Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show

Gabourey Sidibe

Gabourey Sidibe will not be part of the main cast I believe. A few weeks ago I saw an interview with one of the other female actresses (I think it was Kathy Bates, but I'm not sure), who said that Sidibe would be in for an episode or 2, thus I would at least say she belongs to the recurring cast. I have not changed it yet in the article because I can't find the video anymore, but if anyone does, be my guest! 2A02:1810:1881:8200:6402:97E2:4EEF:6A55 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no "Main Cast" section at present, due to lack of official confirmation. Sidibe, Brewer, and others remain unspecified until network issued press release states series regulars. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We probably will no for certain once a main credit sequence is unveiled. I also seriously believe that Sidibe and Brewer are both Recurring characters. I saw an interview with Brewer on the Red Carpet a couple weeks ago where she did not even know her character name yet meaning she likely has a recurring role but again wait until Mr. Murphy or the show give us the credit sequence.--Jack Cox (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crediting Murphy and character descriptions

I know that this show was created by Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk. But in the show, they are both given equal billing under the title "Created by". So wouldn't it be more factual to credit him as a creator, instead of co-creator? Also, John Carroll Lynch's character is stated as Twisty the clown killer. I keep wanting to say Twisty, the "clown killer", but this keeps getting reverted. Twisty the clown killer is not even properly capitalized or punctuated, so wouldn't it be grammatically correct to say Twisty, the "clown killer"? DantODB (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

When speaking about Falchuk and Murphy in a conjoined sentence it is grammatically correct to refer to them as "creators", when referring to them singly it is grammatically and titley correct to name them as "co-creator". Follow the given source to Lynch's character description, his name is quoted as being, "Twisty the clown killer". This is the spelling implemented here until proven different by an official press release. LLArrow (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Add Erika Ervin (Amazon Eve) to Episodes 1-4

I have a COI. Would someone kindly edit the page to reflect the actress's appearing in the first four episodes.Greenwayfriend (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no verifiable source stating actress or character's presence. LLArrow (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Greenwayfriend: It took me a little while to figure out, but finally I realized that the inclusion of Amazon Eve in the show is based on a leaked "call sheet" that has not been corroborated by what Wikipedia considers reliable sources - it's all rumour at this point in other words. So we'll have to wait until there is some sort of announcement or coverage of her addition to the cast. Unfortunately the "owners" of this article are too busy owning it to take 30 seconds to explain why they revert the changes made in good faith by other editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I assure you, no one owns Wikipedia articles. Secondly, 90% of edits made on this article in particular are done so in bad faith. Thirdly, I'm willing to bet it took longer than 30 seconds to write your comment. Fourthly, ill speaking of any other editors is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So request pending changes protection if merited, take a minute to examine the contributions of the person making the edit and assume good faith. Be explicative in your actions unless you're fixing vandalism or disruptive edits. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining. I believe WP:RFPP is against the very essence to which Wikipedia stands for, so I will not be considering that. I am as descriptive as the edit calls for, no more, no less. I appreciate you engaging in this dialogue with me. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Character names

According to this interview with Ryan Murphy, the official character names of Chiklis' and Bates' characters are Ethel Darling and Dell Toledo. DantODB (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Patti LaBelle

If you look at the Coven poster, it can be seen that all the names that appear on there are billed as either regulars or special guests. So, it would be incorrect to put Patti LaBelle in the recurring section. Last season, Patti LuPone was also reported to only appear in a handful of episodes but her name appeared on the poster and she was billed as a special guest star. Therefore, follow that format for this season. DantODB (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of previous seasons methods, it remains pure speculation (that LaBelle will be billed as "Special"). Speculation is not allowed on Wikipedia. Until network press release or verifiable source can be provided, she remains in the recurring bracket. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Poster

Previous seasons do not dictate structure of future seasons. Cast featured poster is more inclusive and incisive. The DVD cover art is always administered to the article once available. If there is to be debate on the issue, a consensus must be established. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How is a poster that's being used as the main form of Promotion by the official distributor (FX) not more inclusive or incisive? It's clearly the DVD cover art. That's the way it's been done every season for the show, we got character posters each season as well, but none of those stayed up. It just looks out of place and messy with that cast poster being on there when the official one is available.... Piercehayden17 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not to be left to anyone's discernment which poster is more "official" than others. The network released both posters in question, along with a plethora of others. Besides the reasoning already stated the current poster being used is also there due to it being released first. As for your other qualms; they fall under opinion. This is an issue that will need to reach consensus before change can be implemented. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how do we reach a consensus than? It's being used as the main Poster by FX and IMDB. Not sure what other confirmation we need. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3432563712/tt1844624?ref_=tt_ov_i Piercehayden17 (talk)

Read more about reaching a consensus here. IMDB is not a reliable source in any form or fashion. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I read it over. I'm not trying to argue or anything with you, I just would like for my favorite show to look the best it can here on Wikipedia. Aesthetically speaking I think it looks a lot better with the Official poster as well. Piercehayden17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I recommend a read in tendentious editing. LLArrow (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:For

LLArrow, can I ask you to stop reverting edits that don't fit your more or less personal preferences. This is public encyclopedia, not a fan blog. The subtitle of the fourth season of the American Horror Story anthology speaks for itself - Freak Show. Besides, it is a U.S. TV series as well as the namesake work, which is also titled Freak Show (TV series). Placing the Template:For is neither a result of anybody's mistake, nor "incorrectly used tag" made by Vchimpanzee earlier on the other respective article as you claimed. Either way, sooner or later there will be coming other works also called likewise, so you cannot control this. The question is if you are aware of it on a more personal level too. MiewEN (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of Wikipedia's functions and uses, I do not require further insight. I would also be the first to notify anyone who would make the blunder of confusing Wikipedia for a "personal blog". The template "Not to be confused with..." is not valid on this article do to the fact that the first word of the title is not at all reminiscent of the American series Freak Show. Freak Show is the subtitle of the series American Horror Story therefore no rationale mistake could be made when distinguishing the two series. As for your last point, concerning future articles, I recommend a read in WP:SPECULATION. I ask that other editors with their opinion on this subject voice it here. A consensus will be demanded I'm sure. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on American Horror Story: Freak Show and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

As documented in Wikipedia:Hatnote, the point of the {{For}} template is to help readers locate the article they were looking for in case they have arrived at a different one, for example when the article is about the primary topic but there are articles about other topics with the same name plus disambiguation. The use of the template in Freak Show (TV series) is justified because the title is somewhat ambiguous: the reader may have been looking for the American Horror Story one. The situation is not symmetrical, because the present title, American Horror Story: Freak Show, does not have that ambiguity -- a reader would not end up here is he was trying to go there, because if you type "Freak Show" into the search box, the American Horror Story article doesn't appear in the dropdown. Therefore I don't think the template is needed here. That said, you are both in violation of WP:3RR, and as neither of you is vandalizing, this is edit warring. Please in future follow WP:BRD. You may diagree with my opinion, but discuss it here, not in the edit summaries of multiple reversions. Regards, Stfg (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I did handle this situation incorrectly and am dissatisfied with myself. I thank you for your diplomacy and impartiality. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on Poster?

So since the poster I previously asked to be edited (And was denied) is being used by pretty much every reliable source as the main form of Advertising/Promotion, can we have another go at it? FX, Youtube, IMDB, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon Instant all use the same exact Art for Freak Show, (the same way they did with the past DVD art). It would just make the page look more official. http://www.amazon.com/Monsters-Among-Us/dp/B00O9H57BW/ref=sr_1_4?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1412868324&sr=1-4&keywords=american+horror+story Piercehayden17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reach a consensus and it shall be done. Though, there was no effort to achieve one the first time your change was presented. Please sign your comments. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current image on the page is not really the "official" poster. I believe the one being used in most places is this one. Gloss • talk 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree the current image isn't "official". Everywhere else has the official one that will be used on the dvd cover in use. {{User:Brocicle|Brocicle]] (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Change has been implemented. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Character Edit Request

Skyler Samuels' character is named within the premiere episode as "Bonnie Lipton". Source: broadcast episode with captions, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/10/09/american-horror-story-freak-show-premiere-recap/. Slave2thewage (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Co-stars/recurring actors

Recently the names of actors, Jyoti Amge, Erika Ervin, Mat Fraser, and Rose Siggins were removed by a single editor, claiming that because the series bills them as "co-stars" they do not qualify to be listed as recurring, even though Naomi Grossman was billed in the exact same capacity during Asylum and she is listed on that seasons Wikipedia page as recurring. Such a defining change should not be left to the discretion of any one persons point of view. Please, I encourage other editors to voice their thoughts. LLArrow (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I would support their re-inclusion. They're all slated for multiple appearances this season, unless we have information suggesting otherwise. Gloss • talk 23:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for your input. LLArrow (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A number of "main actors" didn't appear in the pilot episode of the series, even though they are credited on the official poster as the main cast of the season, so why those other actors with their own multiple appearances should be omitted from the list... For that reason, I vote for the re-inclusion of the recurring actors, too. MiewEN (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I just watched an old episode of Asylum on Netflix and I would just like to point out that Naomi Grossman was credited as a guest star as opposed to a co-star. More importantly, the recurring cast list indicates actors that are credited as guest stars. If the actors listed above are part of a plot line, which the recurring section is for, they would be billed as guest stars. Regardless, It would be wise to list actors as credited, not according to amount of screen time. Per WP:TVCAST: "...Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article." DantODB (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent in the first episode of the season that said actors will play a prominent role in installments to come. Thereby qualifying them in the recurring status. Also, not sure which episode of Asylum you are referring tp, but in the first episode, "Welcome To Briarcliff", actress Naomi Grossman is credited as a "co-star". Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Prominent or not, the fact is the actors listed above are credited as co-stars. As they are not credited the same way as Lynch, Gummer, Samuels and Grossman on the show, Wikipedia should follow that billing. Regarding Grossman's billing in Asylum, by the tenth episode "The Name Game", she is credited as guest star. DantODB (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, as of October 8, 2014, and by the very definition of the word "recurring", no one belongs in that section, sourced or otherwise. — Wyliepedia 10:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe they should be listed as recurring. In Coven, Gabourey Sidibe and Jamie Brewer were credited as a guest stars even though they were pretty much apart of the main cast. An example for someone who shouldn't be listed, in my opinion, as recurring is someone who will only be/is apart of one episode like Matt Bomer. As it has been already been stated all three mentioned have been confirmed for multiple appearances, so I do think it appropriate and fair that they should be included as recurring. Brocicle (talk) 01.34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that the recurring cast list is a slight variation of a list of guest actors. The use of the word recurring as opposed to guest specify actors that are involved in major plot lines AND appear in multiple episodes. The show has always been very specific about billing regardless of episode count, with special guest stars sometimes being in more episodes than main cast members, so we should follow suit. I believe we should only indicate guest stars in the recurring section. DantODB (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how they are billed on-screen, special guest star or co-star, they are still recurring characters. I believe their inclusion in this article should be no different any other previous seasons of American Horror Story pages. And to point out, only one episode of the season has aired. Which allows the removed characters to appear in multiple episodes. I still think they should be included. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with EnDaLeCoMpLeX. At this point it seems to be a five to one vote for the re-inclusion. Brocicle (User talk:Brocicle|talk]]) 11:44, 13 October UTC.

Yes, I also confirm my original vote in favor of the re-inclusion of the recurring cast. MiewEN (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

CAWylie has a great point, and I believe it should be someone other than myself to reinsert the actors, as I feel conflicted and somewhat indifferent concerning the matter as of now. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer the issue at hand, I checked MOS:TVCAST. There is a lot of reading there because it covers all articles from main pages to episode lists, but it does make certain points. To wit, this isn't IMDB and the Casting section is a perfectly good spot for any mention of cast and characters. On some TV pages, I've see the Casting section merely re-hash the Cast list. I, for one, prefer the Casting section alone and never really cared how many episodes Joe Schmo was in – lead, guest, recurring, uber-star appearing in one episode, or otherwise. But that's just me. — Wyliepedia 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added the three in question back in due to the vote be in favour of re-inclusion. Although, if it becomes apparent as more episodes air that they aren't as recurring as it has been stated then may I suggest another discussion when the time arises? I think it would be fair and appropriate as more information would then be available to decide again. Brocicle (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the mentioned actors have prominent roles or not, it still does not change the fact that they are credited, for lack of a better term, less than Lynch, Gummer, Samuels and Grossman. There are cases where an actor is promoted from co-star to guest star, such as Grossman in Asylum. If this happens, then the mentioned actors fit in the recurring section. Bassett appeared in all of the episodes in Coven, though credited as a special guest star. This establishes that regardless of one's episode count or screen time, cast billing should be reflected in this article. Additionally, special guest stars are credited under a different section in the other AHS articles. With that said, guest stars are given a more eminent billing than co-stars. The article should reflect that, regardless of which actors have prominent supporting roles per WP:NPOV. DantODB (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For now the matter should be laid to rest. Squabbling over the same points leads in circles, accomplishing nothing. Give the season time to unravel, then, if need be, a re-examination. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that putting up Amge, Ervin, Fraser and Siggins shows bias. There are other actors that play characters in the freak show. Most of them are credited as co-stars. Just because some of them have more screen time or dialogue, it does not mean Wikipedia should credit them greater. DantODB (talk) 1:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Two episodes have premiered and Amge, Ervin and Fraser are all credited as co-stars. Co-stars are never to and should not be in the recurring section. Wikipedia should be a factual platform, instead of a place to give credit where credit is not due. Opinions regarding whether the names mentioned are more prominent/have more dialogues/have more screen time is irrelevant when it comes to billing. They are credited less than guest stars that are listed on the section and therefore, they should be removed at this time. DantODB (talk) 3:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is still in favour as having them in the recurring section. Brocicle (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For what reason, though? I believe that there should be a valid reason of singling the mentioned co-stars from other co-stars that are not named in the recurring section. This should also be backed up by a Project page link that justifies it. Otherwise, the names should not be in the section. Also, I would like to point out that the aforementioned users that agree to only have some co-stars on the page, based on the opinion that they are more prominent than others, forgot to put up Rose Siggins' name in the section where she supposedly belongs. Consistency would be great. DantODB (talk) 1:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We stated our reasoning and if that isn't good enough for you then I'm sorry. You're more than welcome to add Rose Siggins into the page yourself, I myself did not know she was on there to begin with as I had not seen her name there before. Based on the format of past pages for the American Horror Story series they will be in the recurring section, credited as co-star or not. For example, Dylan McDermott was not credited on the show for starring as Johnny Morgan however he is listed in the recurring section. Like you said, consistency would be great. Consensus is still in favour and therefore still stands, thanks. Brocicle )talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dylan McDermott is credited as a guest star on Asylum, which is why he is in the recurring section. Once again, I believe that there should be a valid reason for singling the mentioned co-stars in the recurring section. Also, there should also be a Project page link that justifies it. DantODB (talk) 1:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He is not credited as a guest star or as a co-star. His first appearance on Asylum is in episode 9 to which he isn't credited, neither is he credited in his other appearances. Technically, because the four in question are actually credited they have more of a valid reason to be in the recurring section. As stated before, reasons were given. You cannot have one rule for one actor in a show that isn't credited and another for the rest which are. Consensus is still in favour with a vote of 4 to 1 with 1 undecided. Please respect the decision that has been agreed upon, even if it isn't what you want. Thank you. Brocicle (talk) 15.28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply being credited is not enough of a reason. Especially as co-stars. There were eighteen credited co-stars in that episode. One co-star shouldn't be credited more than others. SImply, all should not be in the recurring section. And as for Dylan McDermott, his appearance was indeed uncredited, I apologize. I just assumed that Wikipedia is a place where facts should be stated and formats should be followed, rather than putting opinions over actual billings. I personally also favor all of the freak show members to be in the recurring section, but sadly the producers only deem some worthy of recurring statuses. Sorry for trying to respect and stay true to the show. DantODB (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lily Rabe

Actress Lily Rabe has recently been added to both the "Special Guest Cast" and "Recurring Cast" list; without proper sourcing stating Rabe's role credit. This is considered speculation. Please do not add Rabe to any credit specific list until a verifiable source can be cited. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The source stated she will be appearing in one episode, which qualifies her as "special guest cast". Please keep in mind you should avoid reverting 3 times, WP:3RR and all… with consensus clearly against you. Gloss 03:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles would state if she was unconfirmed and that she might be returning if it was just a rumour, but all articles written confirm she will be appearing in Episode 10. It isn't speculation, it's fact. 'Brocicle )talk) 14:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not debating Rabe's appearance on the program I am calling attention to the fact that no one has cited a verifiable source stating how Rabe will be credited when she appears for one episode. Obviously not in a recurring capacity, but there is no source given confirming Rabe will be billed as a "Special Guest", it's simply an assumption. And I am well aware of the regulations of Wikipedia, including WP:3RR. There is no consensus to be reached; adding Rabe to any casting category, without a cited source, is not acceptable. Please be advised, Rabe appears in the casting section of this article, she is not omitted. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If Sidibe and Harris are included, there's no reason for Rabe to be excluded. The source says she will be appearing on one episode which qualifies her as a special guest star. You've exceeded 3RR, despite claiming you're well aware of it. Gloss 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be approaching this situation with a bias, which Wikipedia forbids. Actors Neil Patrick Harris and Gabourey Sidibe have sources, detailing their casting credit as recurring, whereas Rabe does not, beyond confirming a one episode stint. If you know of a source affirming Rabe's credit please cite it, otherwise she remains strictly in Casting for the time being. As for your grievance with my reversion; WP:3RR should not be implemented ordinarily, but when it comes to policing regulation, those who cast a stone are usually divulging in vengeance or vicarious punishment. Alluding to your previous claim of consensus on this issue, I recommend a read on the subject, fore you are somewhat uninformed regarding its means. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You can spew out all the nonsense you'd like, but you reverted more than three times. I don't care why or what your reasoning is. Multiple editors have reverted you back and instead of continuing to edit war, you should be trying to gain a consensus on this talk page. Gloss 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As previously stated; there is no consensus needed concerning this issue. Adding Rabe to any specific cast section, without a verifiable source cited, is against Wikipedia policies, and will not be tolerated. I now recommend a read in editor etiquette. Please remember that no disrespect or ill feelings are meant toward you, this is strictly business. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement over content, consensus is needed, or at the very least a discussion is. Regardless of whether or not you're right, when there's a disagreement, the issue should always come to the talk page, not just be blindly reverted and explained through edit summaries. You are suggesting that Gloss read up on etiquette, when you yourself are showing a poor understanding of it. Sock (tock talk) 11:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect; if an edit blatantly violates a Wikipedia policy, an editor does not need to take an explanation of his/her actions to the Talk page for discussion or debate (comprehensive edit summary is sufficient). When engaged in an edit war, absolutely, hence this discussion. Consensus is not applicable when an edit directly violates a policy. It would be like someone committing a robbery, caught red handed, and then people take a vote to discern if he was in the wrong. As for your judgment of poor etiquette, I welcome closer evaluation of my actions or text. I am only maintaining regulation and policy, nothing more, nothing less. Please, a plea to all editors; reserve judgements and harsh critique of others on Wikipedia. It acts a firm stick in the, proverbial, mud toward accomplishing truly meaningful advances. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer over at 3O; the request for a 3O made there has been removed because there are at least 4 editors involved in this dispute and 3O is only for disputes with exactly 2 editors. If you still desire dispute resolution, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Formal Mediation. Having said that, however, I'd like to offer a couple of observations as a neutral observer who does a lot of dispute resolution: First, we need to be very careful when categorizing or labeling individuals. All categorizations must have a reliable source and that source must specifically and expressly put the individual into the category and do so in a way which is more than just casual use of language. Otherwise, you're committing prohibited original research. In this case, I've looked at two different edits with two different sources (this and this) and neither of those sources puts Rabe in the category of "regular cast," "special guest cast," or "recurring cast". They provide information by which you might analyze the situation and put her into one of those categories, but that is exactly what the original research policy prohibits. The source has to say it; otherwise the article can only say what the source actually says. Someone says above, "If Sidibe and Harris are included, there's no reason for Rabe to be excluded. The source says she will be appearing on one episode which qualifies her as a special guest star." I've looked at the sources cited for those two actors and they too are improperly categorized in violation of OR; the sources for Sidibe do not categorize her at all and the source for Harris actually says that he will "guest-star." Moreover, the statement about Rabe that says that certain facts "qualify" her as a special guest star is the exact kind of analysis prohibited by the OR policy. The qualifier "If Sidibe and Harris are included" is correct: Rabe shouldn't be included in the categorization and neither should Sidibe and Harris. Second, though OR prohibits this kind of analysis, edit warring over it (either in violation of the three revert rule or garden variety EW'ing) is not justified. There are a few instances in which policies justify EW'ing (removal of unsourced negative information about living persons and removal of copyright violations are a couple), but violation of common editing policies such as OR and NPOV and V is not a justification. That brings me to: Third, EdJohnston's protection of this article is entirely appropriate in my opinion because it appears that though one editor is improperly edit warring that his substantive editorial position is correct for the reasons I've stated above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank you greatly for your substantial insight and correction, and I regret misusing Wikipedia's methods for dispute resolution. I obviously am in need of a serious brush up on polices and regulations. Again, thank you for shining a light on the irregularities of this article. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

TBA Debate

TBA stands for To Be Announced, which is exactly why Sidibe and Harris should have the TBA next to them because they're character's names haven't been announced yet. It is common knowledge what TBA stands for and it is used quite frequently on Wikipedia and shouldn't be changed to suit someone's personal aesthetic. Brocicle (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Having the abbreviation TBA in place of, simply, nothing is far more concise and preferred, structurally. LLArrow (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "more preferred"? Based on what? A "TBA" adds nothing in terms of conciseness nor structure. Also, frequent use does not make it appropriate use.

My stance is this, and if I'm disagreed with, that's okay. But in terms of many film articles (I know, this is a TV show, just give me a second) a "TBA" is not included as it isn't useful. Usually, we will instead use a character description if one exists. For instance, I added Sidibe's character description awhile back and was reverted, with the TBA restored some time after. The lack of a character name implies that their character is not known, which is fine in the case of Harris, but Sidibe's character has some information around her.

Long story short: TBA adds absolutely nothing to comprehensiveness, conciseness (seeing as it's longer), or understandability, and a lack of a character is the frequent process used elsewhere. Also, MOS:TVCAST has no information regarding unannounced character names, so perhaps this discussion should be moved to WP:TV for more opinions and a better consensus. Sock (tock talk) 15:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the character had some information around her, that structure was what it was changed to and no one has had a problem with TBA being written there but you. It's been done with other characters in this article, and other articles. Where does it say in MOS:TVCAST that it DOESN'T have to have TBA? At the moment, if this was a consensus, it stands 2-1. Sidibe no longer needs it but I think Harris should considering that his character name OR description hasn't been announced. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brocicle: I'm begrudgingly willing to drop the stick on this one. It bothers me to an unbelievable degree, and I still can't see the point of including information that means "we don't have any information", but if consensus would prefer having TBA there, I will stop adding it. I'll self-revert when the protection is lifted, or you can go ahead and revert me if I'm not around. Sock (tock talk) 07:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just dropping a vote in favor of the TBA inclusion. The abbreviation is very commonly used and it speaks for itself. MiewEN (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop destroying the article

The protection is completely pointless and unnecessary as well as ridiculously idiotic. Either solve your disputes quickly or file a report to the moderators. This article is not updated in time as it should be. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Very much in agreement that the protection is pointless. Protection is supposed to be when multiple editors have a conflict, not when one editor has a conflict with multiple different editors. I'd really like to see User:EdJohnston unprotect the article, as this was very clearly not the correct action to have taken. Without unprotecting, this page will soon be flooded with edit requests to bother admins with, seeing as this highly-trafficked article is now not updated to the current episode. Gloss 04:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think full protection for a week was the wrong way to go about one users over-reverting as well. However, I do think some form of protection or other course of action would be useful to prevent further vandalism and other unnecessary edits to suit one persons needs rather than the page as a whole. Brocicle (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely ridiculous how many issues some people have with the tiniest of details. A full protection was totally unnecessary. One or two tiny problems doesn't warrant a full protection for a weeks times. At least not in my book. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 04:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @EdJohnston: Gloss 14:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the protection is entirely justified for the reasons I've just stated, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I got the notice, thank you. Please note User:TransporterMan's comment above in response to the WP:3O request. The original reason for protection was the war about the billing of Lily Rabe in the show. There seemed to be a majority of editors supporting a version that could not be verified from sources ('special guest star'). This seems to be a case of WP:Original research. It risks being considered a violation of Wikipedia policy. A local consensus in favor of this special billing of Lily Rabe can't override the Wikipedia policy which says that facts about people need to be verifiable. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this works to settle the dispute and unprotect the article? http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/10/31/ryan-murphy-american-horror-story-connected/ I agree Wikipedia articles for currently airing TV series should be protected for that long unless there is and admin dedicated to update it. Endymx (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. There's nothing in that article which expressly says that she's coming back as a regular cast member, a guest cast member, or a continuing cast member. There's information there from which you can analyze or derive that information, but doing so is original research. The source has to say it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 November 2014

Please update the character's episode counts. Paulson, Peters, Chiklis, Conroy, O'Hare, Roberts, Wittrock, Bassett, Bates, Lange, Weston, Grossman, Ervin, Neimen, Amge, LaBelle, and Sidibe all appeared in the last episode and their episode count should all go up by 1. I may have missed some names, I'm not sure if I saw some of the other minor characters or not, so feel free to add them here if I did miss any. Gloss 15:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sidibe's character's name is Regina Ross, which needs to be added. Gloss 16:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Jerry Leggio as Dr. Bonham should be added to recurring cast list, he was in Edward Mordrake Part 1 and Pink Cupcakes. Piercehayden17 — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What's your reliable source for putting him in the recurring cast list and not in the regular cast list? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The actor has been in both episodes and has been credited? I think that's enough to make him part of the recurring cast, not sure what else is needed. Piercehayden17 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia only reports what is said in reliable sources, we do not make analysis of our own. To label him as "recurring" rather than "regular" or "guest cast" is a value judgment or analysis which under the Verifiability policy requires a reliable source which says, in so many words, that he falls into one of those categories; to make that analysis on our own violates the Original research policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC) PS: Let me just note that it's not uncommon for the "regulars" at popular culture (and sports) articles to run them by a set of conventions and standards which are different from, and looser than, those used by the "serious" part of Wikipedia, such as articles about physics and history and medicine. Sometimes those articles can be run by those standards for a very long time. When a dispute finally arises and they appeal for help from one of the content or conduct dispute resolution sources, they are surprised to learn that the same standards that apply to serious articles must also be applied to popular culture articles. (This policy is set out most explicitly at CONLIMITED, but also arises from the fact that Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't have exceptions for popular culture articles.) In many cases they have, thus, built a house of cards where things that they have done which were generally accepted among the regular editors at the article, and which have taken a lot of time and effort, are unacceptable when exposed to the light of the Wikipedia day and must be removed if they are challenged. I haven't looked, but I would not be at all surprised if the entire "regular cast, "special guest cast," and "repeating cast" structure here either cannot be done at all or, more likely, cannot be set up in a consistent and useful manner because there will be sources to properly classify some cast members but other cast members, perhaps important cast members, cannot be categorized at all and must be omitted due to lack of adequate sources, leaving a result which is incomplete and misleading. But perhaps I'm wrong; as I said, I haven't looked. — TM

Gloss says, above "I may have missed some names, I'm not sure if I saw some of the other minor characters or not". That illustrates why these wholly-unsourced appearance counts are highly problematical. While a show can be used as a PRIMARY source for the appearance of an actor, simply by viewing him or her on the screen, for an editor to sit through an episode of a show, make a tally of all the actors he's seen, and then add that to an ongoing tally across multiple episodes, and then insert it into an article as part of a comprehensive count of all the actors in the series seems to stretch PRIMARY at least to, if not beyond, the breaking point. We're presenting these counts as the actual counts, and in a show which has a phantasmagorical or mysterious aspect and visual appearance and which may use fleeting images, veiled or otherwise obscured shots, masked or hidden faces, mistaken identities, etc, etc, getting an actual count seems to me to require analysis, interpretation, and (especially) evaluation. And PRIMARY says, very explicitly and unambiguously, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Gloss's statement would seem to confirm that analysis, interpretation, and evaluation are required. I don't think the requested edit is proper and, indeed, the existing appearance counts should be removed unless a reliable third party source can be found for them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate the long walls of text… this is a bit of TL;DR, but nobody's analyzing anything. The episode is the source. If the actor was in the episode, it's a very simple move to add onto their episode count. Gloss 20:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I remain confused on the matter; is it or is it not verifiable for an editor to add an actor to an episode count by viewing their appearance on said episodes? LLArrow (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. By putting in a plot count, we're taking a position that the count is exactly right; we don't have the luxury in Wikipedia of coming back later and saying "we've got to raise it from 6 to 7 because the character in the mask in Episode 4 was really X" or "we have to change it because X in the library with the candlestick turned out to actually be X's identical twin brother". There's also issues with flashbacks: is a character or actor who only appears in a flashback really appearing in that episode or not. In short, such counts involve analysis and evaluation and PRIMARY prohibits that use. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree, I don't believe it should be left to the discernment of any one viewer to make such a defining call. However, I sense this opinion will not be a popular one. Most editors of popular cultural articles edit with a bias toward the subject matter, which of course is to be expected, but not preferred. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion..

Can't we just place place all those who are going to guest star (Rabe, Harris, Burtka) on the list whether it's Special, Recurring of whatever it may be UNTIL they show up on their own episodes themselves and THEN figure out where to put them? In my own opinion this protection/edit war sounds pretty high schoolish! Again IMO and do NOT mean to offend anyone! Cause now it's been almost a week since Pink Cupcakes episode has aired and no one has placed any info regarding what happened or the total ratingings for the episode. Arguing about where certain cast members go seems pretty pointless when as of yet, we haven't seen them on show. But again that's just my opinion and again do not mean to offend anyone. I highly doubt my views on this will change what happens to the protection/edit war. But thanks for reading anyways :-) lol 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.180.140 (talk)

Hello, it appears that you may not be aware of Wikipedia's stance on adding actors/characters to an article, that will appear in the future. Whatever category that actor is placed under there must be a verifiable source cited along with it, otherwise it is considered speculation, in which Wikipedia does not indulge. This very subject is the topic of the above kerfuffle. Thank you for your interest. Please remember to sign your comments. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A Question..

I was reading through the Casting section of the article and found this:

Wes Bentley is set to appear in two episodes as Eddie, a tormentor of Bates' character.[30]

I was just wondering if this should be changed as he was neither of those things. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 12 November, 23:56 (UTC)

Well Eddie is a nickname for Edward, and his first scene was tormenting Bate's character, although that was not his main plot point. Gloss 13:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

When making edits and reverting please give a reason as it's difficult to figure out what has been changed and what should be changed back. For example, some recurring cast members have been removed without reason. I myself have been guilty of this in the past and have realised how frustrating it actually is. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Returning characters versus returning cast

A reoccuring cast is something I'm already used to with the AHS franchise but returning CHARACTERS between each season is a new bug to me... in fact the re-using of actors kind of gives the impression of separate-dimension to me, so actor A playing 1 character in 2 seasons and actor B playing 2 characters in the same 2 seasons would be quite odd. Anyway, I am hoping someone can explain this:

This is the first season of the series that is not strictly anthological

characters appearing from the series' second cycle

What does strict-anthology mean here? Which characters from Asylum appear in Freak Show? How do we know they are the same characters?

I think cross-season characters should be highlighted in a very blatent way because that is a HUGE deal, they should really get their own section.

Is this some hallucination-cameo or do they resume a major role?

I have only seen Asylum in full, only saw the first couple episodes of Murder-House and the first half of Coven so I'm a bit in the dark as to the meaning of anthological.

If that term means stand-alone then... if Asylum chars return in Freak Show wouldn't that mean Asylum is no longer an anthology? Is it possible that we may find out in some weird way (like Peter Capaldi playing some Roman guy in addition to the Doctor) that it's all one universe? Ranze (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It means that we are seeing characters from a different timeline appear in this series timeline. Pepper and Sister Mary Eunice McKee are from season 2 and both appear in this season, a different timeline to season 2. This has been confirmed by Ryan Murphy. They are the SAME characters played by the SAME actors just in a different timeline; kind of like a cross over. Ryan Murphy has also made a statement saying all seasons (when eventually finished) will be connected in someway or another. P.S. Peter Capaldi playing a Roman had nothing to do with the choice of him as the Doctor nor does it interact with his storyline but that's not for this talk page. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the connections between seasons will remain subtle, as stated by Murphy, I believe the attention we direct to the connections should remain subtle as well. The greater the connection per season, the more coverage/expansion on the seasons article. This applies to past, present, and future iterations. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Danny Huston and other returning cast members

An editor has recently reverted the inclusion of actor Danny Huston on the list of returning cast members, located in the header, multiple times. Stating that due to the actor/characters minimal presence on screen he should be omitted. This list is not a list of returning actors based on exposure or prevalence, it is a list of noteworthy returning actors. Huston played a fairly large recurring role in Coven, and I believe his name belongs on the list. It is quite informative and outstanding. I'm curious to hear others opinions on this matter. Please, let me hear from you. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, he was credited as a Special Guest Star, and appeared. I don't think it should matter the extent of the appearance. Especially considering he's been seen on set recently, and will be appearing in a few more episodes this season. If they appear in the season and have had a noteworthy role in the past/present, I think they should be included. Piercehayden17 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He has appeared for one episode, there is no confirmation he is going to appear in more. Ben Woolf and Grace Gummer appeared in a previous seasons and they aren't mentioned. It shows bias having one in and not all. Not every character that has appeared in previous seasons should have to be mentioned otherwise it'll drag on. Also, if it's supposed to be a list of noteworthy returning actors then why doesn't it say that? It just says returning cast members from previous instalments. Brocicle (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben had no lines in Murder House and said one word over an over again in Freak Show. Grace Gummer should be added though, she has had a pretty decent sized role so far in Freak Show. At least in my opinion. Piercehayden17 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And also, Gabby Sidibe was added to this list on the header as returning cast member way before she even made an appearance on Freak Show. And has only been in 2 episodes. So what's the difference between having Huston be added (as I was the editor who added him in the first place), having only one less episode so far as Sidibe? And if I'm not mistaken both Woolf and Gummer were present in this said list of returning actors but were repeatedly removed, and seems that now they should be added back? Screen time shouldn't be a factor for this. If they're returning cast members from previous seasons, then they're returning cast members from previous seasons. As clearly stated when the actors are listed. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I do think we should have SOME way to differentiate who should be on the list and who shouldn't. There have been numerous people who have appeared in more then one season, for example this season we have the Waitress Mariana Vicente who was in Coven, and the actor who played the Landlord in the premiere was also in Coven. I'm not saying we shouldn't include or disclude certain people, but I think we should develop a certain criteria as to whom should be in the list and who shouldn't. Piercehayden17 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Qualifying for the list should pertain to relevance; past, present, and (sourced) future. I agree, Gummer should indeed be added as well due to her substantial screen presence in Freak Show. Actors like Woolf are not eligible due to non recognition and irrelevancy as far as the proverbial "big picture" goes. Of course there are instances of exception, but those will need to be hammered out when applicable. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is Woolf not eligible? He had plenty of relevance to both Murder House and now to Freak Show regardless of non speaking/one worded roles. You are again showing bias. You can't have one rule for one actor and another rule for another just because he has a non speaking role yet plays relevance to the show. If we are going to have a criteria like Piercehayden17 suggested then at least have ideas put out there so an agreement can be formed rather than one user determining what goes. Brocicle (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not showing any such bias, I am simply putting forth what the show deems relevant. Ben Woolf is not credited in the opening credits of any of the episodes he makes an appearance in. The show is suggesting he is not, for lack of a better term, worthy of especial mention. If an editor wants to add that information to the Casting section, that is quite fine and desirable, but he does not belong in the header. Furthermore, I have never claimed to be a dictator. Wikipedia is a place of democracy; and others ideas are encouraged and welcome. I believe, since you are the only editor to take matter with it so far Brocicle, you should be the one to throw those aforementioned ideas out there. Your opinion is appreciated. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't be the only one to throw ideas out there considering, as you said, it is a democracy. It isn't just my responsibility to put forth ideas. No one claimed you are a dictator, your previous response read as though what you said in it goes which is why I said to at least come to some sort of agreement with suggestions based on what Piercehayden17 said. If he's relevant enough to be mentioned in the casting section and has appeared in a previous season then he is relevant enough to also appear in the header without any bias against him. Brocicle (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Brocicle, I believe LLArrow was stating that you should be throwing ideas out because "you are the only editor to take matter with it so far..." I very highly doubt that LLArrow was implying that you're the only person who should give ideas on how to improve this article. Sock (tock talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. I never mentioned anything about the article as a whole. Brocicle (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this: "I shouldn't be the only one to throw ideas out there considering, as you said, it is a democracy. It isn't just my responsibility to put forth ideas." I interpreted that as you misinterpreting LLArrow's statement. Sorry about that. Sock (tock talk) 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's towards the issue at hand and not the whole article itself. Sorry it caused some confusion, hopefully it makes more sense now. Brocicle (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely tenuous and a hefty undertaking to write mention of all the actors who have appeared in other seasons and this one, in the casting section, and I commend anyone who endeavours. However, the lesser known actors do not belong in the header, or else it would be tediously overextended. The header is a concisely kept summary of the articles overall content. Having repetitive information in it, that is not fundamental in value, is redundant and tacky. Brocicle I suggested that you throw ideas on the table because you are the only editor, so far, to take issue with the way this matter is being handled. I personally see no other way. If you do, please, enlighten. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Brewer

Unless you have a verifiable source stating the actress Jamie Brewer as such, DO NOT add her to the Recurring or Special Guest category. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete Pages

I'm going to assume this won't be done until after the season finale of FreakShow. But some of the individual pages for the episodes are either blank or don't have the reviews. "Episode 07: Test of Strength", "Episode 08: Blood Bath, "Episode 09: Tupperware Party Massacre", "Episode 11: Magical Thinking" & now " Episode 12: Show Stoppers" are incomplete. (Episode 12 I would understand since it was just released, but not the others since it has been a week or ALOT more, since they had aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.180.140 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and you are more than welcome to improve the project by completing these sections. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unlocking The Freak Show Page?

Will the page be editable once the finale airs tonight? I don't think it should be locked on tonight of all times, there will be a lot to edit once the finale airs. Thanks! 76.189.206.1 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This page will not be unprotected until January 28, 2015; due to edit warring. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Will someone update the page then? Or will it stay not being updated until the 28th? 76.189.206.1 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Curtain Call (American Horror Story)‎ is now available for editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards & Nominations

Could someone please update this section? A few days ago the full list of the Dorian Awards winners was released. Thanks. Israeldmo (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The PGA Awards winners were announced. Again, could someone please update this page? Thanks. Israeldmo (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Lange appears in each episode

She were in 13, not in 12 as mentioned now. Andrzej19 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the page is protected and it needs an administrator to update it. A request is on this talk page above though, so it'll be updated soon. Gloss 21:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Combining small bits of info

This is such a no brainer. Small sentences should be combined wherever possible. Very possible in both spots here. Absolutely no need for it to be split up. But edit warriors will do their thing, so here we are. Others have an opinion on this ridiculous matter? Gloss 04:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

On the flipside of the coin, the examples of sentences in question differ in nature, to the extreme of demanding separate paragraphs. It keeps the reader engaged, and keeps the text from seeming bulky. Clear, cut, precise. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to see you have an opinion on how it should be done. But unfortunately that's different from how it is actually done on here. Regardless of your opinion on how to keep readers engaged, on this website we combine small "paragraphs" that can easily be combined, especially when they are one sentence each. Gloss 05:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Gloss here. Articles are to be rendered into flowing prose when possible, not set apart like bullet points on an outline. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I do have a respect for your sense for detail, LLArrow, but agree with Gloss' here as well. Too short for a separate paragraph, simple as that. Although as apparent, your edit just seems to follow the writing style used in the main article introductions of the first and second season. In that case, the current intro section of the fourth season should be extended first with returning cast members details as evident in the series second and third season. Then it could work in favor of the separate paragraph for sure. MiewEN (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I of course understand the protection, but there's a pretty obvious consensus here. The dispute has been resolved. Gloss 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not resolution, but a consensus nonetheless. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the article. @Gloss and LLArrow: given both times I've protected the article the two of you have been edit warring with each other, let me make this abundantly clear, next time it will be blocks rather than page protection so I strongly suggest that if you disagree with the other's edit you post on the talk page so that others can weigh in rather than making any reverts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Let me make this abundantly clear. You do not intimidate me as much as you try. I'm well aware of how things work and yes of course I did not do the right thing by reverting, which is why I began this discussion. However your threats will continue to be ignored if you can't come across civilly and talk to us like people and not like you're above us simply because of your administrative rights. Gloss 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is the wrong way to handle this, Gloss. Callanecc is likely tired of these highly avoidable edit wars that sprout up because editors refuse to use the talk page, instead irrationally believing that edit summaries are going to magically cause some sort of magical epiphany on the other user. IT. NEVER. WORKS.

Neither does getting in the grill of a guy who is trying to remain neutral. I'd suggest that both you and LLArrow (esp. the latter) slow your roll, calm down and discuss the matter. If you cannot find common ground, there are noticeboards for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh of course, I know what the issue is with the article and situation going on here. My issue with Callanecc extends a bit beyond this one particular protection, as he's ignored me in the past and turned a situation around to ignore two users edit warring with about 15 total reverts in order to highlight two reverts that I made and blame the need for a past protection on me. And now I really don't appreciate the threats he's making. But it's really alright, some editors will do anything to look good for those future RfBs. But I'm going to move on and back away from this discussion. Thanks to all who helped gain the consensus and hopefully we can avoid the conflict from now on. Gloss 05:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully recede my opinion. Far too much fret over the matter. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Whats going on?

How come all the character names have "The fourth season is set in Jupiter, Florida in 1952, and follows the lives of a troupe of people belonging to one of the last remaining freaks shows of its time. ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Elsa Mars (Jessica Lange) is the owner of Fraulein Elsa's Cabinet of Curiosities; and her performers, who she calls her monsters, include the bearded lady ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Ethel Darling (Kathy Bates), her son ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Jimmy Darling (Evan Peters), the strongman ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Dell Toledo (Michael Chiklis) and his three-breasted wife ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Desiree Dupree (Angela Basset), as well as the newly recruited conjoined twin sisters ‹The template AHSCharacter is being considered for deletion.› Bette and Dot Tattler (Sarah Paulson)."

It says that on every season of American Horror Story, even in the cast list as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.173.68 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot -> unknown characters

The plot mentiones "Meep" and "Marjorie", without them being introduced before. Either they should be removed or introduced. Jalwikip (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Horror Story: Freak Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221153024/http://www.local706.org:80/awards/2015-muahs-guild-award-winners/ to http://www.local706.org/awards/2015-muahs-guild-award-winners/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cinemasight.com/ofta/tv-19th-annual-television-award-winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American Horror Story: Freak Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011020537/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/09/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-the-walking-dead-sneak-peek-south-park-teen-mom-ii-more/312389/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/09/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-the-walking-dead-sneak-peek-south-park-teen-mom-ii-more/312389/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114210851/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/16/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-wins-night-south-park-teen-mom-2-baseball-impact-wrestling-more/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/16/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-wins-night-south-park-teen-mom-2-baseball-impact-wrestling-more/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025164726/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/23/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-key-peele-south-park-melissa-joey-more/318297/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/23/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-tops-night-key-peele-south-park-melissa-joey-more/318297/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117134402/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/30/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-wins-night-south-park-key-peele-ghost-hunters-top-chef-more/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/30/wednesday-cable-ratings-american-horror-story-wins-night-south-park-key-peele-ghost-hunters-top-chef-more/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.local706.org/awards/2015-muahs-guild-award-winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911221457/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms36x.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms36x.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Elsa's legs

Coming to Elsa's tent, she reveals her past life in Germany, where she worked as a dominatrix. She reveals that she was a victim of Hans Grüper, also known as Dr. Arthur Arden (John Cromwell), who amputated her legs while filming a snuff film.

This is a part that I do not understand. Except for in her retrospective tale (describing the above incident) Elsa has her legs completely unharmed. Was Elsa just lying, or is this an unbelievable inconsistency?--2003:CE:BBC9:D513:2D6E:150A:A127:C2A9 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)