Talk:The Madison (TV series)

Requested move 13 February 2026

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus to move. However, the redirect to be redirected to the dab page for now. Another discussion can be opened again, preferably if it can be determined that WP:PT2 can be satisfied, which is the sticking point for those who opposed, and some time after the page views for the dab has stablised after the redirect change. – robertsky (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

---

The Madison (TV series) → The MadisonThe Madison – Madison (dance) is not the primary topic for The Madison, which currently redirects there. There is no strong evidence in that article that the dance is even referred to with the definite article, there is only a passing mention of a related song "The Madison". Based on page views, the upcoming TV series is the clear primary topic for "The Madison". Mdewman6 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose primary topic grab but redirect to Madison. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason why The Madison should redirect to a dance page, which was made in 2007. There is also no other topic under "The Madison" listed under the Madison disambiguation page. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence provided that Madison (dance) is not the primary topic for The Madison apart from Page Views, which argument is not on its own sufficient to justify a move. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  The reverse of that logic is also true: no evidence that The Madison is the primary topic for Madison (dance). If it is the primary topic, then shouldn't that be the page name/title? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Andrewa Could you please answer the above? Is there evidence that The Madison is the primary topic for Madison (dance)? On what is your argument based on? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but the onus of proof is on the proposer and supporters of the move. If there's no evidence supporting it, then no move. Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Onus of proof", but you want an argument from ignorance. Wild. I agree: If there's no evidence supporting a primary topic, then there's no primary topic. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Have a look at Burden of proof (philosophy). It is not the same as argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. We're getting dangerously close to violating NPA here. Challenge what I say by all means, but don't speculate on what I want. Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Your argument is based solely on the promotion of your own personal essay. There remains no evidence that Madison (dance) is the primary topic for The Madison. In fact, not a singular Wikipedia article links to The Madison as a means of linking the dance. That is simply fact. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, just because I mention my essay that does not make my argument based solely on the promotion of your own personal essay. That is neither a fact nor a valid argument.

  Exactly what you mean by not a singular Wikipedia article links to The Madison as a means of linking the dance is not clear but it sounds relevant... But it would be better if you were to link to the policy supporting this argument, if you have one in mind. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  It means that there is no in-wiki evidence that The Madison is the primary topic/alternate name for the Madison dance, so when this RM closes (whether moved or not moved), the redirect needs to be relocated away from the dance. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Alex. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment if we want to think beyond page views, i.e. WP:PT1, and think about long-term significance (WP:PT2), the thing for which the show is named, the Madison River, is commonly known as "The Madison" (hence the show title) and would arguably have more long-term significance than the dance. There are several ships listed at Madison that could also be called "The Madison" that are also older than the dance. I still believe the overwhelming advantage in page views is sufficient to justify a primary topic for the show, but the other reasonable option is to retarget the base name to the disambiguation page per Necrothesp above. I don't think there is any reasonable argument for continuing to have the dance as the primary topic. Arguing to maintain the status quo is inadequate due to the appearance of the show as a topic since the dance received primary topic status. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Westerns, WikiProject Television/American television task force, WikiProject Westerns/Television task force, WikiProject Montana, and WikiProject Television have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Alex (with significant consideration of Mdewman6's comments). Simply searching for "The Madison" both with and without quotes suggests the TV series is the primary topic. The series was the top result and the majority of the results, several search result pages deep. I never found an item on the dance even browsing several pages deep in search results (even when the search was just "Madison"). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support based on reasons stated. Partyclams (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• oppose on long-term significance grounds (WP:PT2), but i would support redirecting to the DAB. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support based on reasons stated Hila Livne (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. long-term significance grounds (WP:PT2). // Hippo43 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose.

As an example and useful comparison, let’s consider Jaguar vs Jaguar Cars—both share the same name, but we wouldn’t redirect one to the other, because they represent distinct subjects with independent notability. The same principle applies here.

The TV series and the dance are entirely unrelated topics that simply share the same name. Under Wikipedia’s naming conventions, that situation is normally handled through disambiguation, not by redirecting one topic to another.

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DISAMBIGUATION, the more appropriate approach is to:

Keep the TV series as its own article at a disambiguated title, and

Ensure “Madison” (or related base titles) point to a disambiguation page, not a single unrelated topic.

Redirecting the series to the dance would most likely confuse readers rather than help them navigate.

Thank you. NotYourMama007 (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier point, the key issue here is not which topic is more well-known, but how readers are likely to search for the term.

In cases where two unrelated topics share the same name, Wikipedia typically avoids redirecting one to the other and instead uses disambiguation to help readers find the intended subject.

The TV series and the dance do not appear to have a direct relationship, so treating one as the primary destination for the other may not align with typical disambiguation practice.

Happy to hear additional thoughts. NotYourMama007 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: Per above and the show is the only instance of “The” being part of the COMMONNAME and search results indicate this is the primary topic for The Madison. A “for other uses” hat note pointing to the disambiguation page for “Madison” would be sufficient to alleviate any remaining confusion. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as this is both the only thing actually called "The Madison" with "The" as part of the name itself and it happens to be the thing with the most page views too. That to me makes it a valid change. Also I'm persuaded by the argument that if we were going off WP:PT2 then it's hard to say that Madison (dance) should not give way for something else. It doesn't really make sense under either WP:PT1 or WP:PT2 to keep the status quo. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons noted above.

Mildly interesting (maybe) but unrelated side note, now that the first season is streaming: There's a brief Q&A conversation in the show where Michelle Pfeiffer asks why the (fictional) river has the name: the answer from the local is, "Well, I've always just assumed it was named after the president." Ms. Pfeiffer acts slightly embarrassed. Left Central (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

What fictional river? Isn't the show named after the Madison River? ~2026-17275-51 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casting

@Hippo43: Can I ask how mentioning why Costner's contract negotiations failed and which Yellowstone stars were in negotiations to star is "undue weight. recentism, trivia, gossip" and "way too much detail about shit that didnt happen"? I get that some of the information may not have been necessary (the info from the agents, the specific amounts), fine, whatever. I added less than a fourth of the content back, and in a very general overview as a potential compromise, and you blindly reverted my edits to your preferred version. The fact that Grimes, Hauser, and Reilly were in talks to star, is discussed in multiple reliable sources: TVLine, The Hollywood Reporter, and Puck. Additionally, even without them, the show was still believed to be connected to Yellowstone as late as February 14. It's not even been a month, and has been known as a franchise entry longer than it hasn't been, I don't believe it's out of scope to discuss this. Not to mention, the fact that in the process you've completely removed all mention of Pfeifer from the casting section, which is even more beyond any reason I can comprehend. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Cheezknight, Alex 21, YoungForever, Mellamelina, and Partyclams: some other regular contributors of the article to see if they have any opinion, as well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no position on this article or the series, but you're right in your inclusion of the material. The reason of "undue weight. recentism, trivia, gossip" has absolutely no basis in guidelines or policy, and seems to be a IDONTLIKEIT sort of revert. -- Alex _talk 04:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with including the content as it thoroughly details the early development of the series and was reliably sourced. Hopefully the editor can further elaborate on their reasons for removal here. Cheezknight (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't how see contact negotiations for the TV series are irrelevant, especially when they are reliably sourced. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason I took all this out was as I explained in my edit summaries, which I realise might have sounded harsh. This stuff is hypothetical and mostly trivial - Hollywood rumours about stuff that didn't happen. It's not what an encyclopedia is for. The casting section was far too big and dominated the article. I don't think stuff about Costner and the last series of Yellowstone belongs here at all. I also don't believe it was really reliably sourced. The Puck source is, like much of this stuff, a collection of mostly unattributed rumours, and the tone is frivolous and gossipy - Costner is "assholic", for example. Likewise, the wording of the TVLine source -"rumoured … poised … expected … possibly … unclear … supposed..." Similarly, the Hollywood Reporter - "Cole Hauser hints," "Hauser suggests the characters played by himself and Kelly Reilly might have a future," "Reilly seemed to likewise subtly hint". This isn't what I would call reliably sourced, and it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• "The casting section was far too big and dominated the article." --- This only made sense until you reverted my second attempt, which again restored less than a fourth of the information that was there initially. A larger section does not inherently mean undue weight, when the sources published reflect that.
• "I don't think stuff about Costner and the last series of Yellowstone belongs here at all." --- if the show was developed as a result of his actions, why not?
• "The Puck source is, like much of this stuff, a collection of mostly unattributed rumours, and the tone is frivolous and gossipy - Costner is "assholic", for example. ---- SECONDARY, reliable sources "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The author of the article explicitly admits to using primary sources to gather this information "Reilly, in particular, initially asked for a whopping $1.5 million an episode, according to two sources, at or above the very top tier of TV stars" and "Sheridan didn’t actually conceive the spinoff with the three of them in mind, I’m told." In other words, an author of a reliable source having information from a primary source is expected and not inherently a rumor. See also a discussion about Puck on the RSP, where it was found to be generally reliable.
• "Likewise, the wording of the TVLine source -"rumoured … poised … expected … possibly … unclear … supposed..."" ---- none of those words appear in that source except for "supposed[ly]", but that only refers to Grimes (budget ask), not Hauser and Reilly or the amounts they asked for (but not the fact Grimes was in negotiations or the existing contract), and "possible" (again, not related to the content in question).
• "Similarly, the Hollywood Reporter - "Cole Hauser hints," "Hauser suggests the characters played by himself and Kelly Reilly might have a future," "Reilly seemed to likewise subtly hint". --- Those terms are centered around interviews from the cast, were not used for what was being cited in the article, and do not reflect the later paragraph of what was actually being cited: "Last year, Yellowstone showrunner Sheridan seemed pretty set against bringing over any of the current cast to the show’s planned spinoff. But a recent report from media newsletter Puck said that Sheridan had changed his mind, and that the showrunner was eyeing Hauser and Reilly, and perhaps others, for the new show. Matthew McConaughey was in talks for the lead for the drama, though that was never finalized."

TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• "if the show was developed as a result of his actions, why not?" --- It wasn't. The sources cited don't say that it was.
• "A larger section does not inherently mean undue weight" --- That's right. Not inherently. It's a judgment call.
• "none of those words appear in that source" --- They appear in this TVLine source Sorry if I wasn't clear.
• "Those terms are centered around interviews from the cast, were not used for what was being cited in the article..." --- It goes to the overall credibility of the source. I don't think it's likely to be PR bullshit in one paragraph, but rock solid in another. Again, an editorial judgment.
• "In other words, an author of a reliable source having information from a primary source is expected and not inherently a rumor." --- Not inherently, but we need to exercise judgment about these sources. Industry gossip, agents and publicists doing their work through the media, should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.

The broader point remains that stuff that was rumored to happen but didn't, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The first point of your above response shows that you are still unfamiliar with the content and sources and question. Have you actually read them? The Deadline Hollywood source literally says "But the new project is way more than just talk, borne out of the continued disagreements over the lessening amount time Costner is willing to spend shooting the series.". Given that we've both made our viewpoints clear and you're the only disputing editor, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing this back-and-forth right now and I believe that it would be unhelpful to do so. The clear consensus thus far is that the information should be included. I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone else chimes in, but if not, I'll be reinstating the edits. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You are, obviously, quoting out of context. That is one mention in passing. The sources as a whole do not support that narrative. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You are unfortunately not entitled to cherrypick the information that you do or do not want to believe from a source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Which is what you are doing. // Hippo43 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Taking a source at face value is not the same as blatantly choosing to ignore said information from the source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hippo43 Is it a rumor or hearsay? They aren't so, I don't see how they are irrelevant information. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Revdel revert?

I'm adding back the first review intended to start the human-curated part of a Reception section.

Editors adding a hand-picked selection of reviews/summaries enrichen Wikipedia articles. Relying on MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes alone makes our articles poorer not better, and drivel like "this or that review aggregator website reports this percentage and that number" could probably be replaced entirely by automated code templates.

I got reverted by User:TheDoctorWho with the edit summary "probably enough to request revdel" which makes zero sense (and my addition was never revdel'd).

The proper response to disliking my addition is to pick your own reviews to complement mine, if you believe that would help balance the section and make it more accurately represent actual critical reception. Articles with a nice selection of hand-picked reviews are superior to ones with only mechanical reports of percentages and numbers from external sites that we know are NOT objective and instead mostly exist to sell tickets. ~2026-17275-51 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)