Talk:NCIS (TV series)/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  No.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: And, I guess you've never seen the show ... really your attempt a humor has failed miserably.--ᎠᏢ462090 11:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this show a big joke? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kate Todd 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Season 1 [[DVD]]s info formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  {{tl|cleanup-date}} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up done 

message: 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  Batman2005 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thanks Batman!  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  WIKIQUOTE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent. I'll update the article accordingly. Thanks! 23skidoo 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuriyakin reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sean Murray Cameo? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New character in season 4 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Section on "One extraordinary episode" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More on "One extraordinary episode"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Palmer and Lee 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding Marty Pearson to recurring characters list 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  naming 

message: Recently  made an undiscussed major series of edits creating a table of the Main Characters which was later undone by CharlotteWebb.  The same ip user later came back and reverted the reversion (the official sport of Wikipedia).  He was followed up by  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main Characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recurring Character 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Episode Articles 

message: It seems like a lot of the information in the Overview section ought more properly to go into a Trivia section of some sort-- especially the bit about Gibbs' NIS shirt, or Mark Harmon cutting his own lines. Should I make one and move that info over? 
Alessandriana (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Overview" section 

message: Season 4 has just started here in the UK. (I taped it last night and have seen 'Shalom' 5 times! - I love NCIS way too much!) Anyway, McGee is a senior agent and Gibbs is retired, etc, etc, but this isn't what the characters table says... Do they all get demoted later in the season?
Season four has already finished in the US and I don't want to ruin it for u, but the character list is right DLWDWFreek (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McGee 

message: To people in the UK 
Just so you know. last night there was a new FX advert and it is no longer "coming soon" but "coming in April"
Yippie!!!!!!!! Lizzie Harrison 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 in the UK 

message: An episode entitled Cashed Out has been added to the episode list in season four, however according to TV.com and imdb.com no such episode exists.
Could someone please, either verify the existence of this episode or delete it.
Mhrmaw 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No such episode exists yet because it's a future episode. If you look in the list you'll see that the projected airdate is 20th February which is in two weeks from now. --Fogeltje 08:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cashed Out 

message: What happened to the main character images in the table? --Mikecraig 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they can be found under "List of Characters". I have no idea who did it, but I assume it was done to keep a good overview of the article. Jackpayback 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images were deleted from Wikipedia and thus also removed from the table.--Fogeltje 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Character images 

message: I do not know if this is useful. Maybe others have noticed.
As seen throughout the episodes, situations seems to be held in chapter-wise plot, other than an ongoing flow. I am speaking of the snapshot/black and white effect that occurs at an end of a certain scene or episode.
Notice that during the first season, the effect considering the next-scene/situation-event was different, such as the electronic buzz, zoom, buzzz, zoom.
The snapshot effect in later episodes does seem unique, for I have never seen such in other series.
I am sure there will be users who would immediately remove any entry of such, so I wonder where this type of entry "would" or "should" go. 
Additionally, I may have overread it, but I see no referance to so-called running gags e.g. Gibb's slap referring to mentor giving its student a mild punishment. 
(Edit: found it, character guides, my bad - Yet I do think it should count as a running gag along with the show)
May of course all be useless, but I still was only just wondering.Jackpayback 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My post above is referring completely to NCIS' cuts between chapters and how it used to be during the first seasons - and not just "what I have seen". While it may be seen as "trivia", there is nothing I have added, changed or done in "my point of voice", other than my comment about the snapshot effect being unique. Now it would probably be irrelevant of precisely describing what was changed, but the black-white snapshot should be mentioned. But then again, since I asked if it were worth to mention or not, I assume it would be better to leave it out. Lastly, somebody would scratch it anyways  - which is about as natural as Murphy's law. However, IF somebody does think it should be added, feel free to put it under some Trivia section.  Jackpayback 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth to mention? 

message: An anonymous IP added this, and I took it out.  As far as I know, we're still in season 4, and Gibbs hasn't "dissapeared".  Mark Thompson is the CEO of BBC, which tells me this is nonsense.  Add it back in if I'm wrong. ----Steve 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the? 

message: Someone should submit a comprehensive episode list, since it appears there are people submitting summary content for each episode (poorly I might add in some cases, I just cleaned up S.W.A.K.) but no where to find a list of episodes that may or may not yet have content submitted. Otherwise, many episode titles can be found sprinkled throughout the NCIS entry not necessarily categorized. 
Just an opinion of mine.
Nevermind. I found the episode list, although it didn't "jump out" at me at first.
User:xxx 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Section 

message: Has anyone noticed that in every episode the characters either name or indirectly refer to a movie? -usually Tony211.31.234.241 09:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie References 

message: I have never watched this show, so I think I can be ojective when reading this article. 
The very first line is a bit of a turn-off
"NCIS is a genre-busting TV show that follows a team of the Naval Criminal Investigative..." 
"Genre-busting"? A bit NPOV. Since I don't watch the show, I'll suggest a rewrite but won't edit it myself. 
155.188.183.7 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One critique of article 

message: :Image:Ncis cast main.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Ncis cast main.jpg 

message: Link, reference 7 to LA Times article about Bellisario leaving the show is dead. Here are some alternatives.
http://www.thetvremote.com/don-bellisario-steps-down-at-ncis/
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/28/171114.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: When shows are nationally aired in the US, the correct times to use are Eastern and/or Pacific Times, not Central Time as was previously in the article.  While I know that 8 PM Eastern is 7 PM Central, the common lexicon is to just use the Eastern Time or to say XPM Eastern, X-1PM Central.  I forget if Mountain Time is also X-1 off the top of my head when shows air (IE airing at 8 PM Eastern, but 7 PM Mountain), it's been a long time since I spent any length of time in the Mountain Time zone. Shows that air at a certain time on the East Coast tend to be time delayed to air at the same time on the West Coast (IE 8PM Eastern shows air at 8 PM Pacific). UncleThursday (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of Airing 

message: 67.204.213.217 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Regular and Recurring Cast members past and present 

message: I know the fates of several main characters are in question at the end of the season finale, but please remember - until we have a source that says that an actor is leaving the show, or that their character is being written out, or whatever, we cannot add speculation to the article. For now, Ziva, McGee, and DiNozzo are all still regular cast members, and Deputy Director whats-his-name is still a recurring character. Obviously, some of that may change - but the article should not change unless and until sources become available. Thanks, UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point with the link, although the source only speculates. I have though added the new names to this article and List of NCIS characters. SoWhy 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judgement Day - Season 5 Finale 

message: Is it entirely fair to post spoilers in the page without warning?  I'm glad that the rest of the planet gets to know that key characters have been killed and how it happened before it even airs in their country!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.187.44 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone coming here should expect spoilers. Please read WP:SPOILER regarding this issue.--Fogeltje (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: I noticed that they are always dealing with petty officers though they are mostly dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.125.217 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a newspaper (maybe a navy publication?) ran an article on the phenomenon, then it might be worth a mention somewhere. Until then, though - unlikely. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thats just Petty 

message: Can someone please find out small details of the show, like who done certain parts of the show, music that was used, or is this the wrong place for such detail? Steve (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: is there any conformation that there will be a spin off of NCIS? it was added to wikipedia, just making sure it isnt vandilism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.58.166 (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin off? 

message: Does anyone happen to know what happened to the unknown redhead who was occasionally seen picking up and dropping off Agent Gibbs in the earlier season's episodes?  Did the writers just stop including her in the storyline or was there an episode I missed that revealed her identity and/or killed her off the show?
11/26/08
``Jeff``  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.58.219 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few seasons later (I think) she was shown to be a lawyer defending an NCIS suspect. She and Gibbs were shown to pretty much hate each other. It was the episode where the man snuck into evidence/Abby's lab to tamper with evidence (at the behest of her client).--Flash176 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened to... 

message: ::You made this section without even a comment on why there should be a crew page, User:74.59.78.94, just this blank header and a list. I have removed the list so as not to clutter up the page - it is available here. Please come back and explain why you think we need an entire page devoted to crew who might have worked on the show one time. RainbowOfLight Talk 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  there should be an NCIS crew pg 

message: Just wanted to bring the newly created Leroy J. Gibbs page to everyone's attention. It was created by  and appears to be a direct ctrl-c/ctrl-v from the wikia. Leroy Jethro Gibbs currently link to the character list page. --aktsu (t / c) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leroy J. Gibbs]] 

message: A recent edit WP:AGF removed Gibbs' rules.  How important do people feel like these are?  They are a bit of trivia, but a fun part of the show.  Quick poll about keep or drop? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop as trivia. I am not the user who removed them, though. RainbowOfLight Talk 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me but I'd like to remind everyone that another wiki is not a reliable source. RainbowOfLight Talk 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbs' Rules 

message: Ok, my head officially hurts now !!
Just to say big thanks first to the user at 92.3.216.247 that spotted the mistakes in our edits to the figs, and second to apologise for last week
My excuse is that I'm stupid, I got totally the wrong week, 7 days early for the first showing so I owe the user that corrected them on Jan 31st an apology for reverting their edits (Reverted good faith edits by 79.65.46.217; The figures are for one day-) so whoever you were at that IP - sorry and thanks for trying to make it right !
cheers guys--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK viewing figures - double silly me 

message: Hi all
LL Cool J & Fred Bloggs
"The 41-year-old LL, meanwhile," is it possible that we should use his real name, or the "Cool J" rather than "LL" which is not very clear and would in fact be the same as using "Fred" when referring to "Fred Bloggs" - something which is frowned upon when writing articles.
The LL stands for Ladies Love (Cool James) and so is not even a name ?!?! and could be confused for Louise Lombard
--Chaosdruid (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like its been taken care of--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations and names 

message: does anyone know when the new series will be starting on FX? it seems to be taking for ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.28.158 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new series 

message: Should there not be something in the article about FX showing NCIS?
It's the channel that airs seasons on Sky, etc, before they appear on Channel Five.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.4.71 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FX 

message: Due to bushfires the filming has stopped so that the stars can defend their homes Reference
Scoreed
(124.169.16.149)  01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming Disruptions 

message: Has this season ended? There has not been a new episode in two weeks. Any ideas? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6 

message: Can anyone verify that Bob Dole, is going to have a role in NCIS in the next season or has someone done something they shouldn't?Joshuaselig (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search on the web and didn't find anything. I reverted so, unless the user who put it there in the first place has a soure.... then it shouldn't be there. El Greco(talk) 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a vandal, as they also placed Dole on the NCIS: LA and it wasn quickly reverted. Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Is it worth mentioning about a motif of the show is the characters going around with coffee in cups that look like them come from a fancy schmatzy coffee bar (or at least a Starbucks like outlet). Sometimes they make it seem a big deal to get this stuff: "I picked you up a cup on the way back to the office", or a cup is brought as a reward for doing an especially good job (Abby all but squeals with glee when Gibbs brings her a cup in at least one episode). I keep wondering "What is it with the coffee and the way these folks make a big deal about who gets it?". In my dayjob I happened to have a brief e-mail exchange with someone who works at the Navy Yards who tells me while there is a starbucks about three blocks from the Navy Yard the place people who work there get their coffee from is a café called William III (http://www.williamiii.com/), which has two outlets on the yard. I am told "There is always a line ... the Navy love their coffee." Or is this just a tad too esoteric to mention? Dgabbard (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't think it's worth mentioning, its not mentioned by name, while as "CafPow" is mentioned constantly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. And CafPow is mentioned in the profile of Abby, so that is covered. Now I wonder if it was CafPow I saw Abby squeal about. I was amused my contact confirmed that even the love of coffee evidently is an authentic Naval attitude/culture the show reflects. Dgabbard (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  coffee 

message: I saw the brief reverts about this. After looking at Dramedy, I do not believe the show fits into the category. Also if you want to pursue this, you'll need to find a reliable source, but I believe the TV stations have the show billed as a Drama. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramedy 

message: Trent Kort is discribed in the article as being a "Undercover Field Agent, CIA". Technicly Mr. Kort is no longer undercover, after the murder of Le Gr...however you spell it. Also, Employees of the CIA are refered to as CIA "Officers", not "Agents", an agent would be a recruited intelligence asset. In addition, the Jenny Shepard section should be updated, since the Arms dealer storyline was a major part of her charachter, as well as the situation with her father. Was it ever revealed whether he was alive or dead? Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trent Kort 

message: I was just wondering why Abby's title is so long.  I believe that "Forensic Specialist" covers both evidence and ballistics; at the very least, both are listed as subdivisions on the page for forensics.  Simply listing her as "Forensic Specialist, NCIS" seems sufficient to me. SapphireSkies (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I, so I've been bold and changed it. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abby Sciuto:  Forensic, Evidence, and Ballistics Specialist, NCIS 

message: Recently, I have noticed the quality of recaps and info decline at TV.com, and now it is very obvious it is edited by anyone who cares to. Therefore, I believe we should watch that TV.com is NOT being used as a valid source to cite edits. One example of poor info was "FBI Agent Spano", when actor Joe Spano plays Agent Fornell. Just want Wikipedia to be right, and not a mess nor a playground for bored computer users. Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement here. TV.com is user-contributed and not a reliable source. It should never be used except in very few circumstances where an exception is necessary. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Wikipedia is not areliable source either. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV.com as a source 

message: Please discuss here, rather than risking 3RR. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast chart 

message: The article contains the words:
:NCIS delivered its largest audience to date in the Season 7 episode "Reunion", averaging 21.37 million viewers.
I don't see how an average figure can apply to the audience size of a single episode. Is there something I'm missing?
:It's an average taken over the course of the show. Viewing figures fluctuate throughout due to people tuning in late or switching off early. Peak viewing figures are the statistic that they usually go for because it tends to be a couple of million higher. Averaging is better at showing the popularity of a show.  Uksam88 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Averaging" 

message: This article uses inconsistent formatting when it comes to naming seasons of the show.  I see "Season 1" (which I believe to be correct), "Season One", and "season one".  Shouldn't some consistency be brought to this, since this is a featured article?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Is this really necessary for the US version of Wikipedia? It takes up quite a bit of room, and it seems a bit silly to have all the information on what season is currently being shown in Japan. Not trying to be a witch, just trying to keep the page clean and nice without too much clutter. Trista TristaBella (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as the "US" version of Wikipedia; it's the English version. I'm not sure we need "currently" airing information. It's enough to have a list of the stations. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Distribution section 

message: Deadline's Nikki Finke announced on April 20, 2011: NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles executive producer/showrunner Shane Brennan has signed a new three-year, low-eight-figure deal with the CBS TV Studios. Additionally, the studio has inked a three-year, seven-figure overall deal with NCIS executive producer Gary Glasberg. Glasberg will be the head writer of NCIS' 2011-2012 season. NCIS: LA landed a record off-network syndication deal with USA Network for $2 million-plus an episode only two months into its freshman series in 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive Deals/Head Writer Promotion 

message: Despite what the note in his recurring character description says, NIS had become NCIS by the time Franks retired, so he was in fact an NCIS agent. The description should be changed. Tad Lincoln (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Franks 

message: Does the overall seasonal  rankings include reruns? Its a bit strange if it does (although it would make sense), since the total number of episodes in that case will change a lot more than if it only was new original episodes. Not every season of NCIS has aired reruns each Tuesday. To compare one season against another, I believe the best way to do so is using only new original episodes. The overall season ranking last year (season 7) does not include reruns, and has therefore a higher number than it should have compared to this years ranking, witch includes reruns. The most important here is to use one of these two methods, not both. Unless it's impossible to draw a line between each season to see if it has increased or decreased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.139.197 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: Hi, I thought a cast table like this would compliment the cast list already in place, and allow people to tell which character appeared in which seasons and in what capacity. Any objections to adding this to the article?
Name                  	Portrayed by     	Occupation                           	Seasons  	Seasons  	Seasons  	Seasons  	Seasons  	Seasons      	Seasons      	Seasons      	Seasons
Name                  	Portrayed by     	Occupation                           	1        	2        	3        	4        	5        	6            	7            	8            	
Leroy Jethro Gibbs    	Mark Harmon      	NCIS Special Agent in Charge         	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Caitlin Todd          	Sasha Alexander  	NCIS Junior Field Special Agent      	Main     	Main     	Guest    	         	         	             	             	             	
Tony DiNozzo          	Michael Weatherly	NCIS Senior Field Special Agent      	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Ziva David            	Cote de Pablo    	NCIS Probationary Field Special Agent	         	         	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Abby Sciuto           	Pauley Perrette  	NCIS Forensic Specialist             	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Timothy McGee         	Sean Murray      	NCIS Junior Field Special Agent      	Recurring	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Jenny Shepard         	Lauren Holly     	NCIS Agency Director                 	         	         	Main     	Main     	Main     	             	             	             	
Leon Vance            	Rocky Carroll    	NCIS Agency Director                 	         	         	         	         	Recurring	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Donald "Ducky" Mallard	David McCallum   	NCIS Chief Medical Examiner          	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main     	Main         	Main         	Main         	
Jimmy Palmer          	Brian Dietzen    	NCIS Medical Examiner's Assistant    	Recurring	Recurring	Recurring	Recurring	Recurring	Also Starring	Also Starring	Also Starring	
Thanks Jane_Rizzoli
Oh, and I couldn't figure out how to get a bar to run half a segment (i.e. Lauren Holly & Cote de Pablo recurred/guested in Season 3 prior to becoming regulars, so I added two "season 3" columns, please could somebody with a wider knowledge of Wikipedia make it one double size season 3 column, so it looks less cluttered, thanks x
:I don't think we need that level of detail for a quick-reference chart; that they were listed in the main credits for all but the first couple if episodes of the third season means we can safely list them as starring, I believe. It is a season-by-season breakdown, not an episode-by-episode one, after all. Other than that, I like it. Good work. oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended, I'll add this newer version to the article. Jane_Rizzoli
You can change Ziva from probation agent to special agent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.58.194 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sasha Alexander didn't use her voice in more than one episode of season 8. Isn't it "overkill" to mark the whole season as "voice" in red colour? (shown in the article, not here) Jonny2BeGood (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast Table? 

message: It is incorrect to list Brian Dietzen as main cast. He is not listed in the main credits, although the main credits do include the executive producer and the series creators. He isn't even credited immediately after the main credits, the episode title is there. He's only listed as "Also starring", just before the guest stars. MOS:TV#Cast information says, "please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time", and since the press releases only list him as "recurring guest cast", (and sometimes just "guest cast") that's how we have to treat him. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But he is seen at the DVD-cover of season 8! -- 91.64.25.48 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is denying he's a regular, but being on the DVD does not automatically make him "starring". --AussieLegend (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Also starring is an established way of billing main cast who don't appear in the credits.  It's also being used for Lauren German on Hawaii 5-0 right now.  You're basing your conclusion on information on Futon Critic, but I have no idea how up-to-date that is.  They key word is starring.  Is is also a star of the show, just one who does not appear in the main credits, and that makes him main cast (in other words, a regular as you just described him).  You may want to invest some time in exploring the SAG website and see how billing works; it's far more complex than you might think.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Futon Critic reproduces the press releases issued by the network. The three I've used as examples are for "A Desperate Man", "Newborn King" and "Engaged (Part I)", which are three of the latest six episodes. He is omitted from the press releases for the other three, nor is he credited in the episodes. The information is therefore very up-to-date. The treatment of Dietzen has been consistent since he began being credited as "Also Starring"; he has only been credited in episodes in which he appears. The SAG website doesn't determine how we treat actors here, MOS:TV and, more importantly, Wikipedia:Verifiability do. We can verify, by way of numerous press releases, that he is consistently credited as guest cast but there is nothing that verifies he is main cast. He's not in the main credits, although the executive producer and series creators are there. All of the main cast are in the main credits, and have been added or removed very quickly after they became main cast or departed the series. Even the episode title is shown before Dietzen is credited and, in a recent episode some location notes appeared before him. He's certainly regular, but that regular characters who are not main cast appear in most TV series. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  SAG determines how the whole industry operates with regard to talent, whether Wikipedia cares to acknowledge it or not, and not all main cast are in the main cast credits for a variety of reasons.  Most of them contractual, a few are practical and some are simply creative.  I can identify at least a half-dozen main cast players in network and cable shows at present who do not appear in the main credits and are billed as also starring, one of whom I cited above.  The people here who wrote the rules don't understand casting status well enough to write a set of guidelines that accurately represent who the cast are.  Moreover, cast status (main v. recurring v. guest) is different than billing, which far fewer editors understand.  Billing such as "also starring" and "special guest star" is negotiated at the time talent is hired, and says nothing about anything so much as what an actor wants and producer is prepared to give in terms of how a name appears on screen.  At the very least, "also starring" should be removed, as it's billing and not equivalent to main or recurring cast status, and Dietzen listed as recurring for all seasons, which I've fixed.  It's still wrong, but it's less wrong than before.  --Drmargi (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The people here who wrote the rules don't understand casting status well enough to write a set of guidelines that accurately represent who the cast are" - Nor did they have to. WP:V requires that everything that is added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If "also starring" does mean main cast then it should be verifiable. If it were, Dietzen could be listed as main cast. This has nothing to do with MOS:TV. It's a core policy that means authors of various guidelines don't have to know every little thing about every part of the industry. Of course, there would be no problem if cast were credited accurately, instead of being hidden being vague descriptions. Main cast should be credited as main cast, guest stars should actually be "guest" stars and so on. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Brian Dietzen is considered just a recurring character, he should be removed from the chart. Jonny2BeGood (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

text: In the series, Dietzen credit as "Also Starring". Only by CBS, Dietzen credit as Recurring Cast or Guest Starring. What score is better...? The serie direct or the CBS page? -- 91.64.25.169 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The CBS press releases may be verifiable but on other shows they openly conflict with who is a star of the show and with the billing itself. For all the times you reference them i don't understand how you can't see it is a template they shove data into. It is pretty clear you will never change from your stance that the press releases trump all else. And it is pretty clear that many others think that those verifiable references aren't worth the kb they consume on the server of CBS and mirrored on The Futon Critic. Further i simply love how a CBS press release is more accurate than stuff like the billing of the cast in the show, and of things like how SAG works with crediting, paying, etc., and most of all how you admit this is all screwed up but because of the verifiability policy you win. All that means is you believe someone at CBS agrees with you. Two people can be in agreement and both be wrong. CBS might not even know the press releases are being used this way. I for one think those press releases are not all that reliable since they openly conflict to greater degrees on other shows and therefore every single one of them for every show is inherently unreliable. Why do you not raise this on every show which has an habitual also starring cast member? Does your stance only reach so far as NCIS? If so it doesn't seem like a commitment to the principle but rather the isolated incident. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Dietzen 

message: Why give no new logo? This is the Logo of season 1! -- 91.64.21.78 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't really cause to keep the current season's title screen in the infobox as any of them do represent the show. Some people just like to do it and others go so far as to convince themselves it is absolutely mandatory for the survival of the species. The article is written as the show continues but is not to treat the current season as more important than the previous; that is why there are season articles. That means season 1 is no less important than season 5 or season 9. For obvious reasons we can't be writing about season 15 at this time however should the show go that long it will receive its due coverage in its time. But that still won't mean the logo from season 1 wasn't at some time the active logo for the show. And when the show is completed do you pick the first logo or the last or one from in between? It comes down to 'is there a reason to' and 'does anyone want to'. I find no reason to change the image and i also don't want to as this happens to be my preferred one as it gives the meaning of the four letters the show is known by. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean ... -- 91.64.18.68 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Given Rachel Cranston & Vivian Blackadder, is there evidence all the characters were named for other fictional characters? (I'm presuming L.J. Tibbs was a joke...).  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  06:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shadow knows? 

message: We have a box that shows DVD releases and then further down the page we have a section on DVD releases do we need both? Joshuaselig (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible duplication 

message: Is it known why Susanna Thompson hasn't reappeared...?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After finding out Gibbs still mourns his wife and daughter, Mann retires to Hawaii --Punkminkis (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed seeing that somehow...  Thx.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  02:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a redhead? 

message: So I notice that across multiple seasons, there  is a lot of information on the episode pages showing things like reoccurring characters, first appearance of X character, last appearance of Y character etc etc. This seems a lot of pointless trivia that doesn't really add anything to the article. Especially when other series don't include the information. I was going to be bold and go on a mass removal, but I didn't want to step on any toes. So if someone can justify the inclusion of this info I will leave it be.  MisterShiney ✉  08:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as it's been over a month since I added this talk page, I am going to Be Bold and remove it.  MisterShiney ✉  19:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Pages 

message: Deleting the Season 10 is "misleading"? Really? He's no longer director NCIS, so implying he is by adding S10 is misleading. Moreover, his appearances as DDHS in S10 are explained, separately. What's the problem?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The season 10 doesn't cover his job title; it covers the character's span of appearances on the show. That's how it operates for the other recurring characters... Davejohnsan (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Morrow & Tom Morrow & Tom Morrow 

message: So, I'm thinking about it. I could say that, despite Mr Shiney claims, that some "note-data" below the synopsis of the episodes is present, sometimes very rarely, sometimes massively, in a lot of list of X series episodes pages. Sometimes, those notes are useful for a fan or an occasional viewer who wants to know more about an episode or a season.
If anyone didn't agree with me, please, write it here. If not, I'll reintroduce the notes.--Olbia merda (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Being completely neutral here, the ShortSummary field is for a "short 100–300 word summary of the episode". It's not there for additional content and, just because other articles misuse a field, doesn't mean that it has to be misused everywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being bold and reintroducing "pointless trivia" [cit.]? 

message: Hello! Is NCIS now the most watched programm in season 12-13??? About Deadline has announced that it is so. But it was announced about tv by the numbers that NCIS has landed on the second Place only. What's right?? We use the ratings for getting tv by the numbers or zap2it.com! -- 24.134.25.140 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  most watched programm in season 12-13?!? 

message: I'm thinking about creating a cast table for the main recurring characters, like the one for the regulars. It's much easier to maintain a table than update and re-organize the section each time a character return. Jonny2BeGood (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a few days late, but I think that's a good idea. Just one question: by "main recurring characters", do you mean those who were previously series regulars and return briefly in later seasons? --1ST7 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create a cast table for recurring characters 

message: I understand the policy on spoilers at Wikipedia, although I don't agree with it in some cases, such as the following.  The third paragraph of the Premise section of the article reveals major spoilers regarding the death of a character.  Is there any way to rewrite that to avoid the major spoilers?  The individual episode page can have that information, and the character's page could also show it, but I consider it a definite spoiler for a TV show that is still airing (the spoiler is for season 2, while the show itself is in the 11th season.)
I have seen the show before and was aware of the spoiler, however, other viewers may still be coming into the show cold.
The cast list that shows seasons for recurring characters will show that the character left the show, but the reason should be on a more focused page instead of the main article.
I would say in general, SOME spoilers should be considered for currently airing TV shows, or those aired in the last 10 years.  Chief among those should be deaths or departures for primary characters who are listed in the opening credits.68.12.225.100 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, we don't hide what some consider to be spoilers. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, and you have to expect spoilers. Regarding the death of Caitlin Todd in the season 2 finale, something that happened 8 1/2 years ago is not a spoiler, and hasn't been for several years. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler - Main character's death 

message: According to this press release from CBS (http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/ncis/releases/view?id=37622), Emily Wickersham is a regular. Hatschialef (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular != starring so we should wait until she is credited as anything but a Guest Star, which afaik has not happened yet. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily Wickersham now a regular cast member