Talk:Chicago P.D. (TV series)/Archive 1

Move? 1

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think this page should be moved to Chicago PD (TV series), Chicago PD is a very common way of referring to the Chicago Police Department, it makes more sense to redirect this page there, and the television show article be at Chicago PD (TV Series), look at Chicago Fire (TV series).Caringtype1 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there are numerous sports teams known as the Chicago Fire and there was the Great Chicago Fire. There is a lot of need for disambiguation of Chicago Fire. Not so sure that this needs to be moved. I think a formal WP:RM might be in order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chicago PD → Chicago PD (TV series) – When readers think of Chicago PD, they think of the Chicago Police Department, not a TV series that hasn't even premiered yet. The title of this article should include "TV series", to reinforce the idea that the show is fiction, and not the actually police department. An example of this would be, N.Y.P.D. (TV series), and NYPD.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - current title fails all 5 of WP:AT WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability - Naturalness – Precision - Conciseness (see wording) – Consistency .In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support redirect the current title to the Chicago police department article -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per In ictu oculi.--Xiaphias (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I abstain. I created the page at this location. Whatever majority obtains is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but make Chicago PD a disambig page, not a redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support misleading as is. Not certain about the need for a disambig though E x nihil  (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, redirect to Chicago Police Department, put a hatnote. Red Slash 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a TV series, after all... (make "Chicago PD" a dab page) Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions)  17:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- "Chicago PD" and "Chicago Police Department" do not look similar; they just have confusable meanings. If the show were titled "Chicago Police Department," then I'd support "Chicago Police Department (TV series)."  Besides, if "Chicago PD" were common enough for people to search for the police with that string, wouldn't that have already been a redirect?  I think we should just have a hatnote on this page for the police.
 * Example: Reader searches for "Chicago PD" and comes here, quickly notices this is for a TV show, notices hatnote and goes to police article.
 * Question -- Is the underlying concern that a reader might not see the hatnote? —CSB radio (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Character description of the main characters
Do you think we should add some character description of the main characters in that show? BattleshipMan (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Character summaries would help.Zharvey (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Chicago PD (TV series) → Chicago P.D. (TV series) – I saw two periods in the full title of the show. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where have you seen it? If it is only in the opening title sequence, it could be just a stylized, logo version of the title. How is it rendered in various text articles from most reliable sources? For example, the Los Angeles Times does use the full stop marks, but the Chicago Tribune does not. If you scan through the links listed in this article's References section, there is a mixture of both styles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, the show itself seems to spell it "P.D." with two periods. J I P  &#124; Talk 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is superior to the current spelling although I am not sure whether there should be a space in between the P. and the D.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
 * Comment Note that, per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the issue is what name is in common use, not "official" use. ENeville (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episodes of Chicago P.D.
It's been suggested that we should split the episode section of Chicago P.D. to List of Chicago P.D. episodes, since the show has been renewed. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. —  Wylie pedia  04:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea for someone to give like a brief summary of each episode.Zharvey (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [User:Zharvey] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zharvey (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide
I don't know how the season ratings template works and I have tried to remove the timeslot but I am unsuccessful. The timeslot should not be included as it violates WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortuately, the timeslots are viable for TV shows articles and some of them can be moved to a different day and timeslots. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also TV show ratings are related to the day of the week the shows is on, they can go up or down depending on the day they air and even the time slot.--Ecto~enwiki (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Section title Plot vs Premise vs.
I think the TV shows should try to follow a consistent layout. Of the 3 Chicago TV shows currently airing 2 use "Plot" and 1 uses "Premise" Not sure how many use each however "Premise" seems to be the most common. Chicago Med is the newest of these 3 and uses Premise. --Ecto~enwiki (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the term premise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tracy Spiridakos
I really don't understand the edit war that has gone on today over whether Tracy Spiridakos was a guest or recurring in season 4. She was in multiple episodes of the season in the same role and, IIRC, the same story arc, which clearly marks her role as recurring. To claim she wasn't is quite ridiculous. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, there's an issue about the status of guest and recurring. Some of us view this as guest because episode appearances below five episodes is considered guest, others say she's recurring because she appeared in three episodes which they considered one episode appearances is guest starring. That's what it is about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There has never been a guideline that defines the number of episodes required for recurring status, and for good reason. Technically, only two episodes are required to make a character recurring. If a guest star appears in the same role twice they are technically a recurring character. If they appear twice but in different roles they are a recurring actor. However, if an actor appears as the same character 3 times across a series run, in different seasons, that's not necessarily a recurring role. On the other hand, if they appear 3 times within a season, that is normally recurring. And then you have characters like "Althea" from The Big Bang Theory who is portrayed by the same actress and is always a nurse but appears in different situaations each time. She has been in 6 episode, including the unaired pilot, always in different seasons and yet is classed as a recurring character. We don't fix the number of episodes because it can't be applied consistently. That's the way it has always been. Note also that an actor be credited as a guest but appear in a recurring role and when an actor appears in 3 episodes in one season and then promoted to a starring role in the next, that's definitely a recurring role. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that she is recurring especially since the episodes were all 3 back to back (Not spread out throughout the season) and she played a very important role in all 3 (as a member of the team). TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Aussie, that's not what TVCAST says. And your opinion alone doesn't get to define "3 episodes" as "recurring". There have been multiple discussions on this topic at WP:TV over the years, and there is a significant contingent in WP:TV that feels you need to be in somewhere between 4–6 episodes to truly qualify as "recurring". Further, as there is actually contradictory sources as to whether the role was "guest" or "recurring", the best course of action here is to go with the more conservative "guest role" interpretation, esp. at a BLP like Tracy Spiridakos. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should we go with your conservative opinion when sources contradict when WP:TVCAST clearly states "If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status."? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and at Tracy Spiridakos the consensus is against you. Additionally, at BLP's the conservative option should always be the norm. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * how is consensus against me when two people say she's recurring and two say she's a guest? And also we're not just looking at a BLP were also looking at this article and its associated character page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple discussions on this topic at WP:TV over the years, - I am well aware of that, having been editing TV articles for 12 years. I'm afraid that your opinion hasn't been supported by the numerous discussions that I've had, and I'll note that your own opinion isn't supported by WP:TVCAST.
 * the best course of action here is to go with the more conservative "guest role" interpretation - Your interpretation is not conservative, it's just an interpretation.
 * Yes, and at Tracy Spiridakos the consensus is against you. - No, two editors fighting another is not consensus. Consensus is determined based on the arguments, not on numbers. You should know that by now. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having a little trouble understanding how my opinion isn't supported by WP:TVCAST. The guideline about two or three appearances does not necessarily mean a recurring role is very vague. That means it could be a recurring role but also may not be a recurring role. Which is why I thought it turned around and mentioned sources. Which is where it says if sources can't adequately distinguish consensus should determine. So all I'm trying to do is follow the guidelines. Because some of us believe she is recurring, others of us believe she is guest and sources clearly DO NOT distinguish (some of them say recurring others say guest). And  where is your view on this? Earlier it sounded like you were calling her recurring but here in your most recent message it sounded like you were calling her a guest.TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: see this – no one in that discussion was clamoring to call three episodes "recurring", and the guideline was ultimately written to leave some flexability, but to make it clear that two episode and even more than two episodes is not necessarily "recurring". In fact, there is a substantial opinion on WP:TV that 4–6 episodes should be needed to be considered recurring, which you should be aware of if you've been participating in these discussion for "years". I myself have seen more than one discussion on this, and there is pretty much always a contingent of WP:TV editors in these discussions that wants to see 4, 5 or 6 episodes used as the benchmark for recurring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well this is exactly where that "flexibility" needs to come in. I know is completely unrelated but what if a season had more or less than the general 23-25 episodes per season. If a season had 30 episodes how many episodes would be needed than? 7-8? Or if a season had 12-15 episodes what would be recurring then 3-4? That's exactly why there should never be a set number on how many episodes they require to be recurring (and clearly there is not because of that "flexibility").TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think three episode appearances should be considered guest starring. We have a huge number of actors who appeared in three episodes in a season in various shows. That sounds to the majority of us that they should considered a guest stars. Recurring should be around at least 5 or thereabouts. One more thing, you keep forgetting to add the four tlides in your comment to sign your comment posts. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand why we're completely ignoring RELIABLE SOURCES? I know I keep saying this but there was a portion of WP:TVCAST that was set up EXACTLY for this type of situation.TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:One Chicago (TV franchise)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One Chicago (TV franchise). The Doctor Who (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)