Talk:The Shield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Shield article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Badges 2 POV 3 Background on the gangs 4 Only shane knows about Vic shooting Terry? 5 You're all on top of things... 6 Season 5 isn't over 7 Nice Job On Creating More Seperate Character Pages 8 Compare 9 Do You All Think We Should Write A Complaint about Hpuppet? 10 Proposed merge 11 lem should be under strike team members 12 Claudette 13 'unencyclopedic links' 14 Vic Mackey Sunglasses 15 Tavon left the LAPD? 16 Danny's Baby... 17 "The Free 52" reference? 18 Distribution 19 Decoy Squad 20 Antwon's Incarceration 21 The Shield - Australian TV

[edit] Badges

Anyone know why the badges are on the wrong side of the police uniforms on this show? 69.58.224.12 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's because of complaints about the show from the LAPD. They switched the position of the badges, and made the badges look different, to placate them. Liquidindian 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

supposedly there is an LA times story about that, but i cant find anything in their archives. most other references are 2nd-hand info as far as i can tell but point to LAPD objection -Lordraydens 08:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I added in a hidden comment, Michael Chiklis discusses this in a "behind the scenes" spot that has aired on FX this winter (2006-2007). He mentions that in the pilot episode the badges are duplicates of the real LAPD badges and worn properly, however the LAPD insisted that the badges be worn on the opposite side to ensure that there was no confusion between real officers and actors. Not sure how we can turn this into a reliable source. /Blaxthos 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

In the first section some of the comments comparing the Farmington strike team to real life LAPD Officers involved with Rampart's CRASH unit are POV. Most of the allegations concerning Rampart CRASH officers were based on the testimony of Rafael Perez. Perez was an officer who was caught stealing large amounts of cocaine from LAPD evidence storage, and testified against fellow officers in a bid for clemency. The accuracy of many of his statements was never postively established. In fact four Ramparat officers who were dismissed in the wake of the scandal recently succesfully sued the city of Los Angeles for fifteen million dollars as a result of false accusations coming from the Rampart scandal.68.66.108.121 11:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background on the gangs

Some backgrounds on the gangs would be nice. I always get confused on who's who. --Dangerous-Boy 09:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only shane knows about Vic shooting Terry?

I was under the impression Lem and Ronnie knew as well. Elijya 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, only Shane. Vic and Shane set it up so Lem and Ronnie were out of the room when the murder occured. -- MisterHand 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not completely true. Although Vic never specifically told Lem, Lem figured it out and Vic did not deny it. 67.63.2.132 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)thomen

[edit] You're all on top of things...

I was going to edit Lem's info to include he got killed about 3 minutes after the finale (had to absorb the shock, y'know?), but it was already edited. I've noticed 6 edits as of this posting, which is kind of strange and simultaneously awesome. But, yeah, glad to know I'm not the only person who thinks it a genius idea to hop on wikipedia following the technical finale of the season, regardless of whether it's split or if the remaining episodes comprise a different season. Dudewhiterussian

I do it in the hopes of ruining it for someone in an earlier time zone. :P Kafziel 05:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... sorry to ruin your hopes and dreams, guy, but I'm in the Eastern time zone, which is the earliest zone the show is aired in. Dudewhiterussian 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... yeah, dude, me too. Which means if we put what happened on here now, we can spoil the ending for people in California. Kafziel 05:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know you Eastern types are looking out for us out West ;). I learned very quickly to stay off the web between the 3hr lag in espisode transmission. Rockpocket 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL :) Kafziel 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I only watched it a few hours ago and I'm still in shock! I'm very glad I wasn't spoiled.--Eupator 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 5 isn't over

I've removed all remarks regarding the March 21, 2006 episode being the "season finale" of the show. The season has been split up into two parts (similar to what's done on shows like South Park and Monk), with the second part due to air later this year (or early next year). I've also noted this information in the "Season 5" section of the article. -- MisterHand 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The show started early this year. If the show resumes early next year, how is that the same season? Not to mention the FX commercials for the last episode that specifically said, "You knew a season like this would have a finale like this." Kafziel 13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cable seasons are not like network seasons, and they aren't based on the calendar year. The Shield is not the first show to split up its season like this, and Shawn Ryan has stated in several interviews that this is only the first part of season 5. -- MisterHand 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just marketing B.S. If it starts in the winter, then goes off the air for nine months and starts in the winter again, that's a new season. It has nothing to do with cable vs. network, it has to do with reality vs. delusion. Kafziel 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the article. -- MisterHand 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting article, but I don't see how it supports the claim that season five is only half over. According to that source, written on 3/14, The Shield "is now nearing the end of its fifth season." It doesn't mention anything about a hiatus, or a split season, or even that this could be the last one. Kafziel 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that...the mention of the season split is in the audio portion of the article, Shawn Ryan mentions it near the end of the interview. -- MisterHand 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'll have to check it out later, then. On another note - is Shawn Ryan ending the Shield because he's done with it, or because he's working on The Unit? That show is like a ridiculous mix of JAG and Desperate Housewives; I can't believe Ryan would even touch it. Kafziel 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Job On Creating More Seperate Character Pages

Nice job on creating some seperate characters for some of the more noteworthy characters on the Shield. Makes the page seem a lot cleaner and helps load it a bit faster.

I have transferred all the remaining characters from the main article to the seperate character page, does anyone have any views of removing some of the characters from the main page? I don't think that people like Tom Bankston or Paul Jackson need to be on the main page, and can instead be accommodated better in the seperate page. I was going to just remove all the characters from the main page, but maybe some of the current main characters should be left? Anyone have any thoughts on this, or who should be left? 87.192.76.66 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Current strike team, current admin, and current police officers should only be left on character page, past charachters, or those of little importance have no relevance on the main page and should be removed to reduce the mess in this section... 136.206.11.249 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compare

Compare this article with The Wire (TV series) The Simpsons, Law & Ordereven The Sopranos which is filled with garbage. There is too much crufty plot detail and far too little background on the show. Hpuppet - «Talk» 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a {{subst:sofixit}} template for you:

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Love,

Kafziel 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your support for my upcoming edits. Hpuppet - «Talk» 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some edits would be nice for a change. A quick look at your contribs shows nothing but tags, criticism, and negativity (like telling people their work is "crap" and "garbage"). I see very few improvements on your part. You may have noticed that several characters from this page have already been given their own articles, to help reduce the amount of cruft in this article. It's in progress. Settle down. Kafziel 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do new-page patrol. It's what I do. WP:NPAHpuppet - «Talk» 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear to me what you mean. In your opinion does the Shield article compare favourably or unfavourably with those others you mention ("which [are] filled with garbage")? Rockpocket 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The level of garbage in this article (before I cleaned it out) was more than even The Sopranos, which is filled to the brim with garbage. You assaulted my contribution history for including little more than tagging, criticizm and negativity, to which I replied that I do new-page patrol (which is how I was led into this article, as soemone de-proded a new-page I had proded for being crufty.) If you have not looked at the new-page log (I see the CVU tag on your user page, so I assume you have), it's little more than article that neeed taging, criticizm and negativity. Hpuppet - «Talk» 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't me who last replied here. I know what you're doing, and I mostly approve of the changes you've made. My suggestion to you was more about civility. Kafziel 18:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, confused my interloquitors. No, this page was far worse than all of them. Now it is fine. Hpuppet - «Talk»

Apology accepted, it was a genuine question. Rockpocket 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you intend to make new pages for each of the characters whose details you deleted? If you're using shows like The Simpsons and The Sopranos as examples, then that should be your next step. Kafziel 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No. This show is the functional and social equivalent of The Wire (TV series), neither of which I have watched, and neither of which should have substantial subpages. If someone feels any of the characters were of significant social import to have pages, the version they can pull the "information" from is here. I suggest that such information not be included - in fact, if I were dictator at large of the encyclopedia, 2/3s of the Simposons characters and 2/3s of the content in the other simpson's characters articles would be gone. Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your basis for that in Wikipedia's policies? Kafziel 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) That is my cooncern also. Is there policy that establishes the amount of detail that articles on tv shows should contain? With respect (because i appreciate your sentiments and largely agree with them), how can you be confident that two shows are of "functional and social [equivalence]" if you have seen neither? I suppose what i'm wondering is why you feel qualified to edit down such a page when you have no experise in the subject (i.e. have never watched the show). This isn't criticism, as i personally agree with your edits, i'm just trying to establish whether it is a case of policy or personal preference (because if it is the former, then there is a lot of other articles that could do with a cull, if it is the latter, then i'm not sure removing all of that info without moving it elsewhere is prudent, and i expect a revert would occur sooner rather than later) Rockpocket 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, policy is quite the opposite. According to Wikipedia's policy on fiction, "If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article. This allows the information to become more organized and easier to access." Major characters can have their own articles (probably, at this point, just Vic Mackey and Holland "Dutch" Wagenbach would qualify, and the rest should be listed here in the characters section, or in a separate article combining all of the minor characters. The policy also warns, "do not delete meaningful content" (not my emphasis). Kafziel 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The deleted content was not meaningful. If it were meaningful, it would have been well written and clear to someone who was not versed in the show. It was not. Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: the policy only referes to deleting content in the merge. Deleting content because it's not informative is fine. Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Wow, man, you really need to take some time to read some policy. "Meaningful content" is not something you get to define just because you don't think it's well-written. Words, forming sentences, that convey any information is meaningful. As a deletionist, you should know the definition of "patent nonsense"; if you couldn't speedy this information on that basis, then it's meaningful content. You might not like how it's written, but that doesn't mean it's nonsense. Someone took time to contribute that "nonsense", and it's not up to you to decide whether or not it's meaningful. Kafziel 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you check out #2 under Wikipedia:Patent nonsense#Not to be confused with... and follow that to Wikipedia:How to copy-edit#Etiquette. Kafziel 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Darwin's theory of evolution is more often than not poorly written or explained, but it doesn't make it meaningless content. I personally think there is little to be gained by in depth plot details on articles like this, but i also think its hard to justify removing all the detail as "garbage", just because it isn't well written. Using that rationale, articles that were not written perfectly on the first draft would be deleted before they were improved. Moreover, your new list of characters was 'poorly written', so i copyedited it to read better and make sense. Using your rationale, i would have been justified in deleting the list as uninformative. Clearly that would be nonsense. Rockpocket 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in this discussion with you at this point. We are all in agreement that the article is better now than it was before. Thus, WP:ENC, and I remove this article from my watchlist. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement that the "characters" section is better. It's just a list, with no prose. Each character should have some description, especially those without their own pages, and those that do have their own pages should still have a brief summary. "Army Renta" and "Corrinne Mackey" mean nothing to readers without any context whatsoever.

I agree that the "seasons" section is better, but the content you took out should still be moved somewhere, not just deleted. Kafziel 20:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If i may be so bold, i really would respectfully suggest you review WP:CIVIL if you are going to continue on your copyedit role. Leaving multiple edit summary's of "whatever" is disrespectful to say the least, and calling other people's good faith efforts "garbage" and "uninformative" is really disheartening when they have clearly put quite a lot of effort into it, irrespective of the "quality" of their effort. I'm sure you do good work in copyediting article - however in alienating other editors you may not be helping the cause as much as you could. The article may be better in some ways, but it also weaker in others (the character list completely lacks context), since you are not willing to discuss and justify your edits, then i trust you will not dispute some minor reverts? Rockpocket 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be so bold. If you would like to add in brief character descriptions, feel free to do so. Please don't reinsert "Meaningful content" like "No one runs the streets without Vic knowing. And no door is safe if Vic wants it kicked down." If you find my characterization of such "Meanignful content" as garbage, then I am sorry that you have taken my blunt statements regarding badly written content on this encyclopedia so personally. I suggest you not revert anything. Thanks. If only you were as vigilent about content being taken out as you were about content being put in. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, come talk to me when this sockpuppet has more than 100 quality edits under its belt. It's a lot easier to slap tags on articles and delete content than it is to create quality articles. Kafziel 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent). I'm afraid that sort of response from Hpuppet is exactly what i am alluding to with reagrds to lack of civility. As my correspondance here makes perfectly clear, much of your edits i completely agree with (including the example you quote). However, if you are basing your opinion of all the content on such an example, you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to cut out the "garbage". I have not taken anything personally, as a brief review of my contributions will reveal i have added virtually no content to this article, thus your edits are no reflection on my contributions (irrespective of what you appear to assume). My efforts here have been limited to minor copyediting. However, i shall re-insert some of the character bios that you removed during your "improvement" and continue to work with editors who actually justify their edits rather than dismissing honest questions with a shrugged "whatever" Rockpocket 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-inserted some minimal character information, and will create a new article for the rest of the characters. That way, the main article stays relatively clean and we don't have to completely discard the hard work of so many other editors. Kafziel 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do You All Think We Should Write A Complaint about Hpuppet?

He seems to be really adminent on making the pages the way he feels they should be. This guy is going to keep on maliciously editing our hard work on the page just because he feels it doesn't live up to his lofty standards. He's also been hostile, condescending, and rather inconsiderate of everyone's feelings and suggestions. Is there some way we can report him to the management of Wikipedia so he can knock it off and just let things be. I know he's got a job to do, but he's been really overzealous about it.

You could have a word with an administrator about him or her, but they have limited power to deal with overzealous or mildly uncivil editors. If you strongly disagree with Hpuppet's edits then revert them with your justification. If her persists then we could go to mediation. I'd suggest just letting it go as he/she seems to have moved on to pastures new. Rockpocket 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Today I created a new page, List of characters from The Shield, to try to help this main page stay concise and neat. I am now trying to merge one or two of the smaller stubs that have been created on (as I see them) minor characters, starting with Armadillo Quintero. I originally did it without asking, but now I see there is some dispute there so I've tagged both articles for a merge proposal. I will probably suggest one for Margos Dezerian and possibly Terry Crowley as well, since they were only in a couple of episodes each. I'm a big fan of the show, and I'm not looking to delete tons of content, but I also want the articles to be up to Wikipedia's standards for fiction. I think this will cut down on a lot of the criticism, attacks, and edit wars. I would appreciate it if you would leave your comments here. Kafziel 05:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Armadillo Quinter, Terry Crowley, Margos Dezerian are the three stubs that only ones that should be merged. Morisato 09:04, 30 March 2006 (MST)

[edit] lem should be under strike team members

Anyone else think lem should be placed under strike team members even though he is dead?--Dangerous-Boy 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We don't actually know for sure that he's dead yet.

um..you didn't see the last season's last ep then...--D-Boy 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claudette

She deserves her own page if Dutch has one.

but Dutch is awesome and Claudette is not!! Bwithh 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "Dutch" character has been very well developed over the last five seasons whereas the Claudette character has not been overly developed. Now with Claudette as Captain, I would expect much more development in the coming season that should result in enough meaningful material for her own Wikipedia article. FullSmash26 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'unencyclopedic links'

Just curious, why does a popular message board for this show constitute an unencyclopedic link? Seems like it would be quite useful.

[edit] Vic Mackey Sunglasses

Does anyone know the brand and make of the sunglasses Mackey wears during the series???? THanks!

[edit] Tavon left the LAPD?

Are we sure about that? My recollection is that Tavon simply disappeared from the series without explanation.

As far as I know they're Eastbay Incognitos.

[edit] Danny's Baby...

I do not recall it being definitely stated or otherwise shown that Mackey is the baby's father. It was certainly implied, but I do not think we can assert he is the father as fact.

Agreed ... Vic handed her the money from the office pool, as the father was never "revealed". While there seem to be body language indicating this, neither verbally confirmed (working off of 8-month memory).

[edit] "The Free 52" reference?

In the episode where they introduce Armadillo, and Vic is hiring the private detective, did anyone catch it when the PI said "if she is anywhere in the free 52, we'll find her."? Is that referring to the 50 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico or something? What about the Virgin Islands? The 50 states plus Mexico and Canada? Perhaps I just misheard? --Fxer 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution

Just to let you know that 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is owning the Region 1 DVD rights to The Shield with Sony Pictures Home Entertainment owning the rights to the first and second seasons on Region 2 DVD. Sony Pictures Television will distribute and syndicate the reruns of the series to local stations, beginning in the fall. Don-Don 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decoy Squad

Am I just missing it, or is there no mention of the Decoy Squad anywhere? They should be at least as important as Joe Clark, considering he was only in one episode and they spanned most of a season.MistaTee 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antwon's Incarceration

Antwon is incarcerated at Lompoc Penetentiary, not "Longpoke" as stated in the article. Lompoc (pronounced lom-POKE) is a high security prison up near Vandenberg AFB.66.75.250.253 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Aaron

I agree. I've fixed it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shield - Australian TV

It seems at present that in Australia it is not being shown on Channel Ten which gets the first run of it...looking at the official website for the network this is what they said:

"The Shield

The Shield was taken off air due to late night motorsport commitments. It will be scheduled once a consistent timeslot can be found. We love The Shield too and can't wait for it's return."

--Mikecraig 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)