Talk:NCIS: Los Angeles

This article really needs more citations.

There seems to be much conflicting information, much of it uncited, that I have not been able to find links to. IMDB is not supposed to be used for citations, but even that does not list Adam J. Craig as being a cast member, although there are other projects completed in 2009. Any other opinions? Trista TristaBella (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a list of conflicting information. At this time, the only conflicting bit I know of is the "Kensi Lo"/"Kensi Blye" thing, and I'm perfectly willing to concede it as being Blye. If you have additional concerns, list them here, but at this time, the article seems fairly stable and well sourced, all things considered. And regarding IMDB, you can safely disregard it as a competent website...I do believe they lost their credibility for accuracy some years back. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger that on IMDB. A shame as it used to be a very good source. The main thing seems to be this Adam Craig in the cast and the name of the character. You also know as well as I do that fans of lesser known actors (perhaps even the actors themselves) sometimes like to use Wikipedia to spread rumours about them joining casts or falsely listing as guest stars in order for publicity. I see this happen sometimes on the CSI pages. We will see what happens - otherwise it can get cleared up by Episode 3! Cheers, Trista TristaBella (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Foa/Beal

According to the official website, he is not listed on there. So if he is suppose to be guest starring then we don't know and can't assume that either. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles Press Release

Link is a press release from CBS. It lists Barrett Foa as a recurring cast member.

--Andrewconnell (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We would need to use the official press release, located here: http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_entertainment/release?id=22594

Remember to never use anything written in forums (with few exceptions). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And now he's officially a regular (per the opening credits, while Adam Jamal Craig has left the show. I updted the cast list to reflect that, buy the order should probably be reworked to reflect the credits order. I wasn't sure where they put Foa in there.oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SeattlePI

Just a random note, it appears the SeattlePI website we had several references to simply takes all their television news stories straight from TV Guide, so try to pull the original TV Guide story in the future rather than use S-PI. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast order

Since there seems to be a minor edit war going on I just watched the opening of the first episode again and the cast was credited as follows:

• Chris O'Donnell
• Peter Cambor
• Daniela Ruah
• Adam Jamal Craig
• and LL Cool J
• Special guest star Rocky Carroll
• Guest starring Linda Hunt

This should be the order that they are credited in the infobox. As guest stars, neither Rocky Carroll or Linda Hunt should be included, leaving just the first five. This is consistent with NCIS (TV series). --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Credit order should be list order here as well. Other shows, like Doctor Who, do it the same way (on the episode pages in that case but we don't have such here). Regards SoWhy 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Linda Hunt was a confirmed regular. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

She might be like Brian Dietzen (Jimmy Palmer) on NCIS. He's been in 75 of the 119 episodes since he first appeared but he's not in the opening credits. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose time will tell. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Character article

I think the time has come to start populating the character article at List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters. While there isn't much to go on yet, there's enough to populate a basic article and the episodes are recent enough that the information will be cited, which is a problem with other series. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lara / Clara

Noting the recent rv of an IP edit I went to check the pilot itself for information. Right near the beginning (9min41 in) Abby opens up an email from Macy to show Gibbs The 'From:' reads "Special Agent Lara Macy, Office of Special Projects" --AlisonW (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I suppose that'll work. Very odd that CBS and the production staff failed completely in getting this consistent, as both names have been regularly published by both CBS and news sources. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At least we finally have this resolved. Good work on finding the ref. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So I saw in comments. I guess the show itself is canon though ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

G. Callen

His full name is Gregory Callen it can be seen on the URL below (this is an official NCIS prop) it should be changed ASAP !

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.216.35 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some trouble believing that, considering they have clearly stated on the show that his first name is unknown (the "G" comes from adoption records?). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok point taken it may come up in a future episode so i request that this thread stays on this page.

The content for the above link is no longer found though the rest of the page exists. Considering it is part of the story of the season finale we may actually find out if it really is Gregory in a few days. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not confirmed as "Gregory" or anything else in episode 24, "Callen, G". Thanks to being in Canada where it airs a day before CBS airs it. Here is a 42 second .wav clip from about near the end of the show: "just 'baby brother'". delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you, NCIS: LA, for continuing to hold your cards closer than we would like :P — Huntster (t @ c) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NCIS OSP is not fictional

The United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service is not fictional it is 100% real look a this official Defence Criminal Investigative Service link [2] the show is fictional though of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.97.141 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

logo v intertitle

I noticed quite a few changes to the image used in the infobox of late and thought i would say a bit on it. While i understand the Public Domain matter of the logo there are those who prefer to keep an up-to-date title screen in use on the main article. Doctor Who is the most obvious one that comes to my mind, only because of how much i despise the new logo. Then there are shows like Gilmore Girls and House (TV series) that use a logo not sourced from a screen cap. Then one thing i seen in favour of the logo is that it is legitimately the logo. The House svg is a little bit off. The down side is that i see the plain logo as bland, ugly, and not really much use at all. With the intertitle you at least get an idea about the show and see two principle cast members. If the intertitle is kept it would need to be of an appropriate size for non-free as it is almost twice the size of any screencap i would upload; replacing it with a .png would also look better at a smaller resolution in my opinion. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia image guidelines pretty much demand that if a free version is available, it must be used to exclusion of any alternatives, since we strive for producing the free-est content possible. If, for some reason, the logo was dramatically changed in the future, then a strong case could be made for using a non-free logo to reflect that change (since the free one used now would be inaccurate). For the time being, however, the free version currently in use accurately (dare I say, exactly) reflects the show's logo. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I stared at every little spacing and angle i could think of and they are all proportional to the intertitle so i concur that it is a true representation of the logo. I still despise the simplicity of it. I suppose the uploader of the intertitle could make the argument that the intertitle offers more than the plain logo and is thus not equal to but greater than the free logo.

It's not outright vandalism so i thought it best to start a discussion here rather than on 3RR in a couple of more revisions. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 04:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with the editor concerned started when the first addition was reverted. Hunster left an appropriate edit summary and a nicely worded notice on the editor's talk page.[3] The editor deleted that, along with additional warnings about the image,[4] so the editor is deemed to have read the warning. Just to be sure though, when I reverted the restoration of the image I added another comment to the editor's talk page, referring to Hunster's first notice.[5] The editor ignored that and restored the image. When it was subsequently reverted again, Hunster again left a comment on the editor's talk page.[6] So far, the editor hasn't responded in any manner to the numerous comments, other than to continue restoration of the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his upload history, the uploader has a long history of ignoring copyright issues, even of blatantly uploading new images over previously existing ones. Surprisingly, it was he that originally uploaded the PD logo we're using now, though of course he applied an empty "album cover fur" template to it.

Delirious, I see where you're coming from, but because it is a question of free vs. non-free, it doesn't matter if the non-free image "offers more than the plain logo". Because the plain, free image is a reasonable representation of the logo, it will trump a non-free image every time. Of course, it's a moot point, since the uploader has shown no interest in interacting with the community (beyond deleting any attempt to communicate with him). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Giving the uploader a forum to address the matter rather than repeated reverting, as well as creating a record for anyone else wondering about this, was what i had in mind. Having now looked at the uploader's contribution history there seems to be a distinct lack of communication anywhere. Other people have written the FURs where applicable for this person's uploads. I was a little curious so i gave it an attempt at making an .svg - anyone care to tell me if i did it correct? If it is good i'll put it on Wikimedia Commons and it can be like the House, MD logo :D delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 07:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree that this thread was the correct thing to start. Hopefully the uploader will come here. As for your SVG, I have only limited experience with them. That said, the overall form is correct, but as SVG's are wont to do, there is excessive rounding on the edges of lettering (for example, look at the bottoms of both the "L" and the "A"). When I load in GIMP and Paint Shop Pro, it seems to be formatted on a full page, though Inkscape seems to be treating it okay. But, Inkscape is also showing some kind of bizarre error message behind the main logo ("Linked image not found"). I would also reverse the colours for a black background with white lettering. You know, you could probably just ask at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for someone to take the png file and make an SVG out of it. They're the experts, and someone should be able to do it pretty fast. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason i don't do .svg and now that i have tried you can see why :P So much for presenting a third option. I have yet to find a plain text logo rendered in .svg with white on black, hence the reversal in my attempt. It is so much easier to just make a .png of the logo but the folks at Commons seem to really prefer the format that drives me crazy. It isn't a bizarre error; apparently there is a .png of the logo layered under the .svg ... i tried, i failed, i cursed inkscape. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 09:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As do I, as do I. SVG is an evil, evil format. But, good point regarding your reversal of colours. I hadn't thought about difficulties of white on black, as I was too busy cussing at Inkscape for being a pain in the ass (tried and utterly failed to fix the rounded edge situation. I am reduced to tears). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ex cast members

Just a note, since there still seems to be some confusion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information states, "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Some of the more important points to note from this are:

• Main cast status is not determined by screen time
• Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
• Actors remain on the list even after departure.

Since Adam Jamal Craig was a main cast member at one time he remains listed as a main cast member even though he is not in that role any more. This is necessary to ensure that the article reflects the entire history of the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained/undiscussed cast table changes

I've just reverted a number of changes that were made to the cast tables yesterday. Despite several hidden comments requesting that changes be discussed here before changing the tables, no attempt was made to do so. As indicated in the discussion above, articles should reflect the entire history of a series and this is why the present format is used. Lousie Lombard only appeared in the backdoor pilot, but since the backdoor pilot is part of the series' history, she needs to be included. As she can't be classed as a regular, it was necessary to include her separately, hence multiple tables. MOS:TV specifies that the section is "cast information", not "character information" and the section is accordingly titled "Cast". It's therefore more appropriate to list characters by cast member name rather than by character name. MOS:TV supports this. Finally, replacement of the "Status" and "Notes" columns with "Duration as Regular" and "Duration as Guest" contained too much episode specific information for what is essentially an overview table. Episode specific information is more appropriately included in List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters. Of course, we really should be replacing the table with prose, but that's another issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak to cast status and optimal placement, but my initial changes - made after study of the talk page revealed no prior consensus for the table format - were to get rid of the non-conforming "former" classification. If you have a better solution, by all means implement it, but we do not separate cast members by current and former status. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I (re-)implemented a better solution but you changed it, as well as the changes that I'd made so that the article layout complied with MOS:TV, where there seems to be nothing to say that splitting the table as was done is inappropriate. What it does say is that the article has to reflect the entire history of the series and it did, until your most recent change. It also says "as with every article on Wikipedia, the order should be set to what is best for the article" and this was the best solution that we've had, as there seems no other way (in a table constrained by width due to the infobox) to do that. The cast list presents a problem, mainly due to Lombard not appearing in the actual series, but being part of the series history because of her involvement in the backdoor pilot and her character being an unseen, not quite recurring character. The consensus for this was informal, check the edit history. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough when I first changed it; there really hasn't been much if any discussion about the table here. I think we're on the same page as far as main characters, in that they are listed as such even after leaving the series. The only real issue is in splitting it based on the series at this point in time, which is in-universe and out of sync with established practice. Simply put, we avoid breaking up actors in that way based on the concept of treating the series as a whole, not :in the moment". I've kept much of what you did, but have reworked it based on the information presented. One of the actors is classed as a regular and therefore has to go with the other regulars. The other one is still listed separately, but as "other" instead of "former", and her table has been cleaned up to match the tables above and below it. "Other" is admittedly not the the ideal title, so I'm open to suggestions. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue for now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Other" could be changed to "Pilot"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Renée Felice Smith is an NCIS: LA regular cast member

Look at this link http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/list/137117.page. On November 1st she was announced as a regular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.77.61 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The CBS press releases for episodes 8 and 9 still show her as guest cast. We'll have to wait until episodes have aired before changing the articles to reflect her changed status. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a press release straight from the network. ([7]). I have no problem with trusting it. It'll take a couple of episodes to update, as the episodes are produced in advance. cgmv123TalkContribs 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the press release because cbspressexpress.com is not visible outside the US. However, based on the CBS forum post and the tvbythenumbers citation, she's only been confirmed as a regular, which is not the same as being confirmed to be in a starring role, so she shouldn't be listed in the infobox until she's actually credited in a starring role. This is what happened with Barrett Foa. CBS tends to be inconsistent with the way that it refers to cast members. An example of this is Two and a Half Men. There Jennifer Bini Taylor was listed in the opening credits alongside main cast members but press releases only referred to her as a recurring character. At The Big Bang Theory, Melissa Rauch is now credited in the same manner as Jennifer Bini Taylor but press releases credit her as a guest star. We need to be sure, and not just assume. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory are produced by Warner Brothers, not CBS. Series regulars are always credited as starring. It may not go the other way, but... cgmv123TalkContribs 02:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who produces the programs, they air on CBS, which is where the press releases come from. As for series regulars always being credited as starring, that's not the case. Brian Dietzen is a series regular on NCIS (another CBS show) but he is usually only credited as a guest star. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dietzen is listed as "Also Starring" before any of the guest stars. An upgrade from his former guest star status to reflect that he has appeared in most episodes, but not all of them, for some time now. Makes him still technically a recurring character, but that's a distinction that can be glossed over. Especially since Rocky Carroll doesn't appear in every episode either, and he's in the opening credits.
The main point is, it doesn't really matter what form the credits take. Heck, LL Cool J and Linda Hunt are listed as "with", and LL has been one of the faces of the show since it was announced. The most recent press release from the network and the entertainment news items cited outright state she's now a regular. Yes the press releases previously released list her as a guest star, but they've been superseded by the most recent one. Moving her from the recurring to the regular section is not improper at all, as the sources are reliable. There's no need to wait to update the article. oknazevad (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at my comments above you'll see that I was talking about her being in the infobox, not the table. However, my concerns about CBS inconsistencies still stand. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie...for the time being, just let the infobox stand as it was. If she turns out as fully credited on the show, she'll get added. A little patience is called for here. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Character/Cast List

The Cast/Character list appears messy and unnecessary in my opinion, I am also a little concerned how Lara Macy is listed on the Main Page, The character NEVER appeared on NCIS: Los Angeles, if anything she should be listed on the NCIS page. My final concern (aside from the Messiness of the cast list) is the order the cast are listed, surely Daniela Ruah (who has been credited after Chris O'Donnell since Season 2) should be put ahead of Peter Cambor, who was only listed during Season 1, and has since left. Thanks. --Rizzoli Isles (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (GMT)

A cast list is a necessary part of every TV series article. Why do you think there should not be one? As explained elsewhere on this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information states that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Peter Cambor is still included because this reflects the entire history of the series. Lara Macy is included because she was part of the backdoor pilot and is therefore also part of the entire history of the series. For consistency, characters are listed in the order credited, which explains why Peter Cambor is listed where he is listed. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt there should be one, but could it be made more organised/clearer, it seems complicated and unclear to me, it is very difficult to read/understand, compared to the Homicide: Life on the Street cast list, which is easily readable. For example:

Actor	Role	Occupation	Status	Notes
Chris O'Donnell	G. Callen	OSP Special Agent In Charge	Regular	Season 1–present(*)
Peter Cambor	Nate "Doc" Getz	OSP Operational Psychologist	Regular	Season 1(*)
			Special guest star	Season 2 (Episodes 1 and 3)
Daniela Ruah	Kensi Blye	OSP Junior Field Agent	Regular	Season 1–present(*)

is not as readable as

Actor	Character	Rank	Seasons as Regular	Seasons as Guest
Chris O'Donnell	G. Callen	OSP Special Agent in Charge	1, 2	—*
Daniela Ruah	Kensi Blye	OSP Junior Field Agent	1, 2	—*
Peter Cambor	Nate Getz	OSP Psychologist	1	2*

In addition to this, on the point of Lara Macy, although she is part of the shows history, in the case of NCIS so was (if anyone recalls) Viv Blackadder, who appeared in the backdoor pilot, however she is only listed on the JAG Page, There is really no real need for Macy to be on the NCIS LA Page, despite her being part of the shows history. -Rizzoli Isles (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2010 (GMT)

I must say, so long as all the information contained within the current list is present in the new format, I think it's fine to change. It is considerably less cluttered. Regarding Blackadder, though, wasn't she pretty much just a throwaway character? I recall that she was disliked by everyone. Her role wasn't nearly as prominent as Macy's. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blackadder was planned to be the lead, but she was the least popular of the cast introduced (similar to Macy), the only difference is that Macy got an exit storyline, but that was on NCIS, Macy also has a character Bio on the NCIS character page, It seems to be overkill to have 2 for such a minor character. -Rizzoli Isles (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (GMT)

Rizzoli, why did you *again* change the table to your preferred version? You were told to discuss this on the talk page and find consensus, and even if I agree with your changes, two people do not make a consensus. Do not make any further changes without a solid consensus being first derived. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed since nobody was objecting to it, it would be okay to go ahead and clean it up, won't happen again. :), while I'm here what are your thoughts on Macy? -Rizzoli Isles (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2010 (GMT)

Takes more than a couple of hours to discuss something like this. I see Macy as different from Blackadder, and that she's appropriate to keep here. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

According to MOST:TV it's not only appropriate to keep Macy, it's mandatory. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Don't assume that just because somebody hasn't objected in the past couple of hours (this whole conversation to now has only taken less than 6 hours to get to this point) that there are no objections. I warned you on your talk page about discussing. I also reminded you of the negative comments about the table format that you seem to like. As for comparing it to a Homicide article, the Homicide articles are certainly not looked on as guiding lights in the Wikipedia articles. The table format is no easier to understand than the current format and it doesn't allow comments such as the one about Dominic Vail's fate. In any case, the cast section should actually be in prose format as reommended by MOS:TV

Should I add Vivian Blackadder to the NCIS character list? Also Rocky Carroll will guest in Season 2, should I add that to the page, or wait until the episode is shown? -Rizzoli Isles (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (GMT)