Talk:Law & Order: UK/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1


Really crappy in the plot section. (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The current plot section should be removed as the information has not been verified and looks dubious in context with statements made by those from the show that the scripts are adaptations of original Law & Order scripts. Andy1704 (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

This edit should have been summarized,

+ {{flagcountry}} replacement; rv red link removal; rv {{quotation}} removal w/o rationale;

Butterfingers accidentally submitted the edit instead of typing a pipe. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, again?


This edit should have been summarized,

rv name change, "show_name" /is/ Law & Order: UK; rv invalid "composers" variable & secondary composer w/o reliable secondary sourcing; rv uncited episodal writer & director;

Too little sleep, too clumsy fingers. My apologies. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, instead of criticizing editor's edits on the article's talk page, it's often much better to have a conversation with the editor on their talk page. Maybe then you would have found out I had only intended to change the alternate show name field rather than both fields. WP:AGF, especially for editors who have been around five years. Redfarmer (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There isn't actually any criticism here at all, I was just explaining my actions. I accidentally screwed up my edit summary; instead of leaving the cryptic fragment I'd saved, I left the whole thing here in case somebody came along wondering what I'd meant/why I'd made that edit. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Cheers then. I misunderstood and thought you were criticizing my post before. Redfarmer (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no; it was effectively self-criticism because I couldn't believe I screwed up again! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Original L&O episodes

We need reliable sourcing to verify which original episodes/scripts are correlative to the UK episodes. The original L&O has some-odd 19 seasons if I'm not mistaken, and to just look at the stories and make the decision ourselves that x-episode came from x-episode constitutes original research. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The opener, entitled Care and based on US episode Cradle to Grave from —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 16 February 2009

That ... seems suitable, in fact. I'll look into incorporating it later today, after I've had some sleep. Of course, feel free to put your hand to it if you're so inclined. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you do it, i dont know how to connect the refrence links up. DanDud88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:03, 16 February 2009.

Did it to it. [1] If you come across more good/new sources online that we can use to build upon the article, you can feel free to put the links here on the talk page. I'd be more than happy to take those and incorporate them into the article!

There seems to have been a lot of problems from in the past (see meta:Spam_blacklist/; reading into this specific author, I don't have any specific reservations about the reliability of the review, and as such have requested this single page be whitelisted. But this is why the URL has to remain unlinked for the time being; otherwise it won't allow me to save. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have my heart set on having the original episodes' air dates there, I specifically don't like the idea of having the season.episode number listed. Firstly, it's not universally or easily understood; I think a lot of readers will just see a numeral there w/o having any relevance attached to it. Secondly, the episode is wikilinked, so if the reader wants more information about it, they can follow the link. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well using "original research" I have found out that Unloved is based on Born Bad (4.09), Vice on Working Mom (7.14) and Unsafe on American Dream (4.08). Now all we need is links backing up what i already know. DanDud88

Okie-dokie. Keep an eye out, and lemme know what you find. You may not get anything definitive until after they air, so don't get too frustrated with it yet.

What do you think about my note immediately above? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

rightie o —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talkcontribs) 14:23, 19 February 2009

Layout changes

I've reverted some of the layout changes of Pdb781 (talk · contribs) because (a) saying that the writer of an episode is more notable—and ergo should be listed first—is that editor's POV, and should be avoided, and (b) it complicates the potential for future editing by people less familiar with editing templates, such as are employed here. Using multiple auxiliary variables as opposed to the specifically named ones makes it much more difficult for editors to figure out which information goes where.

I also reverted the replacement of "production code" with "viewing figures; I'm not stalwartly against the latter, but would rather discuss it first. I've seen the former utilized in many episode lists, but not the latter. Since we have neither piece of information, it's moot for now. Where would one get the latter piece of information? Is there a precedent for having it? Is there a moratorium that would prevent us from using both? Lastly on this point, using the "prodcode" variable for the viewing statistics is the same problem with confusing future editors.

WP:BRD folks, don't take anything personally, I just want to ensure verifiability, consensus, readability, and editability are all priorities for this article and its editors. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the production code column with viewing figures because the former is unlikely ever to be made available. Production codes for UK TV programmes tend not to be divulged. However, final consolidated viewing figures (rather than unofficial overnights) are available every Wednesday at BARB, usually a couple of weeks after broadcast. When used as part of an episode guide, these figures chart the success of a programme.

Viewing figures have been utilised in many episode guides, including those for Doctor Who (see Doctor Who (series 4)), Torchwood (List of Torchwood episodes), Lark Rise to Candleford, Being Human, Jonathan Creek (List of Jonathan Creek episodes), etc.

As for the writer/director thing, it is just a personal preference. But in terms of television production, writers do supercede directors.Pdb781 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mm-kay, I understand and appreciate your reasoning and where you're coming from regarding the production codes v. viewing figures (I'm glad you know more about British television than I), but there's coding in the "ProdCode" variable that precludes its use as anything but. Instead, I've left another note in the section to use the "AltDate" field for the viewing figures, which lays it out nicely I think. That work out for you?

I'd much rather keep the writer/producers in their respective fields for ease of editing, templates and tables are confusing enough for me. However, if you're handy enough with coding, you could look into modifying the {{episode list}} template itself to display one before the other? Eh? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that works. — Pdb781 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the viewing figures mesuring, if not the overnight? All time? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing figures in the UK are measured in two ways. Overnights and the consolidated figures. Overnights show who actually watched the programme when it was on (i.e. the number of people who were watching ITV between 9 and 10pm on Monday night), and are available (shockingly) the next morning. The consolidated figure adds on everybody who recorded it and watched it back within a week of broadcast. Today, with DVRs and hard drive recorders and whatnot, this can add between 500,000 to a million viewers. The consolidated figures are released by BARB, a couple of weeks after broadcast, and are considered "official". — Pdb781 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, within the week. Thanks for the elabouration since, obviously, I'm not familiar with the British processes or standards. I don't suppose we (Wikipedia) have an article describing that; something we could link "Viewing figures" to? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for BARB explains it: Broadcasters' Audience Research BoardPdb781 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference removal?

I don't know why Sceptre (talk · contribs) removed the citation for the original Law & Order episode (especially given the lack of an edit summary), but I've reverted him. The episode name itself comes from the opening credits of "Care", where they list a "based on" credit. The original episode's air date comes from TV, the cite for which I've also replaced. Granted, I would prefer a secondary source for the former reference; when I have one, it'll replace the current (perfectly reliable) primary source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So it does. Apologies. Sceptre (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe references for the episode title, writer, director and airdate can be removed once the episode has aired. Or have I just made that up? — Pdb781 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There's really no reason to remove references once they're in the article. They provide readers and editors with additional avenues to verify the information presented. For the examples you provided, most US editors won't have access to the primary source, but they can vet the secondary sources provided and confirm for themselves that the information in the article is correct. I think the article is better for having them, without any reason for not.

The editing policy says that "whatever [we] do, endeavour to preserve information", and the policy on no original research says that "articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but no other episode guides follow this. Just look at List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes, secondary references are available, but they're deleted once the episode has aired. Otherwise, you'll end up with dozens of references by the end of this series alone. In fact, many of the articles will disappear. The Radio Times website won't keep programme information for things which have been and gone. It'll just become ridiculously excessive, especially if the programme gets another series. — Pdb781 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that "Care" has its own article, can we remove some refs? — Pdb781 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Standby on that point if you don't mind, I'm inquiring at the apropos policy pages. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


See: Hoggart, Paul (18 February 2009). "TX: Law and Order", Broadcastnow, Emap Media for substantial background info that can be rolled into this article. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great source, thanks. Since airing, a lot of it had already been duplicated; but it both (a) reinforces given citations and (b) allows us a fall-back should we lose a source we're already using. It may also prove to have the additional production information I was looking for to bring my draft into the article space. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin-off count

How are you counting spin-offs from the original Law and Order? You cite a reference that doesn't say, then state their are seven. There have been four spin-offs to Law and Order prior to the UK version: Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Crime & Punishment, and Law & Order: Trial by Jury as well as Wolf's attempt at a character-drama, Conviction. Although the short-lived Conviction did include one former L&O franchise actor reprising her character, it was not considered a spin-off. You may want to find a source that includes an accurate spin-off count and update accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The count isn't cited actually, it's based on the the series list at Law & Order (franchise). Many of the sources in the article discuss the series to come before, however none explicitly name them all, or provide a count. If you'd rather, I think it'd fall on the right side of WP:V if you wanted to remove it until we can cite a specific reliable source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I will. I was reluctant to do anything before I checked the waters, so to speak. I'm in the US, and go back to the beginning of the so-called franchise, so there's some long-term memory at play. I double-checked quickly because I knew seven sounded too high; I'll check more carefully, then make the change later today. I also want to check the production company name; I believe it's Wolf Films but want to be sure. Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Per Law & Order (franchise), there's the original Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1), Law & Order: Criminal Intent (2), Crime & Punishment (3), Law & Order: Trial by Jury (4), Conviction (5), Paris enquêtes criminelles (6), and Law & Order: UK (7).

Dick Wolf Productions is cited, but only to [5], so it may warrant some scrutiny. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of contesting this myself. The count of seven does not include either of the Russian series nor does it include Crime & Punishment. You could even consider New York Undercover and Deadline to be spin-offs since they were created by Dick Wolf and use elements of the L&O universe, the same way Conviction did. It seems like the count of seven may be dangerously stepping over a verifiability line. Redfarmer (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Not in the US. A spin-off is more specific here than might be true in the UK. Several of what the franchise (I really dislike that term) cite are not spin-offs, just productions by the same company. By that logic, everything John Wells Productions has put together since 1994 is a spin-off of ER, including The West Wing, and I'm sure we all recognize how absurd that is. This is going to take some research!Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am from the US so I fully understand. New York Undercover featured appearances by Elizabeth Olivet and Emil Skoda from the original series so it, in my mind, has the same status as Conviction if we're going to call Conviction a spin off. Deadline took place in the fictional newspaper that often reported on the cases in the original series. Even if we discount these two, we can't as easily discount the two Russian series. If we do not consider the Russian series spin offs, we cannot consider the UK or French series spin offs either since none of the four have, as of yet, featured crossovers with the American series (though it is rumored John Munch will be appearing on the French series). Redfarmer (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That's just it. An appearance does not a spin-off make. Conviction isn't a spin-off. It was a new venture into character driven drama that was intended to take Wolf away from the L&O formula. I'm not sure, if we're really technical, that any of the subsequent programs are spin-offs. Rather, they're sort of younger siblings or cousins. A spin-off in the truest use of the word, moves a character from one show to another with a new show built around him/her. Perhaps the issue, then, is less number than the term used to describe the output of Wolf's company. Drmargi (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed it. Without a specific citation, any conclusions we draw regarding which do and don't count as spin-offs, etc. is all original research. No biggie; just keep an eye out for any reliably published information and we can replace it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks better. I made one additional change; L&O:UK was described as a spin-off another place. This program is in no way a spin-off; it's an adaptation of the original Law and Order, just as ABC's Life on Mars (also involving Kudos) is an adaptation of the British version. I've adjusted wording accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've replaced it with sourcing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must dispute this source. It seems to be only a blurb for the show...not really a reliable source to speak of. It still does not explain why the British and French series would be considered spin offs in the count and the Russian series would not. I continue to maintain that the number of spin-offs should be permanently removed as it is too disputable. Redfarmer (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, while you were posting, I removed the spin-off count. I question the reliability of a small village newspaper as the only source that seems to have that count. I think it can at least reasonably be posited their source for the count was this article, given the nature of the publication, and the lack of corresponding sourcing from a major publication or any production websites. But I also feel the need to challenge the the description of this show as a spin-off for several reasons. First and foremost, it's not an American show, much less, secondly, a show spinning off a character from the American show. Instead, I would refer back to my earlier example of Kudos' Life on Mars and its US adaptation. This show is quite clearly an adaptation of the American original, and I would be inclined to revert any use of the term spin-off absent a very reliable source for the it. Drmargi (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That was my thoughts exactly. A small village newspaper with no direct ties to the show is hardly reliable. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they got their count from this article--many newspaper writers are turning lazy anymore. I was working on getting Last of the Summer Wine up to FA status last year when I realized that I had found an article in a major British paper that seemed to pull its information directly from what I had written in the article, not to mention the Ronnie Hazlehurst incident where the composer was accused on his death of writing a song for S Club 7 because of a vandal. Redfarmer (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing episode air-dates

Were missing episode airdates for episode 1.04 and 1.05. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talkcontribs) 10:56, 24 March 2009

We are; as well as several for which the original references died. I don't have any reliable sources available on-hand, but if you do you can either reply here and I'll integrate them duly, or add them yourself. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent influx?

I've removed a statement from the intro that describes L&O:UK versus a "recent influx" of adapted British TV shows on American TV. The phrasing alters the meaning of the US article, which originally appeared in the LA Times (the source used is a secondary source and a small newspaper; the original LA Times source should really be used instead.) The term "recent influx" suggests both a quantitative and a temporal pattern. Using a neutral voice, the LAT article simply notes current British adaptations on US TV by way of comparison to the first adaptation of a US program on British TV. The editor who wrote the introduction put an entirely different, and I would argue rather POV meaning on the statement that was never intended by the LA Times, and which does not reflect the accurate state of British and adapted British programming on US television. If the statement can be rephrased in a neutral voice, fine; otherwise the article loses nothing without it. Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd missed that it was from a separate source, and concur with your decision with regards to it being a mis-adaption of the original article. Cheers! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well that was easy! Drmargi (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

L&O UK as misinformation?

Good morning. As an editor elsewhere I am well aware that what I'm about to say (in its present form) breaks several policies. So perhaps you will politely tell me to forget it. But I wonder whether anyone else has noticed the blatant lie in the opening voiceover.

In Britain the people are represented by nobody in the criminal justice system. None of our policemen, prosecutors, or judges are elected. Would anyone feel it worth trying to reference that - perhaps via finding sources for criticism of the adaptation, or the premise? Or am I getting upset about nothing?

Just to be clear, I am not trying to start a discussion on the merits of the British (non)constitution. Just highlighting the FACT of the misinformation in the voiceover.

For COMMENT, this means the entire adaptation is built on sand and will fail, because there isn't the same easy identification with the protagonists rather than their clients. Of course these ambiguities arguably make "better" drama, but it's seriously "off-franchise". Shannock9 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To say that one person legally represents another is not a statement about elections (at least in the US). If I hire a lawyer who advocates for me, then we say that he "represents" me. This doesn't mean that he was elected, but that I am paying him. Maybe "represent" isn't used in this sense in the UK? The police also represent me, even though they are not elected. Staecker (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur. I'm not familiar with all of the etymological differences between British and American English, but in the States, when the intro says that the people are represented in the venues of law & order, it means that we do not ourselves go out and exact our own justice; the police and judicial system (the district attorney's office in the USA) respectively are our advocates and are acting on our behalf in these capacities.

The only difference I'm aware of is that we do elect the actual District Attorney for states (and cities, iirc), but their instruments who actually go into court and argue on the behalf of the bereaved are just regular employees, hired and fired w/o any explicit input from the public. The same goes for our police; a police chief can be an elected official, but the officers and detectives who you're actually watching on the show aren't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well in the American system the D.A.'s do officially represent 'the people'. In court cases it is "The people of New York vs John Doe". In the U.K. the CPS don't officially represent 'the people', they represent 'the crown' ie god old Queeny. In reality their jobs are the same, but there isn't the same concept of 'the people' in the U.K. as there is in the U.S. so the introduction is a little bit odd, but not necessarily wrong as in the wider sense they are acting in the interests of the wider population. (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to mention that the way in which the prosecutors conduct themselves in this programme bears absolutely no resemblance to real life? Prosecutors do not go out on location to conduct secret surveillance. Prosecutors do not arrange conferences between defence counsel to bash out a plea bargain before charges are even laid. (I didn't watch past the pilot episode, because the drama was so cringingly inaccurate, that I didn't waste my time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should this be mentioned? Do you really think American cop shows like CSI or the original American Law & Order (not to mention Magnum P.I and Miami Vice) ACTUALLY reflects how law enforcemet works in the US? Just take how the US middle class are portrayed on US television. Huge houses with swimmingpools, everyone is a lawyer or a doctor...please...this is fiction, right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VsanoJ (talkcontribs) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Has ITV pulled the series? I see the table gives the last episode as #7, from early April. Have any episodes aired since then? Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the second half of the series is due to screen later in the year. Not quite sure why they split it into two, but I don't think it's in danger of cancellation. Rebecca (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, good. I'm hoping it will air on USA Network or something so that we can watch it in the US. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I thought you'd resigned. Good to see you back, though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Still around for a while, at least. Needed something to do while unemployed, and Wikipedia's just a bit more interesting than sitting around watching Oprah! Rebecca (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Can someone provide more coverage in the reception section about what tbe viewer figures acutally mean? What's that as an audience share, or compared to other similar series? (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if we come across reliable sources that made such determinations. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
[2][3] If you wanted figures, knock yourself out. By all accounts it got very good ratings for it's slot Timb0h (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Please note that under proper reference formatting, the following link should be added as a footnote to one or more specific statements in the article body itself. It's not correct to insert standalone links directly into the reference section if the footnote format is already being followed for most of the article, because that results in the one reference being formatted differently than all of the others — it appears as a bulleted item, while all of the others are numbered.

The link can be readded as a proper footnote where appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

United States Airing

One of the many questions Americans ask on Wikipedia and YouTube in regards to this show is "Will this be shown in the U.S.?" or "The United States is the only English speaking country that does not show this program." The thing about the United States is, is that the various TV channels here would be more than willing to broadcast this show if they believed it had a market. Unfortunately it does not. Americans have so many of their own TV shows that if this show was to air now, it most likely would not get any substantial ratings. However, in the United States there are only two channels that air British Programming: BBC AMERICA and PBS, and the only international shows they air are the very very popular ones. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a number of other American channels that carry British programming, although often just one or two programs (such as AMC carrying "Hustle") or niche programming (such as Syfy with "Doctor Who" originals and "Primeval" reairs.) Drmargi (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
NBC airs Merlin... Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you are both right. However, Law & Order: UK may air in the United States- but only if it can be justified. ITV1 and NBC will not go through all the trouble if they do not feel that there will be any profit (i.e.: good ratings). In my opinion, I think NBC airing a rerun of any of their successful programs would generate more ratings (more profits) than an airing of this show. The British and most other foreign nations seem to take a shine to American films and television, the opposite is not true. I could probably write a thick book on why this all is. Americans are more used to high budget productions. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand, NBC has some kind of plan to show it, probably on their cable channels (USA Network would be the obvious choice as they show the brand new Law & Order: Criminal Intent). I would not be surprised if it airs in the summer months, outside the "regular" tv-season. The problem here is the accents. I am Swedish currently reciding in the US, and it is interesting how many Americans I know who has such problems understanding various UK accents, UNLESS it is so-called Received Pronunciation or maybe a very toned down Home counties accent. NBC already own Law & Order: UK in some regards, so I wonder how much they ahve to pay to "but it back". With all networks saving money (the new Jay leno show) to balance out the dip in advertising sales, this could be a cheep alternative for NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsanoJ (talkcontribs) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Airing in Australia..

Channel 10, in Australia, have announced that they are going to be screening this program...

Clofts (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source you can give us for that announcement? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


I don't know why Law & Order: UK was moved to Law & Order: UK (2009 series) as there has been no other series named Law & Order: UK before, and I'd like to move it back per the television naming conventions. Prior to doing so though, I'm bringing the subject up for any dissenting input. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable. Be bold! Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

world broadcast premiere in Canada

I'm curious, pd_THOR, why you reverted my amendment. I left the previous citation in place that stated the date CITY-TV began airing the series. Simple mathematics combined with the fact that CITY is showing all 13 episodes makes my change almost certainly true, and the citation still supports this, as there is no evidence that any other country has aired the later episodes of the series ahead of Canada. If you are being overly cautious because episodes 12 and 13 have not aired yet, fair enough, but episode 12 is airing tonight and episode 13 will air a week from today. Since you were the one who removed my amendment, I trust you will be courteous enough to put it back in place on 3 September. By the way, if you are being such a stickler for accuracy, you should have left in place the part of my amendment that corrected the future tense being used in a sentence referring to June 2009. Elodoctorbob (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it states a fact (the airing has begun) unsupported by the citation you left in place. The citation states that such a transmission is to take place, but it's original research to assume it has w/o further corroboration. Replacing the current citation with another reliable source that verifies the current airing is what's necessary. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast section promotional

I feel that the Cast section seems too promotional. Does anyone else feel this way?--Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't actually know what you mean by "too promotional". The section deals with the characters, their portrayals, and their portrayers with all information duly cited to reliable sources. Could you be more specific in your inquiry? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was just thinking that words such as "perfect" and "quintessential" seems to give too much praise that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Edge3 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that would be far more contentious if it were us the editors making those observations. However, it's a direct quote by publishing company lauding the production company's efforts. It may be unfortunately gushy, but as it's well identified who the participants there are I don't think it's a problem. But then again I'm more than happy to listen to others' input on the matter. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand that quotes from the publishing company would be inevitably biased, so that's why I'm not really pushing for changes to the wording in that particluar section. I was just hoping that there would be something more encyclopedic to say, but I'm ok with keeping the current text as well. --Edge3 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's an other's input. You can say that you'd expect a direct quote from a company involved in the production of the show to be gushy, but that doesn't explain why it's in the article in the first place. I don't see what purpose it serves. At first glance it looks to me like the section would be better if it simply got on with the business of listing the cast. More encyclopedic, methinks. By the way, I actually combed the history to find out who inserted the quote, and it was none other than pd_THOR. I was reassured upon reading his user page that it wasn't a deliberate promotional addition. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
True, and I appreciate your faith, Milkbreath. I'm a big fan of including anything potentially pertinent; that the publisher was pleased with the work of their contracted production company seemed interesting, albeit rather unsurprising. I'm neither a fan of the info nor personally averse to its removal, but I'm partial to preserving reliably sourced information in any fashion I can. Just for what it's worth. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I hear you, so I'm about to be bold. My thought process involved imagining what the section heading would be if we made a new section just for comments of the kind made by Ms Mackie here, and I came up with "Gratuitous hyperbolic promotional drivel from production insiders". --Milkbreath (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion raises an allied issue: the article is overloaded with direct quotes, period. I soured on editing this article after having had too many edits reverted for similarly thin reasons to those cited above, but hope someone bold will continue the work in the section above and reduce the direct quotes by at least 3/4, leaving only those that stress or underscore a very few critical points. Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that when you and I have reverted each other, we ultimately brought it up here on the talk page and hashed it out. For that matter, it doesn't appear we've done so since early April. That being said, if my interactions with you regarding this article have soured your editing experience, I'm very sorry; it's my furthest intention to dissuade anybody else from contributing here or anywhere on Wikipedia.

With regard to the over-quotage in this section (and mayhap in the article at large), that's chiefly an occasional difficulty on my part with converting one person's words into my own. I don't want my wording of their thought to be too similar for fear of plagiarizing, but sometimes the old prose machine in my brain just won't cooperate. So to get the information I want into the article, it's simpler at the time to simply directly quote the source, cite them, and then worry about it ... well ... I guess not until you point it out. I think the rub is that the quotes have a lot of good information, but that they need to be "prosified" w/o changing any of the original intent or meaning as found in the citations. I'm all for going through bit-by-bit and converting some of the over-quoting into prose, but I'd ask we take care not too move things around too much, or at least pay keen attention to making sure the appropriate cites follow the accompanying material once it's converted/translated/prosified. Am I making any sense? tl;dr?

If I may, I've made such a change already and would like to proffer it here as either a stepping stone in discussion, or an example depending on your take. Voila. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative to make some edits myself, but if anyone has problems with them, then we can resolve any issues here. --Edge3 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've also reverted the edit you linked above. I think your attempt at prosifying the quote made the statement harder to comprehend. --Edge3 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
First, off, this isn't an apology situation; you're correct about a few of my edits that we have resolved, but it's more a general openness to the edits of others that I found lacking here that turned me off. But rather than dwell on it, I'd far prefer to move forward now we have a dialogue established.
I'm glad to see the efforts to change quotes to prose, which I think will aid in the readability of the article. Once this round of edits ends, I'll go through and give it a good read for clarity and cohesion. I'd also encourage a reduction in the number of red links. The "what if" factor has to be balanced against a sense of the likelihood a link will become an article, and I'd argue there are a good few that could go. PDThor, you've done tremendous work on it, and it deserves some polishing and refining by other editors. Drmargi (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've removed a lot of trivia already, but feel free to make some edits as well. --Edge3 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I will once you're done. Sometimes it's more helpful to wait and give the finished product a final read by a fresh pair of eyes. You've done a great job, and the article reflects both your voice and PD Thor's nicely. Drmargi (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
And I'm going to sneak in right after you. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've finished removing several quotes, although I decided to keep the ones in the Reception section. Tell me what you think! --Edge3 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite cast section

I was thinking of removing a lot of the character descriptions in the cast section and adding more info behind the show's casting, but I want to make sure we have consensus first. 30 Rock, for example, has a small list of cast members an a separate subsection on casting. What do you guys think?--Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

cast/character bolding

For what it's worth, the CAST as CHARACTER bolding I took from WP:TVMOS. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I had no idea that guideline existed! I'll put them back soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge3 (talkcontribs) 05:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Edge3 (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode credits

An IP just made these edits and removed some of the extra writers and directors for the episodes. How do you guys want to go about this? Should we just leave the credits alone, or should we put the extra names back?--Edge3 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for the first episode's data. It seems the ip removed the guest stars from the director variable, and the original episode's writers from the writing credits. The former makes no sense and may plainly be removed. The latter makes a little sense, but not enough as they did not contribute to the writing of the new episode itself, and it's a bit of a judgment call to assume how much their work made it through to the new version; "based on" != "kinda written by". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The source gives them credit, though, so I think they should be recognized for whatever work they've done. --Edge3 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

sources yet again

Since we have a confirmed second series for the show, I think splitting the list of episodes into a separate article would be warranted: List of Law & Order: UK episodes. I started fiddling with making such but came across a problem right away in that I don't have enough sources (nor does the list here). We're using seven variables right now, and fortunately the episode itself can fill six or so of them once aired; Title, Director, Writer, Original episode, and Plot can all be sourced to the episode itself (although the original episode's airdate has to be sourced to TV Guide, which isn't a problem). The Viewing figures is sourced in the header, and that's sufficient.

However, Airdates are all unsourced, and need a reliable source, but I don't know where to find them. None of episodes 1-7 are sourced for airdate. We're currently saying that episodes eight and beyond have aired in Canada before anywhere else but we have no sources for that fact, not the dates themselves (even BitTorrent sites aren't evidencing the supposed Canadian aired episodes). Before we can spin off that article, we should get our ducks in a row here first. Can anybody help? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we will need a new article for the episode list. As for sourcing, I have access to my library's databases, so I can check there. --Edge3 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want, you can create the article right now, and we can keep adding sources later on. --Edge3 (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to this edit, are we ever going to find reliable sources? In my opinion, unreliable sources are better than none at all. --Edge3 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to search out the quotes at the moment, but both WP:RS and WP:V both put the kibosh on unreliable sources, saying they can only be used as sources on themselves. There's more elsewhere, but the hard and fast ultimatum it it came to that is: source it reliably, or remove it. We don't need to be so draconian right now, but I (and policies/guidelines) feel that using unreliable sources in articles undermines our appearance of reliability than no sources. If anybody wants, I can chat more about it later when I have more availability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually hoping to get this pomoted to GA status, so I agree that we'll have to get reliable sources eventually. I'll see if I can get some info from reliable Canadian sources instead of torrentzap. --Edge3 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As to reliable Canadian sources, those torrents used as references are how i found out that the episodes had been shown in Canada. And i live there! This is a link to the lack-of-content page on Law & Order: UK for my local Citytv station. The other cities have the same. The Globe And Mail tv critic likely reviewed the show but retrieving it requires subscribing. I found comments that L&O UK is airing in Australia and South Africa. A trailer video for ep 12 that wasn't found via the internal search. has the Canadian airings listed in their episode guide. I'm sorry this is mostly where NOT to find the info but it seems there is a distinct lack of it out there. delirious & lostTALK 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the show just not popular enough to get sufficient episode coverage?--Edge3 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have any experience with downloading tv you know that popular shows are available rather quickly after being shown, such as the itv transmissions of L&O|UK. The Canadian airings of L&O|UK that were made available for download are the SDTV version and they were very hard to find. It appears that noöne in Toronto recorded and uploaded the HDTV version from CITY. I personally don't watch Citytv too much since the station here in Calgary, CKAL, does not yet transmit an HD signal. I did see some on-tv promotion of the series. Presently the Citytv website has no mention of L&O|UK. Maybe this is a sign that the show is not so popular here. I'll take another look around because i too agree that it is overdue to move the episodes to their own article. delirious agus cailleadh 08:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Recurring characters list not reliably sourced

The list of recurring characters doesn't have a reliable source, and I couldn't find any useful information online. Should we remove it?--Edge3 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

New Season

I read somewhere that this had been renewed for another 13 episodes while still reusing old L&O scripts. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


the airdates go all the way back to 1996 so why does it say its been going on since 2009??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The airdates you are looking at that "go all the way back to 1996" would be the ones for the episodes of the American series that the respective L&O|UK episodes are based on. delirious agus cailleadh 08:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Episode summary

Can someone conect this page with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talkcontribs) 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Walkinshaw

I've removed the cast member entry for Alex Walkinshaw. I have checked both his own IMDb entry and the IMDb entry for the show and neither show him as being a character in the series. Also of note, Alex plays Insp. Dale Smith on The Bill and wouldn't be able to film for Law and Order UK surely due to contractual commitments to The Bill? BNC85 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Which season?

I have looked at the episode guides for Law & Order UK in both and They both differ in the number of episodes in season 1 and 2.

According to imdb, Law & Order UK Season 1 has 13 episodes's List of Law & Order: UK Episodes by Season. These were all screened in 2009. Season 2 episodes are screened in 2010. According to (which agrees with the episode list in this article), the first 7 episodes of listed in the season 1 is season 1 AND the remaining 6 episodes are Season 2.'s Law & Order: UK Episodes

So which is right? Linnah (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blame itv. The 13 episodes showed over 13 weeks in Canada as Series 1 on Citytv. Up until itv didn't show eps 8-13 it was expected they would be shown "any day now, 'cause they already aired in Canada". These years apparently anything more than an 8-episode series is considered too long for the UK market. Five months after being shown in Canada they appear on itv as Series 2. Calling ep 8-13 Series 2 provides the perfect explanation to the ignorant as to why they are shown so many months later. Calling something "Series 1, Part 2 (cause we forgot to schedule them half a year ago)" would be admitting a major mistake and what company does that :P Thanks to that Series 3 in the UK will be Series 2 in Canada... or will it just skip to Series 3 too? Anyone reminded of the CTV/CBS mess about Flashpoint seasons? In the UK Series 2 episode 1 is № 8 whereas in Canada Series 2 Episode 1 is № 14, which has yet to be shown here. Yet the itv website has, "Watch cast interviews and see clips from the first series of Law and Order: UK" and that is in reference to all 13 episodes so it looks like they went back to calling 1-13 series 1, but with the DVDs out in peoples' homes and at various retailers being titled 1 & 2 there is no consistency to be found.
The DVDs from the UK and thus and the calling it 2 series here are what is out of place. However most people don't like that opinion, citing the erroneous dvds as proof i am wrong. If one looks closely at the text of the article it speaks of being a 13 episode first series. The person who holds up the UK DVDs says 2 series whilst the person who points to the UK official website says 1 series. Hold up the US dvds saying 1 series and point to an archive of the Canadian broadcaster's page on the show and say 1 series.
I highly recommend for ones own sanity to shove the series' numbering into the bin and just count the episodes from 1 through however many there end up being, if not for the article then at least for oneself. The next 13 are not going to be split here but maybe they will be in the UK, making 2 series in Canada to 4 in the UK. delirious & lost~hugs~ 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Character pages

We seem to be spawning some character pages from this article - for example Alesha Phillips (romancing Freema with a flattering article about her character?), Ronnie Brooks (content - "he's an alcoholic and eats pork pies"), James Steel (most of the content is about the actor) and Natalie Chandler (she has a "softer and sympathetic side") . I would suggest that fairly minor TV characters like this don't really merit their own articles - perhaps we should bring their contents into this article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, these characters do not have sufficient independent notability for their own articles. I'm redirecting them to this main article. oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Split of episode list?

Wondering if it's time to do that, now that the most recent run of episodes has aired and the episode summaries are getting a bit longer. (Great work, Dan, btw!) While splitting them off last year, when only 13 episodes had aired would seem a bit premature, now seems like a good time to go ahead with the split. Anyone agree? oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the split was done a few hours ago it is a little belated but i agree it is due for the split. I have yet to find anything more than the title and air date for ep 21 / series 4 ep 1 / season 2 ep 8 but details of the episode should come available soon as the air date is 10 days from now. That would make the list too large to be in the main article. delirious & lost~hugs~ 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

UK vs. US versions

Has the original "pure" UK version survived 100% in US DVDs and broadcasts, or has it been modified in any way (as seems common with BBC to US programs)? What about in other parts of the world?- (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order: UK is broadcast on ITV and not BBC in the UK. ITV is a commercial channel so most shows are 45 min long (so they can work in commercial breaks, just like on US channels), while BBC shows are the full 60 minutes, and often cut down with 15 minutes to fit ads in when broadcast in the US.


I've just removed Revision as of 04:02, 10 September 2012 (edit) (undo) (talk) (→‎Filming) as suspect vandalism. Unregistered user had tried to insert an ironic HUH! and ended up with an unrecognised template, Template:HUH. I'm surprised a Bot did not find this one. Keomike (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Theme music

Why is it so radically different from the US versions which are all similar throughout the original series and spin-offs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification please

The "Filming" section begins with the statement: Filming on the first series of Law & Order: UK began in January 2008,[14] and at the time, discrepancies were identified by cast member Jamie Bamber…. "Discrepancies" between what and what? The reference at [14] is no help as it's a dead link (and flagged as such). So what does this mean? (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation problem

I just looked at all the sources cited in the Conception section. As far as I can tell, none of them actually contain the information for which they are being cited, although a couple contain information mention elsewhere in the section. This seems problematic. For now, I have moved one of the citations and tagged two others as not containing the cited material. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)