Talk:Police of The Wire

message: As per discussion here I have tagged this page for a potential merge.--Opark 77 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am personally opposed to merging this article.--Opark 77 10:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is already beyond the standard "long" length notice.  I think it doesn't need a merge.  So much so that I'm removing the tags.  --ShakataGaNai (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I made a bunch of changes without being signed in. I changed all references to "Major Case Unit" to "Major Crimes Unit." While many such units are called "Major Case" (e.g. within the NYPD), in Baltimore, and on The Wire, the unit is called "Major Crimes." This is backed up by the episodes themselves and the HBO website. ask123 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I agree the unit is called that. However, when Daniels first raised the possibility he called it a major case unit and thats where the useage here originated from.--Opark 77 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major Case" vs. "Major Crimes" 

message: The image :Image:The Wire Norris.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealt with.--Opark 77 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:The Wire Norris.jpg

message: Right now, the article has headings about who the "current" members of certain units are and who the "former" members are. When describing an entire work of fiction, the words "current" and "former" have no meaning, as the entire work of fiction is considered to be in the present tense. I know people like to say things like, "Well, Daniels used to be head of Major Crimes, but not anymore," since the earlier seasons show Daniels being head of Major Crimes and later seasons do not. However, it's not like the later seasons exist in the present and the earlier seasons exist in the past. These were not actual events. It's like how we don't say that Harry Potter is "currently" grown up and has kids. That may be what happens at the very end of the last Harry Potter book, but it's not like the earlier events all happened in the past. The entire work of fiction is in the present tense. So, we need to do some major revisions to this article such that it says who the characters are and what seasons they are in their various positions. For an example of how this is done, I direct your attention to List of politicians on The West Wing. Note that that page has a section called "Former Presidents of the United States". The reason for this is that, for the entire series these characters are former presidents. We can only use "former" if it is true for the entire series. For example, if we are just talking about the movie Star Wars, then it is appropriate to call Darth Vader a "former" student of Obi-Wan Kenobi, since for the entire movie, it is true that Darth Vader is Obi-Wan's former student. However, if we talk about the entire Star Wars series, then we can't say that Vader is Kenobi's "former" student, because the prequel films show him as a student. One more time, you only use "former" when referring to a fictional character if that designation is accurate for the entire work, i.e., the entire series. That is not the case for the characters on The Wire and so we need to make these major revisions to this page. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is all ridiculous and poorly written.  The descriptions ought, in particular, to be focused on the status of characters when they are first introduced, and explain later developments as such. john k (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I am late to the party but relieved to see that someone else noticed an obvious flaw in the writing. This need a complete re-orginization. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current" and "former" 

message: How about a flow chart or something that evolves over the seasons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.255.167 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow Chart Suggestion