This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The season 7 section mentions a September 2008 start date but no source is cited. Summer 2008 is all I can find. Should this claim be removed?18.95.7.107 (talk)00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that it's because of complaints about the show from the LAPD. They switched the position of the badges, and made the badges look different, to placate them.Liquidindian04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
supposedly there is an LA times story about that, but i cant find anything in their archives. most other references are 2nd-hand info as far as i can tell but point to LAPD objection-Lordraydens08:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I added in a hidden comment, Michael Chiklis discusses this in a "behind the scenes" spot that has aired on FX this winter (2006-2007). He mentions that in the pilot episode the badges are duplicates of the real LAPD badges and worn properly, however the LAPD insisted that the badges be worn on the opposite side to ensure that there was no confusion between real officers and actors. Not sure how we can turn this into a reliable source. /Blaxthos15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the first section some of the comments comparing the Farmington strike team to real life LAPD Officers involved with Rampart's CRASH unit are POV. Most of the allegations concerning Rampart CRASH officers were based on the testimony of Rafael Perez. Perez was an officer who was caught stealing large amounts of cocaine from LAPD evidence storage, and testified against fellow officers in a bid for clemency. The accuracy of many of his statements was never postively established. In fact four Ramparat officers who were dismissed in the wake of the scandal recently succesfully sued the city of Los Angeles for fifteen million dollars as a result of false accusations coming from the Rampart scandal.68.66.108.12111:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Negative... they were not in the room, and (presumably) unaware -- Lem confronted Vic while wearing the wire for the first time in the last season. It would be safe to say that Lem suspected such after Kavanaugh's accusation; Ronnie's knowledge (or lack thereof) is unclear as far as I can tell. /Blaxthos02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only Vic and Shane knew about the plan: Ron hears it from Shane in season 6. Ronnie's after the fact knowledge of the detials Crowley's murder is refered to at the end of series 7.
I've removed all remarks regarding the March 21, 2006 episode being the "season finale" of the show. The season has been split up into two parts (similar to what's done on shows likeSouth Park andMonk), with the second part due to air later this year (or early next year). I've also noted this information in the "Season 5" section of the article. --MisterHand05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The show started early this year. If the show resumes early next year, how is that the same season? Not to mention the FX commercials for the last episode that specifically said, "You knew a season like this would have a finale like this."Kafziel13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cable seasons are not like network seasons, and they aren't based on the calendar year.The Shield is not the first show to split up its season like this, and Shawn Ryan has stated in several interviews that this is only the first part of season 5. --MisterHand13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just marketing B.S. If it starts in the winter, then goes off the air for nine months and starts in the winter again, that's a new season. It has nothing to do with cable vs. network, it has to do with reality vs. delusion.Kafziel13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting article, but I don't see how it supports the claim that season five is only half over. According to that source, written on 3/14, The Shield "is now nearing the end of its fifth season." It doesn't mention anything about a hiatus, or a split season, or even that this could be the last one.Kafziel15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that...the mention of the season split is in the audio portion of the article, Shawn Ryan mentions it near the end of the interview. --MisterHand15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I'll have to check it out later, then. On another note - is Shawn Ryan ending the Shield because he's done with it, or because he's working on The Unit? That show is like a ridiculous mix of JAG and Desperate Housewives; I can't believe Ryan would even touch it.Kafziel16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Job On Creating More Seperate Character Pages
Nice job on creating some seperate characters for some of the more noteworthy characters on the Shield. Makes the page seem a lot cleaner and helps load it a bit faster.
I have transferred all the remaining characters from the main article to the seperate character page, does anyone have any views of removing some of the characters from the main page? I don't think that people like Tom Bankston or Paul Jackson need to be on the main page, and can instead be accommodated better in the seperate page. I was going to just remove all the characters from the main page, but maybe some of the current main characters should be left? Anyone have any thoughts on this, or who should be left?87.192.76.6620:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current strike team, current admin, and current police officers should only be left on character page, past charachters, or those of little importance have no relevance on the main page and should be removed to reduce the mess in this section...136.206.11.24915:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is awiki, soanyone can edit almost any article by simply following theEdit this page link at the top. You don't even need tolog in! (Although there are somereasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you tobe bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check outhow to edit a page, or use thesandbox to try out your editing skills.New contributors are always welcome.
Some edits would be nice for a change. A quick look at your contribs shows nothing but tags, criticism, and negativity (like telling people their work is "crap" and "garbage"). I see very few improvements on your part. You may have noticed that several characters from this page have already been given their own articles, to help reduce the amount of cruft in this article. It's in progress. Settle down.Kafziel18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me what you mean. In your opinion does the Shield article compare favourably or unfavourably with those others you mention ("which [are] filled with garbage")?Rockpocket18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The level of garbage in this article (before I cleaned it out) was more than evenThe Sopranos, which is filled to the brim with garbage. You assaulted my contribution history for including little more than tagging, criticizm and negativity, to which I replied that I do new-page patrol (which is how I was led into this article, as soemone de-proded a new-page I had proded for being crufty.) If you have not looked at the new-page log (I see the CVU tag on your user page, so I assume you have), it's little more than article that neeed taging, criticizm and negativity.Hpuppet -«Talk»18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't me who last replied here. I know what you're doing, and I mostly approve of the changes you've made. My suggestion to you was more aboutcivility.Kafziel18:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, confused my interloquitors. No, this page was far worse than all of them. Now it is fine.Hpuppet -«Talk»
Do you intend to make new pages for each of the characters whose details you deleted? If you're using shows like The Simpsons and The Sopranos as examples, then that should be your next step.Kafziel19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. This show is the functional and social equivalent ofThe Wire (TV series), neither of which I have watched, and neither of which should have substantial subpages. If someone feels any of the characters were of significant social import to have pages, the version they can pull the "information" from ishere. I suggest that such information not be included - in fact, if I were dictator at large of the encyclopedia, 2/3s of the Simposons characters and 2/3s of the content in the other simpson's characters articles would be gone.Hpuppet -«Talk»19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) That is my cooncern also. Is there policy that establishes the amount of detail that articles on tv shows should contain? With respect (because i appreciate your sentiments and largely agree with them), how can you be confident that two shows are of "functional and social [equivalence]" if you have seen neither? I suppose what i'm wondering is why you feel qualified to edit down such a page when you have no experise in the subject (i.e. have never watched the show). This isn't criticism, as i personally agree with your edits, i'm just trying to establish whether it is a case of policy or personal preference (because if it is the former, then there is a lot of other articles that could do with a cull, if it is the latter, then i'm not sure removing all of that info without moving it elsewhere is prudent, and i expect a revert would occur sooner rather than later)Rockpocket19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, policy is quite the opposite. According to Wikipedia'spolicy on fiction, "If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article. This allows the information to become more organized and easier to access." Major characters can have their own articles (probably, at this point, justVic Mackey andHolland "Dutch" Wagenbach would qualify, and the rest should be listed here in the characters section, or in a separate article combining all of the minor characters. The policy also warns, "do not delete meaningful content" (not my emphasis).Kafziel19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted content was not meaningful. If it were meaningful, it would have been well written and clear to someone who was not versed in the show. It was not.Hpuppet -«Talk»19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. Wow, man, youreally need to take some time to read some policy. "Meaningful content" is not something you get to define just because you don't think it's well-written. Words, forming sentences, that conveyany information is meaningful. As a deletionist, you should know the definition of "patent nonsense"; if you couldn't speedy this information on that basis, then it's meaningful content. You might not like how it's written, but that doesn't mean it's nonsense. Someone took time to contribute that "nonsense", and it's not up to you to decide whether or not it's meaningful.Kafziel19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin's theory of evolution is more often than not poorly written or explained, but it doesn't make it meaningless content. I personally think there is little to be gained by in depth plot details on articles like this, but i also think its hard to justify removingall the detail as "garbage", just because it isn't well written. Using that rationale, articles that were not written perfectly on the first draft would be deleted before they were improved. Moreover, your new list of characters was 'poorly written', so i copyedited it to read better and make sense. Using your rationale, i would have been justified in deleting the list as uninformative. Clearly that would be nonsense.Rockpocket20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in engaging in this discussion with you at this point. We are all in agreement that the article is better now than it was before. Thus,WP:ENC, and I remove this article from my watchlist.Hpuppet -«Talk»20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in agreement that the "characters" section is better. It's just a list, with no prose. Each character should have some description, especially those without their own pages, and those that do have their own pages should still have a brief summary. "Army Renta" and "Corrinne Mackey" mean nothing to readers without any context whatsoever.
I agree that the "seasons" section is better, but the content you took out should still be moved somewhere, not just deleted.Kafziel20:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If i may be so bold, i really would respectfully suggest you reviewWP:CIVIL if you are going to continue on your copyedit role. Leaving multiple edit summary's of "whatever" is disrespectful to say the least, and calling other people's good faith efforts "garbage" and "uninformative" is really disheartening when they have clearly put quite a lot of effort into it, irrespective of the "quality" of their effort. I'm sure you do good work in copyediting article - however in alienating other editors you may not be helping the cause as much as you could. The article may be better in some ways, but it also weaker in others (the character list completely lacks context), since you are not willing to discuss and justify your edits, then i trust you will not dispute some minor reverts?Rockpocket20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so bold. If you would like to add in brief character descriptions, feel free to do so. Please don't reinsert "Meaningful content" like "No one runs the streets without Vic knowing. And no door is safe if Vic wants it kicked down." If you find my characterization of such "Meanignful content" as garbage, then I am sorry that you have taken my blunt statements regarding badly written content on this encyclopedia so personally. I suggest you not revert anything. Thanks. If only you were as vigilent about content being taken out as you were about content being put in.Hpuppet -«Talk»20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha, come talk to me when this sockpuppet has more than 100 quality edits under its belt. It's a lot easier to slap tags on articles and delete content than it is to create quality articles.Kafziel20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent). I'm afraid that sort of response fromHpuppet is exactly what i am alluding to with reagrds to lack of civility. As my correspondance here makes perfectly clear, much of your edits i completely agree with (including the example you quote). However, if you are basing your opinion of all the content on such an example, you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to cut out the "garbage". I have not taken anything personally, as a brief review of my contributions will reveal i have added virtually no content to this article, thus your edits are no reflection on my contributions (irrespective of what you appear to assume). My efforts here have been limited to minor copyediting. However, i shall re-insert some of the character bios that you removed during your "improvement" and continue to work with editors who actually justify their edits rather than dismissing honest questions with a shrugged "whatever"Rockpocket21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-inserted some minimal character information, and will create a new article for the rest of the characters. That way, the main article stays relatively clean and we don't have to completely discard the hard work of so many other editors.Kafziel21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do You All Think We Should Write A Complaint about Hpuppet?
He seems to be really adminent on making the pages the way he feels they should be. This guy is going to keep on maliciously editing our hard work on the page just because he feels it doesn't live up to his lofty standards. He's also been hostile, condescending, and rather inconsiderate of everyone's feelings and suggestions. Is there some way we can report him to the management of Wikipedia so he can knock it off and just let things be. I know he's got a job to do, but he's been really overzealous about it.
You could have a word with an administrator about him or her, but they have limited power to deal with overzealous or mildly uncivil editors. If you strongly disagree with Hpuppet's edits then revert them with your justification. If her persists then we could go to mediation. I'd suggest just letting it go as he/she seems to have moved on to pastures new.Rockpocket17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today I created a new page,List of The Shield characters, to try to help this main page stay concise and neat. I am now trying to merge one or two of the smaller stubs that have been created on (as I see them) minor characters, starting withArmadillo Quintero. I originally did it without asking, but now I see there is some dispute there so I've tagged both articles for a merge proposal. I will probably suggest one forMargos Dezerian and possiblyTerry Crowley as well, since they were only in a couple of episodes each. I'm a big fan of the show, and I'm not looking to delete tons of content, but I also want the articles to be up to Wikipedia's standards for fiction. I think this will cut down on a lot of the criticism, attacks, and edit wars. I would appreciate it if you wouldleave your comments here.Kafziel05:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillo Quinter, Terry Crowley, Margos Dezerian are the three stubs that only ones that should be merged.Morisato 09:04, 30 March 2006 (MST)
The "Dutch" character has been very well developed over the last five seasons whereas the Claudette character has not been overly developed. Now with Claudette as Captain, I would expect much more development in the coming season that should result in enough meaningful material for her own Wikipedia article.FullSmash2620:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure about that? My recollection is that Tavon simply disappeared from the series without explanation.
As far as I know they're Eastbay Incognitos.
The last time Tavon was mentioned in the series was in the final episode of season three; Vic mentions to Acaveda that Tavon had been taken off the active duty roster due to his injuries and as such, was effectively bounced from the Strike Team due to protocal. We never found out exactly how severe Tavon's injuries were, so presuming that he made a full recovery, Tavon probably was reassigned to a new precinct and resumed work as a detective somewhere else....—Precedingunsigned comment added byBakerBaker (talk •contribs)07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall it being definitely stated or otherwise shown that Mackey is the baby's father. It was certainly implied, but I do not think we can assert he is the father as fact.
Agreed ... Vic handed her the money from the office pool, as the father was never "revealed". While there seem to be body language indicating this, neither verbally confirmed (working off of 8-month memory).
In the episode where they introduce Armadillo, and Vic is hiring the private detective, did anyone catch it when the PI said "if she is anywhere in the free 52, we'll find her."? Is that referring to the 50 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico or something? What about the Virgin Islands? The 50 states plus Mexico and Canada? Perhaps I just misheard? --Fxer07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the line, and it does sound kind of add (as you say, the United States has more than two protectorates, and anyway, referring to them as the "free fifty-whatever" would have to be pretty unusual). You may have just misheard it.Xihr (talk)23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are 52 free parking spots in LA he ment LA because he ment "if she is anyhwere in those 52 free parking spots here in LA we'll prob find her."—Precedingunsigned comment added by129.53.219.20 (talk)16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched it again. He said 52. And afaik he didn't mean parking spots in LA. He talked about a "nationwide network of PI's" just before he says the part about the free 52.— Precedingunsigned comment added by95.199.20.137 (talk)00:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this makes no sense
He does indeed reference “the free 52” in regards to a nationwide search for Vic’s wife and kids. Even if he meant Puerto Rico and Dc, why leave off the remaining 4 territories?— Precedingunsigned comment added by107.196.235.134 (talk)02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is owning the Region 1 DVD rights toThe Shield with Sony Pictures Home Entertainment owning the rights to the first and second seasons on Region 2 DVD. Sony Pictures Television will distribute and syndicate the reruns of the series to local stations, beginning in the fall.Don-Don22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I just missing it, or is there no mention of the Decoy Squad anywhere? They should be at least as important as Joe Clark, considering he was only in one episode and they spanned most of a season.MistaTee18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antwon is incarcerated at Lompoc Penetentiary, not "Longpoke" as stated in the article. Lompoc (pronounced lom-POKE) is a high security prison up near Vandenberg AFB.66.75.250.25317:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Aaron[reply]
It seems at present that in Australia it is not being shown onChannel Ten which gets the first run of it...looking at theofficial website for the network this is what they said:
"The Shield
The Shield was taken off air due to late night motorsport commitments. It will be scheduled once a consistent timeslot can be found. We love The Shield too and can't wait for it's return."
I think there is more to this character than simply being Vic's replacement. He understands Vic's approach. He is also not portrayed as Vic's replacement to Vic. As far as Vic knows they are both part of the team.140.146.230.22203:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this section, which had recently been restored, with the reason for its deletion challenged. This section is being deleted per Wikipedia policy; there are numerous precedents for this.
Lists of this type can never be encyclopedic. They go againstWP:NOT#DIR, whereWikipedia is not an electronic program guide speaks directly to this matter. When kept current, such lists also go againstWikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, since international broadcasters change frequently. Precedents: articles of this type of list forCloser and24 closed with decisions toDelete, based entirely onWP:NOT.
The argument given in theedit summary for this restore, "WP:NOT#GUIDE doesn't mention anything remotely related to broadcaster listings", seems to demand improbable specificity in a guideline that clearly statesWikipedia is not an electronic program guide. /edg☺★23:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, several editors have now re-inserted the following sentence:
However a scene in one episode showed him strangling a live cat, which makes many wonder what really makes Det. Wagenbach "tick".
If you're using the show as aprimary source, then you can only reference what actually occurs in the show (ie the first part of the sentence, which describes what occured). Once you start jumping into analysis (the second part of the sentence) then youmust attribute it to areliablesecondary source. Otherwise it is a violation of one of our pillars (no original research). Beyond that, it violatesWP:WEASEL. I will be removing the sentence (again), and if it gets re-inserted I guess we'll need to call anRFC. Thanks. /Blaxthos(t /c )12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is pointlessly pedantic. The so-called "analysis" is straightforward commentary on what happened in the episode. What other conclusion could one draw from watching the full episode, including Dutch's conversation with the serial killer? This isn't an article whereWP:BLP applies, and this isn't a factual claim that is in dispute. Ofcourse that's what happened, unless you think the conclusion was that Dutch just liked to kill cats. This is so elementarily a part of the plot line that it is not worth commenting on, much less getting into anedit war over. Wikipedia is not helped by this pointless pedantism; please concentrate your efforts on protecting articles fromtrue original research, rather than the most elementary facts of a fictional television series. Besides, there areplenty of third-party sources that acknowledge this freakin' obvious conclusion.[1]
It's notoriginal research to mention what the clear intent of a scene of a television show was when it's something that any reasonable person watching the show would conclude, sincethat's what the viewer is supposed to understand. Applying your pointless pedantry to the Wikipedia as a whole, practically every paragraph in this article is "original research." Which it isn't, and which shows that there is clearly something wrong with your view.
"Clear intent" may be clear to you, but it's stillyour analysis, andmust be attributed to a reliablesecondary source.
Thw wordswhich makes many wonder what really makes Det. Wagenbach "tick". is absolutely analysis and must be sourced... saying it is only describing what happened is inaccurate, as the second part describes whatyou believe is the "clear intent."
Perhaps Dutch simply killed the cat because it was meowing and keeping him up at night (as referenced in the following episode). I'm not saying one or the other, but I am saying that youmust source analysis in Wikipedia articles -- there isno wiggle room on this, asWP:OR is a corepolicy.
A littlecivility goes a long way. Using accusatory words likependantic does nothing to move things forward.
Likewise, "there is clearly something wrong with your view" is a severe violation ofWP:AGF. If you spend a little more energy improving articles within the confines of our rules rather than attacking the viewpoints of other editors we'd all be better off.
WP:RFC is not a threat, it's a process used to resolve disputes, particularly when editors refuse to acknowledge the applicable guidelines and policies.
Your citation, though improperly formatted (which I will fix), is all that was necessary to include the sentence. The slew of incivility is grossly unwarranted and unnecessary, especially since the problem has been solved.
"Perhaps Dutch simply killed the cat because it was meowing and keeping him up at night." I'm sorry, but this is beyond silly now. Good day.Xihr (talk)21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real irony here is that my supposition is at least plausably supported byyour own source: " In the midst of a frustrating investigation into a local serial killer, Dutch was being kept up at night by a loud stray cat." /Blaxthos(t /c )23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm getting a small trend of commenting on old discussions here; this doesn't matter. Though I disagree with the edit that began this conversation, I don't see that as the core of this discussion. What matters is that Xihr seemed to have expressed a sentiment that has been growing over the years: fuck WP:RPCWNPSIS (Random Policy Citation, When No Policy is Set in Stone) and citing a policy instead of discussing an issue, and fuck a small "important" group of editors, their lackeys, and the subsequent subordinates and ass-kissers to said lackeys who have ruined wikipedia. You haveruined the site. This is supposed to be a project that people can go to in order to learn about pretty much any topic they need, and all of the policy whores and anti-intellectuals on this site have turned that into a neigh-impossible venture. Particularly damning is the trivia policy, which makes absolutely no sense (to paraphrase, trivia does not belong here because it's not encyclopedic and sites devoted to films, etc. already have them-imdb has some trivia, but I don't know of any book, music, game, or other types of entertainment/whatever sites that keep list of trivia, either). To sum up, what is the point of having an informational website if every other asshole on it makes it their mission to make sure no information makes it onto the pages?
The final episode of Season 5 (Post Partum) has around 20 minutes of it edited out for the Region 2 release. The original episode was around 78 minutes long (in effect a double length episode, once advert breaks were added) - however for the UK release, it was shortened to the regular 45 minute length - presumably this is because the shorter version was broadcast on UK tv and therefore had a BBFC rating, whereas the longer one did not.
Is this relevant to the DVD section of the article? It is, of course, intensely annoying to Region 2 buyers, but i am not sure if wikipedia is meant to be a forum for pointing out differences between DVD regional releases.
It's minor trivia, and is not appropriate for an encyclopdia article. As for whether it bugs customers, Wikipedia is not a consumer or buying guide, so that's not really relevant.Xihr (talk)22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why mention DVDs at all? Surely the purpose of having the release dates in there is for people who want to but the DVDs - or at least, have some passing interest in Shield DVDs, rather than just the tv show per se. I think it is very relevant that different versions of a particular episode exist.
There doesn't seem to be any particular standard on Wikipedia - some shows are quite detailed about the differences between different DVD versions (for example, Battlestar Galactica) - others aren't. Either way, it's probably not very important! Thanks for replying.77.97.207.221 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Having sais that, given that the article mentions the aspect ratios of the Region 1 DVD, I think at least a passing comment about different episodic content between R1 & R2 is warranted in this case.77.97.207.221 (talk)22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were researchingThe Shield as a literary fictional phenomenon it would be useful and untrivial to know that there are differences in the various DVD versions, just as there are differences in translations or editions of Jules Verne20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Ray BradburyFahrenheit 451.Naaman Brown (talk)13:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is terrible though that R2 buyers and fans in the UK don't see so much like the direct unvieling of Vic's new kid and so forth, its notable enough to to deserve a mention. Wikipedia is supposed to cover all topics about the subject so at least its mentioned in half a sentance i guess82.3.48.129 (talk)20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is good to cover this subject, but only when all questions about it that can be answered are answered. That means you would need to get a response from SPHE why they cut these 20 minutes out since just saying on WikiPedia that the last 20 minutes were left out for an unknown reason without even searching for facts is not sufficient. So if someone can get a statement from SPHE and add that to the article I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be posted.MysteryQuest (talk)09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Reception" subsection, inclusion of background music
I take exception to the (editorial) comment about 'The shield's' "realist" strategy of saving background music for the final montage of a given episode. While the lack of background music during the bulk of the episode itself could be argued to be a realist strategy, including a song-of-the-week over a slow-motion montage at the end of an episode is in fact a marketing ploy meant to make the show more relevant or more accessible to its "coveted [male] 18-49" demographic. Fox/FX masterminded this technique with 'The OC' and employ it in many of their serial dramas, including 'Rescue me' and 'nip/tuck.' If the comment about realism stays, I do think acknowledging the marketing aspect is important, too.Jcfregnan (talk)14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this response is over two years late, but I will make it anyway...In what way is the ending montage marketing? Is there a source for this idea or is it your own feelings on the matter? I'm no marketing expert myself, but if I was to use a montage to make something more "relevant" or "accessible" to a key demographic, I: a) wouldn't wait until fifty-plus odd minutes into the show to do it, and b) I would use music from bands that more than a dozen people had heard of, quite unlike the mostly obscure groups to have their music featured in such montages (with some exceptions, of course).--172.190.15.231 (talk)03:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is insisting on includingGlenn Close in the main infobox for The Shield, with the followingjustification:
Glenn Close was billed before the opening title all throughout Season 4, along with all the other main characters. While her stay may have only been for one season, it's only an opinion that she shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's a fact she was credited in top billing (unlike two-season character Forrest Whitaker, from Season 5-6). Unless you can direct me to a discussion about which actors from the show should be included in the infobox, I'm reverting Glenn Close back into the infobox.
Close was only in one season out of seven, and this article specifically deals with the show in its entirety. Placing Close in the main infobox would be misleading, as she was only a seasonal guest. I don't really follow the Whitaker logic, as he was on the show for longer than Close. In any case, the IMDB entry does not list Close as a featured cast member, and given that she appeared in fewer than 15% of the episodes, I'm going to revert this (inappropriate) addition. //Blaxthos(t /c )21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who had their name appear during the credits section goes in the infobox, anyone billed as guest star of special guest star does not. Look as Heroes, Lost, Twin Peaks and any other TV infobox (particularly the West Wing where Rob Lowe and Joshua Malina appeared in 50% of the episodes each but both are in the infobox. Alan Alda appeared in seasons 6/7 and he's in the infobox). Glenn Close was not a "guest star" or "special guest star", she was on the main cats list, so she goes int he info box.Darrenhusted (talk)21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be put to a vote. The reason behind Glenn Close being credited in the opening, and Forrest Whitaker not being credited in the opening has to do withcontracting. Perhaps Shawn Ryan believed (or believes) Close to be a more important character than Whitaker (which is something I don't agree with, I'm just speculating here). My point being that we should just stick to the facts: Glenn Close's contract was to be billed in the opening sequence along with the other main characters. While you made a good point that it's misleading to put Close into the infobox, we need to consider that there are already spoilers in the article, so misleading Close as a series-long character is the least of worries here. Furthermore, this adds to confusion as to who's allowed in the infobox? Somebody who's been billed since Season 1. That leaves out several critical characters. What's the rule to be allowed in the infobox? A percentage of episodes? This should be discussed. Lastly, IMDb is a very poor resource, as many fans contribute to its development without having to cite sources.Geeky Randy (talk)03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the West Wing infobox is misleading, then the Heroes inforbox is misleading, then the Twin Peaks infobox is misleading, then the Lost infobox is misleading. The imdb is not the source, the opening titles are, and that rule keeps it simple for all TV and film articles, those who are billed as starring go in the infobox. No need to vote, and remember voting is evil.Darrenhusted (talk)11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Drovethrughosts, you reverted my redirect and requested a discussion. I had redirected this page to"The Shield (drama series)" for several reasons. Number 1.) it's irritating repeatedly being sent to this article when one types in "The Shield" into Wikipedia as opposed to simply being sent to "The Shield (disambiguation page)." This is a term with numerous definitions and someone else seems to have gotten irritated as well because they put "See also" to The Shield referring to other uses at the top. With the term having numerous definitions, users should be immediately sent to the disambiguation page, not this article. That way, people don't have to click around repeatedly and they can immediately start looking for what they want. Coming across this page first, and then having to click yet another link is irritating. Number 2.) there's no reason why this particular definition should come up first as It doesn't seem to be the most popular usage of the term. When I enter search terms with "The Shield" into Google, all of the search results are giving me information "The Shield (professional wrestling)." For example,[2],[3], etc. When I type in "The Shield" with different search terms, it's always something about the professional wrestling stable, so I'm unsure why this version of the word is being treated as top priority. If anything because of its popularity and currency, the professional wrestling stable article ought to be under "The Shield." This article, on the other hand, is in reference to a show from the past that is now over and done with and only had a medium amount of seasons, which is probably why it's not coming up among the first search results in Google when typed in different ways.AmericanDad86 (talk)13:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly reverted because the new article title was incorrect. It should be The Shield (TV series). Your searches seem obviously aimed so the WWE stable gets more hits. A proper search is simply searching for "the shield. Anyway, I have no problem with a disambiguation, I just thought a discussion should happen first where other editors can weigh in.Drovethrughosts (talk)13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I originally tried using "The Shield (TV series)" before "The Shield (drama series)," but it wouldn't allow me to do so because that title has been previously used before. Try it for yourself; it disallows the option for whatever reason. To make things simpler, I just used drama series. The article itself refers to this show as a drama so I didn't see the harm. Also, the reason this article came up among the first search results in that particular link was because you only wrote in "The Shield" by itself. And the only reason the subject of this article came up first in that search result is because Wikipedia has given it top priority and Wikipedia articles tend to come up first. Typed in any other way, however, it's always the subject of the professional wrestling stable that comes up first. And in fact, even in the search result you provide above, the professional wrestling stable comes up on the first page despite it not being given top priority by Wikipedia.
Also, "I want The Shield wrestling article to have more hits?!" lol! I assure you I don't work for the WWE and have no stakes in this stable becoming more popular; my edits cover a wide range of topics beyond The Shield and the WWE in fact; and in fact, I only started editing "The Shield (professional wrestling)" article as late as last week. If I wanted them to have more hits, the entirety of my edit history would have to do with their group. I'm just genuinely irritated with repeatedly being sent to this article whenever I type in The Shield. And this article really shouldn't have a number of "See also" options at the top, but people are doing that to make it easier it seems. But anyways, could you try your hand with "The Shield (TV series)" and see what happens.AmericanDad86 (talk)14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
Please weigh in below. Remember that, while these articles may look nice and be comprehensive, this is not Wikia.m.o.p02:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a weak argument being made for making Mackey a stub, but why Aceveda? There's barely anything there except an interview with the actor.m.o.p06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LegoBot invited me. I, too, know little about the show, but the Mackey article seems to demonstrate at least some degree of notability.List of The Shield characters is probably the best redirection target, but I'm unwilling to trawl through hundreds of irrelevant Google hits to determine which characters are notable. At the very least, the character pages should probably be pruned down to a more manageable size. I agree that overly detailed fictional histories belong on Wikia, not here.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)01:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. However, even with the characters merged into that list - what's the point of the list? It's anindiscriminate collection of information with no encyclopedic bearing. Likewise, pruning the character pages doesn't have any real merit, given that there's nothing in most of them that warrants any encyclopedic mention.m.o.p23:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree withmerge, or anything that would condense what is essentially an overblown amount of plot summary material under character articles. Remember, the requirement for wp:notability (required for existence of a separate article) is (roughly speaking) a couple of instances of in depth coverageof the topic of the article by wp:rs's.North8000 (talk)11:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but Mackey to the character page. The character Mackey has earned award mentions, which should be added to contribute to article notability. —Wyliepedia14:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
