikipedia, a community of contributors, this page is not your personal diary. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B4D:A600:4C6B:8391:CD98:5889 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reception expansion

Reviews, etc, for expansion now the last episode has aired:

• BBC
• Hollywood Reporter
• Guardian
• Deadline
• Rolling Stone
• Vulture
• Variety
• NT Times

Also, if there were any negative reviews, that would be good too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

* AVC TV Club Search for Twin Peaks I'll link just to the search function for right now because new review pieces are coming quickly. Hoping to find some negative reaction only because I glean from comments beneath reviews that a bad review is in demand. Disclosing that I am a fan of both original series and the return in equal parts. Harlequence (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. C

@Str1977: That's why I added Mr. C as a name in the cast list (along with a source). You've said several times through edit summaries that it would make it easier in plot summaries to just refer him to Mr. C, so I have done that. I'm confused why you removed it since you seem to want that name to be used. That's why I provided a reliable source which lists all the characters MacLachlan played. Mr. C is the most common nickname for the character per several reliable sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The name "Mr C" is just that, though: a nickname. Is it even used in the show? Maybe like once? Popcornduff (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned only once, at the very beginning. There would be a better case to type "Dr. Amp" for Dr. Jacoby. (Of course, that character actually has an in-universe name)

Still, I wouldn't mind including as a shorthand to be used in the plot summaries, as the doppelgänger is the only major character without a distinct name. I wouldn't mind but ...

... this has to be done by consensus and thus far there is no new consensus to include that name.

Also, it makes no sense just to put "Mr C" into the cast section. The real benefit would have to be in the plot summaries, that you, @Drovethrughosts:, left untouched. So it's zero benefit.

Finally, your source doesn't cut it for this question. It only tells us that in the real world, Kyle MacLachlan and an interviewer used the nickname in reference to the doppelgänger. It doesn't make it a character name. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I added it because you it seemed you wanted it ("if we can use Mr C here we could use the name in plot summaries (making things easier) or we can't use it anywhere"). I couldn't tell what your intention was (if it was that it needed to be sourced or whatever), so I added it with a source. I didn't change the plot summaries because I usually don't mess with those and didn't want to make a mass change that would probably just get reverted. It really doesn't matter to me what name is used, I was simply trying to help. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If you added it for that reason (which I stated somewhere deeply buried in the edit history) then you must have misunderstood me greatly. It would be easier if we could call him "Mr C" in the plot summaries. But you never put "Mr C" in there. Calling him "Mr C" in the cast section would only be a preliminary for that and, as long as there's no consensus for this, we cannot do this.

It is not my "intention" - and I never asked for a source - but what's been discussed above in another section called "Mr C". This actually happened before I started editing this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Another user recently reinserted Mr. C and also created Richard as a separate character with the following explanations:

• "He confirmed Richard was a different person in the same interview."
• "Full quote: Kyle MacLachlan: "It made the return, for me, incredibly interesting as an actor — and challenging, as you can imagine. A little frightening. Particularly the Mr. C character." the doppelgänger is called "Mr. C")"

My response:

1. First of all, Kyle MacLachlan knows only what LynchFrost revealed to him (and we cannot assume that even the two show creators have answered every question to themselves). He is not privy to some special information. The interview makes that pretty clear.
2. Kyle never said that Richard was "a different person". He only said that he was different, which is obviously true. Not that he was a separate character. Oh, and Cooper is called Richard only one time (not even in direct conversation) and then goes on to introduce himself as "Dale Cooper".
3. Kyle doesn't assign character names. "Mr C" is a nickname used once in the show. It has been taken up by others because it the doppelgänger lacks a real, distinct name and the one appearance of the name "Mr C" was very early. Kyle uses the nick name as a shorthand just like anybody. We might do that too but only in the knowing that it's not an official character name (let alone of of many Copper doppelgängers, see next item) and of course only if there's any benefit from using it (see plot summaries).
4. The only confirmed doppelgänger Cooper had was the one colloquially called "Mr C". He did not have several. Dougie was not a doppelgänger but a "tulpa", a manufactured copy. Richard is not even clearly a separate person from Cooper, though his personality is different.
5. We have to go by the obvious. We call the character that replaces Dougie in Las Vegas and finally heads to Twin Peaks "Cooper", despite the indications that Cooper never actually left the Black Lodge and dreamed the whole thing up. If we assume that Cooper-who-came-in-through-electrical-socket is not another "doppelgänger" then we have to assume as much for "Richard".

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If one lists several high-profile reliable sources that show the name is being widely used by the fans, media and even MacLachlan himself, (all of which is very easy to do btw) then it can be used. It doesn't matter if that is not the character's "canon" name in the show's world, as the show is something that exists in our real world, and a character can gain popularity in our world under an alt name. (For the most part a series' article should be written from a real world / out-of-universe perspective in the first place.) But like I said, it should be properly and explicitly noted that this is not his name, just how the media and audiences have widely been calling him. Freemanukem (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"If one lists several high-profile reliable sources" - IF...

"and even MacLachlan himself" - as I said: he doesn't hold special auhthority for this.

Thus far the additions of "Mr C" have been pointless, serving no purpose, and the arguments have been flimsy. The other changes I criticized (Richard and tulpa=doppelgänger) have been wrong.

Re Mr C it is a matter of consensus. You won't have to convince me. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard

Not a big deal, but I don't think we should mention that it's the movie Sunset Boulevard where Coop hears Cole's name. Saying he hears the name on TV is OK, mentioning the exact thing on TV isn't. My reasoning:

• It's of no significance to the plot. Has no impact on anything else in the story. It's colour.
• It's only significant for reasons outside plot. If you know the history of the show and the origin of the character name and the influence of the movie on Lynch, sure, it's neat. Might even be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article if it were sourced. But none of that is connected to plot as far as I can tell.
• To most readers, the connection to Sunset Boulevard won't be clear. As far as they're concerned, Gordon Cole is a character in Twin Peaks, so why is he suddenly mentioned in this old movie? I think the current text is misleading - it makes it sound like Sunset Boulevard is somehow connected to the events of the story itself, like maybe Cole goes into the movie or something wacky. (This is Twin Peaks, after all.) Popcornduff (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So despite having reverted this a few times before, no one wants to discuss it? If no one responds I'll go ahead and remove the reference. Popcornduff (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Episode 1 - Giant/Fireman

The giant is referred to as "the fireman" in the episode 1 description - the reveal that this is his name doesn't happen until much later in the series and given that up until the reveal he is credited as "???????" we can safely assume that the reveal is meant to be of plot significance - it's a spoiler, even if that significance of the name being revealed might not be obvious.

because people may be using this wiki as a "recap" guide after watching episodes, I think he should be referred to as "The Giant", at least up until the name reveal episode so people don't get this spoiled for them. 80.193.187.19 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No, for the following reasons:

1. The character is never called "The Giant" at all in this season. It is not certain "The Fireman" is actually the same character as "The Giant from Season 2.

2. WP doesn't contain spoiler warnings. However, revealing the name is not a spoiler at all as it reveals nothing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Episode titles (again)

I just got my Twin Peaks Blu-ray in the mail and I noticed that the episode titles include the "taglines" with them. For example, episodes are presented as "Part 1: My Log Has a Message for You". I now these "titles" were in and out of the article at various times, but I believe they should be put back in. They could be added to match how they are on the Blu-ray, or they could be added as an "AltTitle" in the episode list and appear as a separate title like how the original series titles are formatted. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Visuals

User:Wukai Buddy, I don't see any reviews praising the series for its "visual style"—in fact, it's not even clear that it features any such unified style, and indeed critical writing about its visuals is far more likely to emphasize the "phantasmagoric" and jarring melange of distinct elements than any coherent stylistic thread. "Visuals" works fine, but no one is talking about a style—you're putting words in the writers' mouths. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Twin Peaks (2017 TV series) → Twin Peaks (season 3) – The first two seasons of Twin Peaks originally aired from 1990 to 1991 on ABC. In 2017, Showtime aired a limited series continuation, "the third season" per the DVD release and other reliable sources (and interchangeably Twin Peaks: The Return). The current disambiguation "2017 TV series" is neither accurate nor consistent- we haven't treated other revival/sequel programs as their own followup TV series but as new seasons – see Arrested Development (season 4), The X-Files (season 10) (which was also originally marketed as a limited series), Roseanne (season 10), Murphy Brown (season 11), etc. We are already including the 1990s and 2017 episodes on one Twin Peaks episodes list. As it stands now, it is incorrect to call the Showtime version its own 'TV series,' so a move would address these concerns (I would also support moving the page to Twin Peaks: The Return if that's preferred). -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - continuation of series per nom. -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support You've got some damn fine page moves here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like this was already moved right when I was going to close it. Leaving a comment here to register that I witnessed a front three-quarter view of several editors sharing a moment of consensus! Dekimasuよ! 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dekimasu, to be fair, it was 22:54! SITH (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Killer Bob and Mike page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Episode summaries broken

A recent edit either by User:Qwerfjkl (bot) or User:PrimeBOT has deleted the episode summaries in the Episodes section. It presumably is a formatting error due to the page title being changed. Concerningly, this edit isn't visible in the article history. You can only see the past episode summaries through an external resource like the Wayback Machine as seen here: [9]. 50.247.27.197 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)