Talk:Law & Order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television / Law & Order (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Law & Order task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Top-importance).
 

Law & Order: Los Angeles[edit]

The entry on Law & Order: Los Angeles is wrong, stating that it will be the first in the franchise to be set outside of New York. Which is obviously false, since Law & Order: UK is set in London, the French and Russian adaptations of Criminal Intent are in Paris and Moscow respectively, and the reality series was in California.

Can someone please correct this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.180.93 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Numerous releases, including the source this is based on, have implied that Dick Wolf and the other producers do not view the adaptations as being part of the franchise, especially since none of them have ever crossed over with an American series. Thus, we are using the series count specified in the press release. Anything else would be WP:OR. Redfarmer (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Dick Wolf believes that Law & Order: UK is definitely part of the franchise because he had a lot to do with this series and a crossover is in the works. Therefore, it is the SIXTH series also to be created.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.212.171 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As  I said, that's not what the source says and you have yet to quote a source where he says it is a member of the franchise rather than an adaptation. Quote a source or it will not be changed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz/s/1096326_law__order_uk_bradley_walsh near the bottom of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.212.171 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It says he hasn't ruled out a crossover. It does not say he considers it a part of the franchise. Homicide: Life on the Street, Conviction, In Plain Sight, and New York Undercover have all featured crossovers without actually being a member of the franchise. It's one thing to crossover. Besides, it hasn't crossed over. Once again, no original research. Redfarmer (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
so does that mean that the reality show wasn't part of the franchise either then? because, as stated, that wasn't based in NY. and in your zeal to criticize "unsigned's" questions, you never addressed the fact that the article still says "LOLA" will be the first outside of NY. since the article refers to "crime and punishment" as a member of the franchise, this is clearly wrong. -Heterodoxus (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(Removed irrelevant ad hominem attack) The fact that he talked about the possibility of a crossover means it's part of the franchise. He hasn't done that about the Russian or French adaptions. He's never discussed them to the lengths he has about this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.212.171 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your warning for incivility. And no, length of discussion does not make it a part of the franchise. And before you throw around generalizations and stereotypes, you probably ought to get your facts straight, like the fact that I don't live in England... Redfarmer (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Small typo regard Fred Thompson[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Around the same time, Thompson announced he would leave the show in order to see the 2008 Republican presidential nomination." to "Around the same time, Thompson announced he would leave the show in order to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination."

MonkeyShadow (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

German spin off?[edit]

I believe there's a German spin off, with episodes in different cities.Jim Lacey (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it's not a spin-off (as in "not officially endorsed by the original franchise"). Im Namen des Gesetzes (In the name of Justice) shares the same basis than the original Law and Order show, but the stories are wholly original, and not adaptations of existing scripts, as with L & O: UK or Paris: Enquêtes Criminelles. And it's set entirely in Berlin. I just added it to the adaptation section. 82.120.19.117 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Gérard Morvan

Table of DVDs[edit]

Why is it the table for DVDs is deleted?  I keep the references, just the same as some other shows have, but the table is always being removed.  A table would make it look nicer, less cluttered and easier to read.  Eventually there will be twenty seasons listed, a table would take up less room too. 174.91.250.118 (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For one, you've been blocked countless times and you refuse to communicate (see your talk page).  When you've been blocked, as your main account has been blocked indefinitely), you lose your editing privileges and are not allowed to edit. If you do, as you are jumping from IP to IP, it can and will be reverted.  Learn to discuss and talk to other editors and you might be able to stay.  —Mike Allen 04:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like  User:MikeAllen doesn't have anything better to do.  So like a man, to talk in circles and not explain things and also but in where he's not wanted. 174.91.249.49 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you say I have nothing better to do, when you can't seem to stay off of Wikipedia, where you're not wanted.  Good more IPs to add to your rangeblock.  You will be reported and block without question for now on.  Congratulations.  —Mike Allen 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the question at hand - why was the table deleted (I know, this may be in the Talk archives, but I don't want to have to hunt for them now..)? Using a table format for the season releases seems standard on most of the other TV show pages I've seen, and it would look cleaner. If nothing else, finding a way to remove the "[93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]" messiness.. Jimw338 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical information[edit]

It would be good to have technical information on how the episodes were shot, like the Technical section in Law & Order: Criminal Intent:

Law & Order: Criminal Intent Technical information section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chodaboy19 (talkcontribs) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

I think we should make a section featuring awards, critical reception, and ratings and yes I know their is one for awards and ratings.NoD'ohnuts (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Status of the series[edit]

I know that it is still early to say that L&O will be airing it's next season on AMC but having in mind that negotiatons are beeing conducted shouldn't the series status be changed to something else rather then "ended"?--akujy (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about the series' status; I've seen some TNT commercials for "new" episodes, but I'm not sure if these are really newly produced episodes, or just re-runs that will be "network premiered" on TNT. Krellkraver (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New to network re-runs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot section[edit]

The series was characterized by the investigation of a crime, initially by two police detectives diligent, starting with the removal of the body. Began following leads for traces found, instead, physiology, forensic report, phone call lists, statements of witnesses or persons connected with the victim, modus operandi, recent activities and interests of the individual. In the second half and before the presentation of the accused against the Justice of the elements that made the catch, the Office develops criminal investigation based on evidence given by police, these tests usually are refuted by the defense to dismiss those who Judge based on privacy violation of the accused, which is a worrying situation which endangers the society (called "The Village") for the liberation of individuals from these 'technicalities'. In fact, in Colombia in September 2010, a judge released security over a dozen defendants in selling weapons to the military authorities of the guerrillas terrorists, since they had been captured during the early morning hours while sleeping . It is possible that this condition has made the series losing viewers' interest. In many cases it was found that the prosecution was misguided, then finding that the defendant was innocent and catching the real killer among some of the witnesses.

—Edit by User:Toto gol

I'm removing this because it's confused and contains information irrelevant to the topic. It starts off with what could be a plot synopsis of any episode but becomes specific enough that it must be talking about a specific episode. It then takes a detour with some commentary on Colombia only to return to the topic. At the very least this needs the commentary stripped and citations for what is otherwise original research. -- BlindWanderer (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to assume bad faith, but I don't think this is an attempt to be constructive, but to smear prosecutors in general. It has absolutely no value.oknazevad (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The 27 was not the first or only precinct L&O took place in[edit]

Hi. This message concerns one of the few major continuity errors I've noticed in the original L&O, which is probably why the error was made. The show began in either the 31st or 36st precinct, and may have moved to another precinct, before the 27 (I would have to watch a marathon of the early seasons to verify there was a second precinct before the move to the 27th). I do know that Capt. Cragen refers to working at both the 'three-one' and 'two-seven'  on numerous occasions, but I'm not positive I've seen outside shots where the precinct number 31 is ever shown. Between the precinct changes in early episodes, Captain Cragen's office doesn't change, thus the continuity errors, and the squad changes are never explained (likely because of how early in the series it was). I don't own the early seasons, but I would be willing to try and follow the precinct jumps if no one else can. Thanks! 173.62.8.152 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching the early episodes now, and it definitely starts in the 27th. 188.220.43.217 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, episode s01e06 is set in the 36th, but it also has a different DA and is the first 'ripped from the headlines' storyline - it's possible the detectives involved in the real case worked out of the 36th. It's an anomaly though, the other episodes in s01 are in the 27th. 188.220.43.217 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Where is the bias section?[edit]

Grossly bigotted show that even launched entire studies showing massive bias against conservatives and/pr business people, and looky here on wikipedia and nothing to be heard. What a shock. I'm totally shocked. And drowning in sarcasm.68.115.53.79 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Probably should delete or hat this rant. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 68.115.53.79. Why is there a serious lack of discussion about the bias of the television show? Also, I've been a member of Wikipedia for a long time. If something is lacking from an article, it's fair enough to argue for its insertion. I totally agree there is statist bias in the show, beyond conducting legal police work. There are episodes where the police conduct illegal activities toward suspects. Also, the whole issue of people not understanding their "right to remain silent" throughout the show shows how this show is superficial. Throughout the years, I've held the belief this show's primary purpose is to instill fear of the government into people and keep them ignorant of the law. --Cyberman (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No 'critical reception' section?[edit]

I thought it was standard for most series to have one. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The "segment" sections[edit]

The Law segment and Order segment sections of the article both completely lack sources and make numerous unsupported claims with weasel wording (especially use of "usually" and "often"). Furthermore, the sections are excessively detailed and border on cruft. I've put up maintainance tags, but without sources the material should be trimmed significantly. Some guy (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

These sections remained unsourced for six months, so I removed them from the article. Some guy (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Law & Order listing of characters & actors[edit]

Per other info on the first season of "Law & Order", and my memory, S. Epatha Merkerson was a guest star in the episode, 'Mushrooms'. Any particular reason why this is not entered under the 'graph' of characters and actors? Nasknit (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Was she playing the same character? If not, then it to ably doesn't warrant mentioning. oknazevad (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)