Talk:NCIS (TV series)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No....

Response to "Is this show a big joke?" No..... The sergant had said that the person was murdered, but Gibbs had just said that he was found dead, ergo the only way the sergeant could have known he was murdered is if he was the murderer himself. NightOwl91 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this show a big joke?

A lot of the script for this show seems extremely bad- even purposefully bad. I saw an episode where Gibbs decided a sergeant was the murderer, saying "I said he was found dead, not murdered". This was after two other people had been found murdered. Does anybody know whether this show is a parody or just genuinely bad?

It is impossible to determine a persons cause of death without a forensic pathologist examining the body. In the episode you are refering to, Dr Donald "Ducky" Mallard is yet to recieve the body, so the cause of death has not yet been determined hence Gibb's quote "I said he was found dead, not murdered" Other causes of death could have been suicide, accidental, natural or undetermined. Please do not critise a text when you clearly do not have any background knowledge on the subject of forensics.

I have to agree. If you don't know the entire story, you have no right to criticize its content. NO, this show is not a satire. Perhaps you should know a little more on the subject next time. (Sorry if that came off rude, as it probably did. I don't mean it to be rude.)

Hey so I'm not the only one who thinks this show is a big joke. I haven't even seen an episode of it, but a few days ago I saw that promo picture in some magazine (the same one in the article) and I thought the show must be some lame Friends-like show.. but what an odd name for one. That photo is great. You can't tell what their conviction rate might be - but you can pretty sure the dude on the left likes Death Cab For Cutie and is trying to get it on with the girl on the right. And that other dude is wearing a fucking bow tie. I guess you need comic relief when you investigate stuff like marines raping and killing iraqis.--Paraphelion 04:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And, I guess you've never seen the show ... really your attempt a humor has failed miserably.--ᎠᏢ462090 11:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazing guess. Your reply is proof my humor has succeeded, and I thank you much for it. I look forward to continued edits of your one liners. :)--Paraphelion 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Back on note, the seagrent guy said murdered, then Gibbs said "Let me ask you one thing. I said he'd been found dead. You said murdered." Then the guy leaps on Gibbs, saying "You should have kept out of this, old man!" before trying to snap his neck. Just so you know, generally innocent people don't try snapping someone's neck if they are questioned. Ggctuk 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the show. It's a page to discuss improving the article. Kat, Queen of Typos 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

"It has been criticized for..."

To what exactly is this whole section alluding to? References? — THOR 04:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of this criticism. Since it's been more than two weeks with no response. I've removed it. - Cafemusique 21:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed section: Controversy involving the show

It has been criticized for the sheer number of gunfights the main characters engage in. In reality, most police officers will go their entire careers without discharging their weapons in the line of duty. Also it has been criticized for sometimes heavy violence.

Sources? Sigz

Kate Todd

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Now that the character of Kate Todd has been killed off, should a "Former characters" section be created, and her name placed in it? --DXI 01:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I would think that (for now), simply a note that she was killed in the finale of season 2 could be added to the character's write-up. If more regulars leave the show at some point, a new section would be good, but I think a separate section for a single character wouldn't look right. - Cafemusique 10:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Season 1 DVDs info formatting

User:Munnp001 has twice added his own variation of a tablature with the tentative information provided by TVShowsOnDVD.com regarding the season 1 DVDs for NCIS. I've once gone in and changed it to what I perceive to be the standard throughout Wikipedia TV shows; but I was (checking) within 47 minutes reverted to his own version.

To name a few, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, L&O: SVU, L&O, The Pretender, and (God forbid I should ever watch it) Survivor all utilize the same formatting for the listing of DVD releases; only JAG uses the variation User:Munnp001 has foisted upon NCIS, and he himself implemented it!

I bring this to the table for the purposes of receiving any comments to stay my hand from returning to the changes I had made originally so as to bring this information into line with the formatting already established on WP. Otherwise, I'll make said changes soon. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In addendum, I've noticed in making his first 105 edits, he has unilaterally made these changes and/or instituted these non-standard tablatures into several other articles. I don't mean to be mean-spirited, but ... why? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup-date}}

I added the cleanup tag to the overview section. I worked on it a bit, but it still seems awkward and doesn't flow very well. It is also too duplicitive of information below it. I may be a dissenting minority, but if anybody would make that sound better when read, I would appreciate it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up done

I forgot to log in first, but I fixed the overview. I took "reports to the director" down to the Gibbs Character bio, deleted the team list, and added clarifcation of the portion of the real NCIS jurisdiction covered by the series. If you like it, pull the cleanup tag.

I also think the Swiss Knife coincidence (Dinozzo bio) is part of a larger pattern I covered with a new trivia point. If you think it fits better there, we can take part of it out of the bio. For now, it's in both places to play it safe. [[User_talk:JKPrivett[] 29 May 2006

I removed from the character list the bit about Bellisario explaining why Alexander left the show because it didn't belong there. I moved it to the character bio page, and in the process removed some comments that were not supported by the cited source. (This is commonly referred to as putting words into someone's mouth.) 23skidoo 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKIQUOTE

Hey, NCIS fans, I did a major rework of the Wikiquote page for the show. Make your away over there and add your favorite ones, they're by episode, so make sure you know which episode it came from. If you don't just add it to my talk page over there (User name is the same on wikiquote as it is here) and I'll put it in the right episode. Here's the link to the show page [1] Batman2005 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks Batman! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem, gotta have something to do at night when the World Cup isn't on, so watching the first season on DVD and the second and thirds (which i was smart enough to record also on DVD!) and adding quotes is the only thing to do! I'll continue to add to it! Batman2005 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kuriyakin reference

There's a statement in this article that "in an early episode" Gibbs says that Ducky looked like Kuryakin when he was younger, obviously a reference to McCallum's old Man from UNCLE show. I just finished watching all of season 1 on DVD and there is no such reference to be found. Was this said in season 2 (which means it wasn't an early episode) or is this just a case of misinformation sneaking in? There is a season 1 episode in which a photo of McCallum as Kuryakin is used as the basis for a computer reconstruction of what Ducky looked like as a young man, but no one actually says anything in dialogue. 23skidoo 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do remember such dialogue taking place, but I don't remember when. Its not listed on the wikiquote page either. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I still don't know in which episode it occurs I have been able to determine that it occurs in a second season episode, so I'll correct the article accordingly. 23skidoo 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's from episode 2x13 (I think), entitled "The Meat Puzzle". Kate asks Gibbs what Ducky looked like when he was younger, and Gibbs replied. --202.7.176.133 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll update the article accordingly. Thanks! 23skidoo 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sean Murray Cameo?

In the Season 1 episode 'High Seas', I think I see Sean Murray carrying an orange mailbag past Kate. It's approximately 6:27 into the episode. This might not be the best place for this, but it's the only place I can think of to do so. --Thejoemeister 06:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New character in season 4

I didn't catch the name of the new agent that seemed to be on the team. They seemed to be setting her up for permanent status, though, with too much development for just a bit part. Did anyone catch any more of her than I did, enough to write up a short desc. for her? (Although, now that I write this, I didn't see her in the title sequence introduced as a character. maybe I'm being to quick about it) ----Steve 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the young woman who has taken the "probie" position since Dinozzo and McGee each moved up one place. I think it might be premature, as I got an indication from the season premiere that she might not be fitting in very well, and it's pretty obvious that Gibbs' retirement isn't going to last long (heck, he's back again next week). I think she's just a placeholder. I'd hold off for now and wait and see if she makes more than one appearance before adding her (that said, McGee didn't join the opening credits will the second season and he was a semi-regular the first year, so the same might happen with this character). 23skidoo 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's her. The Asian girl who seems to have earned the disdain of the entire team. ----Steve 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Has she even been identified by name on screen yet? I know the character has a name (the anonymous edit that was just reverted indicates it) but if it was mentioned, I missed it. I say we should wait until either she has appeared in a number of episodes (more than 2) or the Gibbs retirement arc resolves itself and we find out if she's a permanent addition. My gut tells me she won't be. 23skidoo 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I removed her from the list as IMDB does not have her listed as of today for the second episode of the fourth season. I too believe that she won't be a regular member of the team, for the simple reason of...there are no more desks in the little squad area! Batman2005 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
She was in the 2nd episode after all, and they do seem to be developing her character a bit more, so while it's still too early to tell, they could go either way with her. According to the preview for next week there's supposed to be a bit of a shake-up in the organization (I'm being vague so as not to give specific spoilers) and I could see Lee continuing. I think if she's in next week's episode and if it is made pretty clear that she's sticking around, then at that point it'll probably be justifiable to list her as at least a recurring character. 23skidoo 04:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, episode 3 pretty well confirms that she was in fact a placeholder and the character has been transferred. Doesn't mean she won't return later (I hope she does) but for now there's no point in listing her as a recurring character with only 2 appearances and, for now, no others apparent. 23skidoo 04:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, she was in this week's episode...and seems to have a storyline now! --Purpleslog 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Section on "One extraordinary episode"

I have restored the section about the episode "Call of Silence" for a very simple reason -- precisely because it WAS a major departure from the program's usual plotlines. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, it's the only episode that the producers & network have singled out to be re-broadcast on TWO additional occasions -- meaning that it has aired in three consecutive broadcast seasons. Clearly THEY believe that this episode stands apart from all of the others. Cgingold 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But without sources indicating same, the signalling out of one episode and labelling the section "One Extraordinary Episode" are both violations of WP:NPOV. I'm deleting the section on this grounds. This material could be restored (in non-POV fashion if and when an article on this particular episode is written. Many shows have individual episode articles; I see no reason why NCIS can't, too. A shorter, less-POV version of the section could also go under Trivia in the meantime. 23skidoo 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I was the one to initially remove it on the grounds that the section was biased and unsourced. Yes, it may be a unique episode (I haven't seen it yet), but most TV series have their fair share of episodes that stray away from the series' original formula. Sillygostly 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, POV and should not be included. I have seen the pilot episode reaired 4 times now, why not include that one? Additionally, it wasn't a MAJOR DEPARTURE from anything, the team STILL worked to solve the case, just because the case happened to be the investigation of something from a half decade earlier doesn't make it anymore special than other episodes. Batman2005 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

More on "One extraordinary episode"

Although Sillygostly didn't give me the courtesy of discussing his concerns first, prior to deleting the section -- [the Wikipedia:Etiquette section called "Working Towards NPOV" suggests "Inquire politely on the article's Talk pages about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements." Further on WP:EQ says "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. // Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time...] -- I will nevertheless endeavor to discuss his (and others') concerns in a civil manner.

When I made the belated discovery that the section had been deleted, my decision to restore it was made only after serious reflection (though, lacking a proper explanation on this page, I had little to go on). Although Sillygostly did not spell out his reasons for labelling the section "biased", I anticipated that the section heading, "One Extraordinary Episode", might be at issue -- so I took the step of double-checking the dictionary definition of the word "extraordinary, which is: "beyond what is ordinary or usual; highly unusual or exceptional or remarkable" -- and I concluded that "extraordinary" is in fact, an objective description of the episode in question. That is why I retained the original heading. It was never intended merely to convey my personal feelings, or some general sense of "superlativeness". Be that as it may, it is possible that use of that word may inadvertently convey such a meaning to some readers (which would seem to include one or more of the people involved in this discussion), so I would be open to substituting another word, if that would help to resolve such concerns.

I did decide to remove the word "very" preceeding "realistic exploration", but it seems to have been left in (not sure what happened there...). The only other word I have been able to identify as possibly raising, in some minds, a question of "bias", was the word "stunning" in reference to the conclusion. Again, I double-checked the definition, and my reasoning was the same as for the word "extraordinary". In this case, I see no serious argument for using a different word. (If anybody even thinks that's an issue.)

The other major issue that has been raised concerns singling out one particular episode for special attention. To begin with, I am not aware of any WP policy or guidelines which consider that, in and of itself, to be inappropriate, much a less an ipso facto violation of WP:NPOV. If anyone cares to identify other episodes as candidates for similar attention, they are certainly welcome to do so and submit a section, if they believe it's justified.

I used the term "major departure" because this singular episode [hey, maybe THAT's the word we should use?] was a departure from the show's "usual crime-investigating plotlines" in two significant respects. First, it involved a possible crime that may have taken place six decades earlier (not "half a decade") -- that's a very long span of time, indeed (even for "Cold Case"!). This meant that, aside from the weapon that may have been used to commit the supposed (though not proven to have occurred) crime, there was essentially no forensic evidence available for the NCIS team to evaluate. And second, because the entire program revolved around an exploration of the subject of post-traumatic stress disorder, as suffered by combat veterans. This was not merely incidental to the episode -- it was central. And, in the absence of forensic evidence, it proved to be the key to resolving the entire question of what had really taken place 6 decades ago, and whether or not a crime had actually been committed. The use of high-tech equipment to "recreate" the combat scene -- causing the veteran to "relive" the event -- was both extremely unorthodox and "extraordinary".

Again, this is the only episode (apart from the pilot episode -- and repeat airings are a common practice with pilots) that the producers & network have singled out for rebroadcast in 3 successive seasons. Moreover, guest star Charles Durning received an Emmy nomination for his performance as the veteran suffering from PTSD. Again, not merely incidental. And, unless I am mistaken, that is the ONLY Emmy nomination that NCIS has received. In fact, for that reason alone, this episode deserves to be singled out.

In sum, I believe that I have made a strong case for retaining this section, possibly with a slightly different heading. I am open to working with anyone who has constructive suggestions -- but I am NOT persuaded that it should be deleted from the article. (I did consider the suggestion that it be placed in the Trivia section, but honestly -- there is nothing "trivial" about combat PTSD.)

Cgingold 13:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the key here is simple: find published citations to support why this episode should be singled out above all 100 others -- including the controversial episode where Kate is shot and Bete Noire which in my POV and that of many other fans was the best single episode of the series. The key to maintaining NPOV is citations and sources. 23skidoo 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, there may well be other episodes -- and certainly those you've cited would be at the top of the list -- that are deserving of special attention, should you or anyone else care to make the case. But please understand, I'm not arguing that "Call to Silence" was the "best" episode, rather that it was singular for the reasons I've explained. And even if you have a different subjective judgment about that, there is also the fact that it was -- as far as I know -- the only episode of NCIS to have received an Emmy Nomination. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Surely, that in itself is an objective fact that sets this episode apart from the rest? Cgingold 13:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
An Emmy nomination is not in and of itself grounds for singling out an episode in such a way (in an Awards section, yes of course). But once again you are making a POV judgement call to single out the episode -- and this is not allowed on Wikipedia. As editors we have to adhere to WP:NPOV and what that means is if we make statements like calling this episode "One extraordinary episode" we are not allowed to just come out and say that. We have to say "as named by the Los Angeles Times" or "According to an article in the American Journal of PTSD, such-and-such was noted as ..." etc. Otherwise it is an NPOV violation. It's frustrating and I've seen entire articles deleted because the people writing them couldn't find anything to back up their claims, but it's the rules. And I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say I don't do these sorts of edits myself -- I'm guilty lots of times in using weasel words like "some fans say" etc. But I'm trying to cut down on that, and I try to avoid devoting entire sections to statements I can't verify from third party sources.23skidoo 14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful discussion on this, skidoo. I'm glad I checked for a reply one last time before leaving. Perhaps it does, as you suggest, belong in an "Awards" section -- I would have no problem with that. I do still maintain, however, that this episode merits singling out because the issue of combat PTSD is not merely central -- it is, quite simply, the entire raison d'etre for the episode. And that is, indeed, singular -- and in marked contrast to all of the other episodes, which were all constructed around clever plot ideas, not around extraneous subjects like PTSD. As to the use of the word "extraordinary" -- as I said, I have no objection at all to substituting another word, such as "singular", to address that particular concern re NPOV. I need to leave now, I'll come back later and see what folks have to say -- hopefully, something constructive along the lines of your suggestion re an Awards section. Thanks again for your thoughts. Cgingold 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, my mistake, I obviously meant half CENTURY, not half decade. Secondly, those are all compelling arguments that you've listed. However, all of them meet WP:OR. Which, unfortunately is not allowed. This episode was good, yes it was different, but it wasn't a "major departure" from the norm. Forensic evidence was used, there was a suspect, there was a crime story, the team was working to determine truth. The crimes of most of the episodes occured at some point in the past; days, months, years, decades, how do we decide which one is "extraordinary?" The answer is...we don't, media or reputable outside sources do! Additionally, you may call the word "extraordinary" an "objective description" however, the rest of wikipedia calls it your "POV." This section was riddled with pov problems and original research. Unless the singling out of the episode occurs in some type of written publication or is discussed in the media somewhere, there is simply no way to include a section specifically mentioning that one episode with all the pov and original research. The show warrants inclusion in either a trivia or awards section as it does deal with a different style of case, but again, saying its a "major departure" is using commentary, just a "departure" is more wikipedia acceptable. I do not believe however, that an entire section, singing the praises of the show for being extraordinary is appropriate. Look at some of the other television show pages. Most of those do not have any singling out of individual episodes unless they were specifically singled out by third parties (i.e. The West Wing's post 9/11 show "Issac and Ishmael" and MASH's "Farewell, Goodbye and Amen." Batman2005 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Palmer and Lee

I've noticed that on two occasions someone tried to add info to Palmer's section concerning a relationship with Lee. These additions were shortly reverted without comment. I'm just curious as to reasons on either side of the issue, since nobody has provided reasons in their edit summaries. Any discussion? I actually left the room during the scene that would make someone believe this was happening (I thought they were getting ready for a jump-scene and I scare easily), so I don't know what was actually in the scene. ----Steve 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a trivial non-point. If it grows into something bigger, sure it should go in. There's a need to try to walk the fine line of encyclopedic but not paper and fanboy. That's why I deleted it with no comment. I figured if it goes back, fine, somebody else wanted it. Since two have now deleted it, it moves to the talk page, as you did. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

To anyone, who reads this: It would be nice if people who like NCIS could help with the episode list, filling it with screenshots and summaries and, beginning with season 4, to help writing the single episodes' articles. TIA. ~SoWhy Talk 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have started adding screenshots of Season 3 and will do my best to write some episode articles. NeonXenon 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Lee

Reportedly the character of Agent Lee appears again in the Nov. 14 episode. That makes 4 appearances, which in my opinion is enough to justify adding her to the recurring list. I suggest we wait till that episode airs first before adding her, though, just in case she gets killed of or something which might reopen the debate as to whether she should be considered recurring or not. 23skidoo 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, she had a pretty big role in the climax of the Nov. 14th episode. In addition, the website Spoilerfix has cast listings for the next 2 episodes, both of which include her (taking her up to 6 episodes). Given that 'Chip' is included in the recurring list, when he only appeared in 4 episodes, i don't see why she shouldn't be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.121.177 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 November 2006.

Lee has made more than enough appearances now -- including her major role in "Twisted Sister" -- to justify her being added as a recurring character, so I have done so. I have also added Jeanne Benoit (Tony's girlfriend) as she is also meeting the criteria for recurring status. 23skidoo 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Twisted Sister" yet, but did you mean "Once a Hero"?
—wwoods 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My bad. You're correct. 23skidoo 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

templature reverts

24.47.198.164 (talk • contribs) has twice removed the template correction on NCIS; initially stating even they are reverting the fixed template. As Danigro89 (talk • contribs) made the same reversion, and asked that the subject be brought here -- I have done so. However, as I don't understand circumvention of the template, I have corrected it again. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at some other TV shows with episode lists, I have found the templates using this layout, thus embedding the link in the episode count. I don't see why NCIS should differ from that. --Fogeltje 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
By default, without any standards to make assumptions by, I would assume "80" to link to 80; utilizing all the functions of the infobox template as designed automatically creates the disambiguation. As this is standard functionality of the template, I would consider it to be SOP, and assume all the other implementations of it to be incorrectly applied. Furthermore, this additional functionality was only added by the WP:TV team about two months ago, so unless the template has been added newly to any shows in that time, they are all built using the old version of the template -- meaning that they're not using the 'list of episodes' specifications not by choice, but by default since it wasn't an option when their template was first implemented. Perusing, it appears that the Featured Article Doctor Who is has implemented the listing specification, as does Friends, Red Dwarf, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Star Trek: Voyager, and The Simpsons. This is a sampling from the first 50 listed, and while not a lot, certainly a poignant sampling considering -- especially since the majority of people don't know the functionality is in the template now to make the adjustment (as well as a lot of shows simply don't have lists of episodes). Thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when seeing a link '80' in a field titled 'episodes' I expect it to lead me to an overview of these episodes and not a link to the article '80' since that would be totally irrelevant to the subject. I followed the link of the NCIS episode list to it's category and clicked on all shows listed there and then followed them back to their own article. Most of them either used the episode number in the template as a link or a link within the article somewhere (some articles had no templates and thus had to place it in the article by default), only Monk used used (list of episodes) in the template. While this is only a subcategory of the category "Lists of television episodes" it shows that at least in this category the usage of # (list of episodes) is hardly used opposed to the other methods. Based on that I would advocate as for using the episode number as a link. But that's just my opinion. It seems that more people seem to agree. Perhaps we should get the opinion of more users. I think it would be best to strive for a wiki wide standard on this with the options of placing the link somewhere in the article, placing the link in the template (if present) in the way you suggest or placing the link in the template in the way others (including me) suggest.--Fogeltje 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the template makes provision for an explicit link to "List of episodes", I see no reason not to use it. It doesn't take up any more space. What's the downside?
—wwoods 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agency's lack of recognition

A few days ago I added Despite that, it's a running joke that most of the civilians they deal with have never heard of the agency; "Your hats have 'CSI' spelled wrong." to the introduction. This was reverted with the comment, Got a source for that, or just retelling the joke on the Halloween episode? Well, that was what prompted the addition, but that was only the latest instance, though the only other I can point to was when the bust in "Shalom" was publicly credited to "Federal authorities" instead of to NCIS.
—wwoods 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because it added nothing to article and wasn't sourced. The article is about the show, and not about the agency.. I am sure somewhere around here we have a page about the agency where it would be more appropriate if it is sourced. Otherwise its in universe vandalism which will be removed when spotted. EnsRedShirt 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? As for the real agency, I have no idea whether it gets much recognition, though the felt need to name the show "Navy NCIS" suggests not. As for the show's agency, the lack — despite being "frequently assigned to high-profile cases" — seemed sufficiently noteworthy to me. As for sources, the trope has shown up in two episodes this season ("Shalom" and "Witch Hunt"), and others before though I can't give you names. You haven't noticed this?
—wwoods 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm big on you're missing is in Yankee White when Gibbs guns down a terrorist on Air Force One, but the credit is taken by Fornell (and presumably the FBI) during a TV broadcast in the background of the closing scene. Seems like there are quite a few valid sources for this statement. - --Sigz 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Marty Pearson to recurring characters list

I noted that someone had added Marty Pearson to the recurring characters list and he had been removed. As with Agent Lee I think we should wait and see if he appears in more than three or four episodes first. I just heard that apparently the actor Michael Gilden committed suicide last week, and according to one of the news reports, the character had become a regular on NCIS, so that might indicate more appearances in the weeks ahead though unless they recast the character we may as well put Marty into the former category. 23skidoo 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Drama??

How the hell is this a Drama (as put under "Genre")? Just about any other Genre would do better in there... SFilip 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's categorized as such on the official CBS website, found under the external links. --Fogeltje 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

naming

In Germany the series was named Navy CIS and is showed on Sat.1 (TV-channel) --84.190.26.143 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (Xsnoopy @ de.wikipedia.org)

leroy gibbs

in the show, Gibbs is referred to as Gibbs (by most), Jethro (by Jenny and Ducky) or as Leroy Jetro Gibbs (as Abby on the phone). He is never Leroy gibbs. The templete is not editable so can the person who made the templete please change it?Lizzie Harrison 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I put Leroy in brackets and added Jethro to the template. If this is a problem, please change/modify. The template is actually editable, just go to Template:NCIS television Sigz 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody calls him "Leroy" and some people call him "Jethro", the template should probably say "Jethro", just as it says "Tony", "Abby", and "Ducky".
—wwoods 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call him "Leroy" unless I wanted a "smack upside the head", so I was WP:BOLD and reworded the {{NCIS television}} template. Also, since I was in there, I spiffed it up with the show/hide and V-D-E buttons. — MrDolomite | Talk 08:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, the new template flows better underneath the external links and the wikiquote template. — MrDolomite | Talk 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. It looks really good nowLizzie Harrison 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters

Recently 69.248.74.237 (talk • contribs) made an undiscussed major series of edits creating a table of the Main Characters which was later undone by CharlotteWebb (talk • contribs). The same ip user later came back and reverted the reversion (the official sport of Wikipedia). He was followed up by Cwk14724 (talk • contribs) who changed all the pictures in the table as well as removed the character synopses.

To avoid edit warring here, I would prefer discussion-based changes as opposed to personality-based ones. Why are things being changed? If just for personal preference, then I've always found the layout to be satisfactory. If, however, there is a SOP across TV series' articles for their layout, that would warrant discussion and the option of change. I assume that with all the varying WikiProjects out there, somewhere, somebody has created a standardized way of laying out these articles which has been fine-tuned and agreed upon by a consensus.

Lastly, while I rewrote a majority of the character synopses, I'm not particularly married to them—I only wonder what consensus would bring. I can appreciate arguments for their removal as well as for their remaining. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have considered that user's first couple of edits to be vandalism in the form of page blanking, so indeed, he/she needs to come in here and explain. Kat, Queen of Typos 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Character

Jenny's assistant (I think her name is Cynthia) should be added as a recurring character.

I would do it but I don't know much about her. Mhrmaw 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

made itLizzie Harrison 14:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode Articles

Lizzie_Harrison seems to be creating articles for each episode.. So far Ice Queen (JAG) and Meltdown (JAG). Since I don't watch this show or anything, I figured I'd let someone who knows what's going on figure out if this was a good idea or not. NipokNek 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look you will see that now all aired episodes have their own pages and Ice Queen and Meltdown as of yesterday were the only ones without pages. and I have started the Kill Ari, Hiatus, Bete Noire, See No Evil pages among others. I also fail to see what your problems are. Please tell me. Lizzie Harrison 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/c/i/Talk%7ENCIS_%28TV_series%29_Archive_1_2aee.html"