Difference between revisions of "Talk:Angela (The Real Housewives of Fat Tony)"

Latest revision as of 03:55, April 23, 2024

	This article is part of Style Guide Characters.

Cremains of the Day[edit]

We don't know whether a) Fat Tony ended up getting another wife as well (In The Real Housewives of Fat Tony he was open to having multiple wives after all) or b) whether he divorced Angela and got remarried. Due to her not making a physical appearance, we can't say for sure it's the same character so it would be better to treat them as separate characters unless otherwise confirmed in the future. The Solar Dragon 07:23, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

I'm sorry and this is fruitless on my part to even hope you'll reconsider, but that makes no sense. I get you like to keep things in-universe, but "We don't know" isn't an excuse to make up scenarios to square inconsistencies that are more easily solvable by just noting "one episode she named X and in a later one she was named Y." "We can't know for sure" means just that and your position can't by default better since it as likely to be inaccurate as any other and it doesn't fit with the website's stated policy. Also that's not totally accurate to the episode since the whole point of the episode is Fat Tony fooled Selma and everybody else besides Selma and her family knew she wasn't now his wife and it was all uncovered pretty quickly and when talking just to hired hands Fat Tony didn't call Selma his wife, but his mistress. Why is the article named Angela again? Fat Tony has a wife is establish within the show yet there's nothing that has come to close to backing any idea of divorces (and so many Mafia TV shows and movies which Fat Tony is a parody of are about how Mafiosos don't get divorces and multiple episodes note how Catholic Fat Tony is) show renames characters all the time and that position has some precedent and type up a note in "Behind the Laughter" rather than a bunch of headcannon nobody else could ever know to make it even less accurate. Snowball II (talk) 09:33, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

If she had made a physical appearance in the episode, that would be one thing. But she didn't. So we don't know if he was referring to the same character. Hell, Fat Tony doesn't even refer to Connie as his wife, it's just implied. Therefore we can't say for sure if it's intended to be the same character. Due to the fact we don't know for sure, we're not going to just make it up and say that it's the same character. Because we are not a fan-fiction wiki. The Solar Dragon 10:30, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

C'mon you were the one coming up with offscreen divorces and remarriages so unsure who is you're accusing of fanfic (meant in a teasing voice). You are also setting a standard that doesn't apply to other articles which have way bigger stretches in their implications. A question I'm unsure you'll answer is just simply if it's not his wife, what's the joke of that scene? That's the most direct way to tell something and just seems a better question to ask then dialogue that would never exist in an episode for a 7-second joke (it's a cartoon sitcom so talking like they're in a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like a fair or substantiable ask). I doubt you'd be stratified if someone else demanded that dialogue has as clear as, "Pick up Connie who is not wife" otherwise we can't say she isn't his wife. If you don't know something, you don't know it and can't make a "therefore" conclusion based other made-up scenarios into "Fat Tony's wife" is two separate people. I think I wouldn't push back this much if it was unacknowledged to pretend we don't know is a choice. The wording can be muddled with of course, but least my solutions let's a reader of the article know all the information at once and if he or she wants to draw up the same conclusion as you did, have at it. Citing accuracy disclaimer wasn't to justify fanfiction or write stuff like the day of their wedding anniversary or write how we can't know if Bruno Wife-banger did or didn't go to the airport or he might have gone to Atlantic City's airport or wherever else. The policy was brought up to counter a fear not really based in anything beyond "I'd like the reference to be more explicit" or "later on could be proven inaccurate" to justify removing or not acknowledging info that you wish were more explicit as if it's the winning trump card to stop anything else. Also why the page titled Angela again. Snowball II (talk) 11:14, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife, just that it wasn't actually stated in the episode. There's just too many unknowns to confidently state it's the same character. Yes, it could well be the same character. But we don't have confirmation. It's possible her name was changed by the writers, or it was a mistake and they forgot about Angela when writing the joke (the episode she debuted in is pretty forgettable after all), but unless we have solid evidence, we can't say for sure they are the same character.

Hell, it might even be a similar case for Sideshow Mel's wife. Mel has Barbara Van Horne as his wife in most appearances, but then he had Barbara Belfry as his wife in "A Serious Flanders". Yes, those episodes are non-canon, but then she appeared with Mel again in "Homer's Adventures Through the Windshield Glass", which we do have as a canon episode. Matt Selman has stated before that he doesn't particularly care about canon. So it is fully possible for a character to be married to two different people in two different canons within the show. The Solar Dragon 11:27, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

And it's fully possible it's not two canons and you might be wrong and demanding confirmation isn't helpful to fan reference wiki where there's an article about Fat Tony's wife and just erasing the whole scene from the last episode because of "we don't for certain" or some made-up scenarios, fully possibly or not, seems like a disservice on par if not worst.

But you're the one creating unknowns and citing another character in a situation which isn't really in-line to this latest episode. Again "it might be" or it's "fully possible" are doing a lot of work for a pretty simple thing. It just seems odd you created this or that scenario which is way less explicit to the actual episode while also wanting the episode itself to be more explicit. The overly complex scenarios of multiple canons are not backed up beyond your speculation and nobody else would have any way of knowing that. If it were Rev. Lovejoy mentioning the organist by yet another new name and you contention was a church can more than one organist, it would be one thing, but that's not the same as contending it's the same except now multiple wives. Fat Tony has a wife and has been mentioned or seen a few times and the gag of the scene is he needs to pay more attention to the nicknames of the guys he hires and then sends Bruno Wife-banger to pick up Connie. Why do you need a screenshot of a marriage license I still don't get? That's an exaggeration on my part, but not by much. Again he didn't actually marry Selma, he's Catholic and to quote the NYT "Divorce for a Mafia wife is not an option" Also, I think for a third time now (which is a question out of curiosity and not disbelief), how come the page is titled Angela? Snowball II (talk) 13:46, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

"How come the page is titled Angela?" Because that's her name? Why wouldn't it be titled her name? The Solar Dragon 14:00, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

Thank you for the circular logic. I only wish I could could use "why wouldn't it be" as an answer to your requests for information or confirmation. When and where is Fat Tony's wife called Angela? So I guess (like usual) the rest of what I wrote is just scribbles. Snowball II (talk) 14:08, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

Burden of proof. I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove the positive. As for Angela's name, it comes from the script taken from Simpsons World before the Disney merger and the site got redirected to Disney+. These scripts could be shown alongside the episode as it aired, showing which lines were being said when and by who. Therefore, it's as official a name as we have. The Solar Dragon 14:20, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

Good for you for finding it. Hmmm, I kept picturing another scene in another episode of him saying Angela on the phone or something and kept looking and looking for it. I thought aired episodes trump scripts or at least they did in one of fun little mini-debates. Call the article Connie and make a note in BTL just like Skinner's mother was named Gloria in the script. Burden of proof and "we can't be certain" are a longs ways from each other and the site doesn't have one WS:DISCLAIM. There's no evidence Fat's Tony had multiple wives in multiple canons and so you unsure burden of proof beyond "possibly?" so.

Why wouldn't you want to prove your case which you were doing until now. And I offer point after point which I thought weren't bad I write in false modesty.

Again (sorry noticing I start a lot of sentences with again) I still don't understand why so much push back since do I have to go through the list of inaccuracies on wiki and it didn't fall apart and this isn't an accuracy since it's one user behind the scenes speculation of might-bes. We see Fat Tony's wife in one episode where we get a whole scene, then another brief cameo and now the latest episode where she got a first name and that seems more helpful to a curious Simpsons watcher reading up on the character rather than "it might be wrong" because on ungrounded scenarios. I never know if these examples resonate or not, but each time Prof. Frink mentioned his wife isn't treated as all separate canons with each a different character unless 100% certainty otherwise and especially that speculation what it is or isn't known shouldn't be enough to remove it and pretend it never existed (we know for sure the scene happened or perhaps even that isn't a given). Like any Simpsons nerd I prefer consistency and explicitness, but I work with what the show will give. Snowball II (talk) 15:06, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

"There's no evidence Fat's Tony had multiple wives in multiple canons" I just offered that as a possibility. I didn't add it into the article. I'm not the one adding unproven information into articles.

"but each time Prof. Frink mentioned his wife isn't treated as all separate canons" If he started referring to his wife by different names, they would be considered different characters. His wife is currently unnameed.

"Why wouldn't you want to prove your case which you were doing until now." You can't prove a negative. You're trying to claim that it's the same character. There's no evidence to suggest they're the same character. You're the one trying to add unproven information into the article.

So, I'm just gonna say this now. Do not add information into articles if there's no solid proof behind it. Doing so knowingly will count as adding in false information, which is a bannable offense. Therefore, any more and you will get banned again. I've been patient with you despite you pushing and pushing due to the fact you do generally make good edits, but I'm at my limit now. It is down to the person adding the information to prove that it is correct and accurate. It is not down to the person removing it to prove that it's not. Because if it was proven to be correct and accurate, it wouldn't need to be removed in the first place. The Solar Dragon 15:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

Fruitless and now scorched earth. Everyone of your rules and conditions you are fever setting up for me to flow I've done, yet it's never enough that you immediately threaten a block. I read these strict standards and then look at Aunt Hortense or Charles Montgomery Burns' adoptive father where adoption is never mentioned and these standards seem all the more arbitrary. Then I try to not be just negative and whatever small things kind of bug me, remember all the massive amount of work that goes into a wiki like this and move along and when and if possible change it i.e. I get why it's there, but not a fan "X is x" restatement type of first line so just change it rather using it to knocking everything else.[1]

Whatever I think of your rules or judgement on cannon (really don't see the big deal of discussing how just renaming it to Connie would make anyone's life any worst), I never think you are here to damage the wiki, but you act like a discussions on a Talk Page, frustrating or not, is some major crime on my part. I'm not perfect, but shouldn't an admin and the attributor of what is or isn't official be able to discuss content issues for less a few hours without threatening to block? Part of me knows these discussion never go anywhere and if you don't change your mind or show some openness to a new idea after the first or second prompt, it's not going to happen and even compromise won't be on the table and I just think maybe this time. But part of doing it is because like you I'd like more people to come edit and if I can try to get you to be a bit more open minded to others' POV or compromise it or might be a benefit at the wiki as a whole which clearly you really, really care about. Snowball II (talk) 16:17, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

I don't understand why you think I'm contradictory at all. I ask you to prove things before you add them to pages. You don't provide proof then argue that you're right anyway. Sources and references are what I argue for. That's all I want. You say Angela is the same character as Connie, despite no evidence showing they are. You haven't provided evidence that they are the same, therefore, we can't say they're the same character. Simple as that. Using another example, Jack Deforest, You said that his name should be DeForest because a real person has it spelled that way in his name. I ask you to provide a source that shows it that way within the show and related media. You can't. You're trying to make changes despite no evidence or sources within the show confirming them. That is what I have issues with and why I undo these edits. You need to be able to prove things are correct when adding them to articles. And if you can't prove it, don't add it. And knowingly adding incorrect information is grounds for banning. Simple as that. The Solar Dragon 17:03, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

It's not simple as that and prove me wrong ignores the rest of the burden of proof article and the fallacy of burden of proof.[2]

What's the point of this or that line or what is it referencing or how does it work as a joke might ruin the 'in-universe" of it, but still a totally valid question in a fan wiki. You alone are the self-appointed attributor of officialdom or inaccuracies and I'm not a mind reader of what will or won't stratify you this time. I have asked you loads of times for changes beforehand. yet it's pulling teeth when I asked you why it's called Angela ("because why wouldn't it be" and you're asking for absolute dispositive evidence) and it was behind the scenes only you've seen. It's a cartoon and you've pointed out to me multiple times it's not real. Inference might not stratify your not-particularly-consistent burdens of proof, but it's used all the time in this wiki and I think for the better. Also inaccurate and unproven are not interchangeable since earlier you wrote you weren't you didn't know Connie was inaccurate since you didn't know, but you are subjectively asking for proof which will never satisfy you. You ask for proof and then write changes DeForest to Deforest might be a legal issue or Fat Tony had multiple divorces or wives or what did you not speculate or the only one allowed to. You wrote the author might be wrong without any proof beyond it's happened before, but the subtitles on Disney+ being inaccurate before isn't proof of anything. I can't stop myself, but I'm fine with it being Gladys Gurney, but the position you're now taking wouldn't be at all satisfying. You acting like DeForest just came from nowhere. I don't harangue you when you've made inaccuracies. It just seems obvious as anything else any more than betting you didn't double check Disney+ subtitles for Edgar Allan Poe where it's spelled Allen. And the inferences abound in so many places. In "Deep Space Homer" it's never mentioned that he is Tim Allen, but it's fine to mention it because I don't need Disney+ to tell me the sky is blue. At least my spelling has a cited source to the author of the episode which anybody can read to verify and yours is your own noodle. You mentioned your issue, but one of mine is that your burden of proof is to satisfy your own personal knowledge since it's only you who would know that and nobody else simply reading the page would know. You created unworkable standards (how would I or any other editor who what is or isn't on the Disney+ subtitles) citing one inapt example that can also contradict your original point (the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles) and adding "simple as that" isn't meeting any burden of proof. Snowball II (talk) 18:05, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

What the hell are you on about with the "the subtitles were inaccurate on Kostas so we must defer to the subtitles" part? I've read this line multiple times and still have no idea what you're getting at. His names was said to be Kostas in the script and promotional material. It didn't clear legal before the episode aired, so it was changed to Costas in the subtitles and Tapped Out. The whole point of that is we can't fully trust what the writers themselves even say because things could have changed in the aired episode.

As for the rest of it, I stand by what I said. If you can't prove something, don't add it in. And to bring it back round to this article, Connie is a different name to Angela unless I'm mistaken. There's like different letters in different places in the name, so they must be different. Therefore, you can't confidently say for a fact that they are the same character. So, it doesn't have a place in this article. The Solar Dragon 18:21, April 22, 2024 (EDT)

As per usual when the point is something you're able knock, you bring it up and anything else doesn't exist. I would have guessed if you were confused, why not just ask for clarification. I meant to type, as I've had so many times, Costas/Kostas, and how it's unique to itself and an unworkable standard for any and all other articles, a point I've made so many time, but I guess the trick is just word it so you can mock it to get a response as if matters anymore than "stand by what I said" when you never said anything, you typed and yet I can understand what you meant nor use it to negate any points by you. I negate your points by citing other articles or examples to get a response of "I stand by what I said" which is not a first. So it was block threats and now it's condescension? If it's so obvious why type today that "I'm not saying that Connie wasn't his wife" if it's now totally inaccurate rather than your position of contesting the canon or how implicit or explicit the use was. Don't even want to guess what your reaction would be if I mentioned it's a Family Guy reference. It's in the "Burden of Proof" article you brought up that pretending as if this show has never been inconsistent with names is a burden of proof fallacy. Well Jackie and Ingrid are different names too, but you squared that fine and I'm not contesting it. Why that's fine, but I need "rock solid" proof to not ignore the latest episode doesn't square. Do I wish it was all more explicit if not definitive, for sure yet why would the writer need to make it so overt since it would be one thing if the line was simply telling an underling pick up Connie at the airport and that was that, but right after the nickname gag and right before the wife-banger gag are even more overt. Also your position of either ignoring the scene from the latest episode or (without proof) making it a new and separate character doesn't fit either. Pretty sure plenty of characters have been renamed and renamed by you, especially as when it's just it's never been said in an episode or conflicting info still gets put into the same article. Snowball II (talk) 19:24, April 22, 2024 (EDT)