Talk:Law & Order (franchise)/Archive 1

Character images on the side.
While they are nice window dressing, I believe the cut down on the readability of the page itself. Character pictures go on character pages. Beyond that, the number of images is causing all the [edit] markers to pool at the bottom of the page near the external links. This looks very sloppy. --sigmafactor 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just went with what was there and cleaned it up a bit. I don't see how the images affect readability, but then, I don't know what you mean by the markers pooling either. When I look at the page it looks very neat. But I suppose for someone with slow connection speed, it might take a long time for the page to load. While I really like the look of the page with the pictures, it isn't worth making the page difficult for some people to read. Is that what's happening? -Digresser 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I see when I view the page in the latest version of Firefox: http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=laof5gj.gif Any ideas? --sigmafactor 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The glut of images really reduce the readibility of the page. I'm going to be bold and remove everything but the title cards. --waffle iron 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: spinoff etc.
There's some inconsistency here; the lead sentence of the article says that all the shows in the franchise deal with the NYC criminal justice system, but down below the 2002 series Crime & Punishment is included, which dealt with San Diego, not NYC. Also, that was cancelled because of poor ratings wasn't it? So it's odd that the article expressly says that "Trial by Jury" was the first spinoff to be cancelled because of poor ratings. (Even if that might be technically correct because of a narrow definition of "spinoff".) Also this article makes no mention of the 1993 series Crime & Punishment which was produced by Dick Wolf and was supposed to have the same kind of style as Law & Order, but from the criminals' perspective. In that sense it was similar to Law & Order: Criminal Intent. --Mathew5000 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Crossover
Was Fools for Love a crossover episode? If so, it should be listed in the crossovers section of the article. --Mathew5000 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conviction a related show, not a franchise show
In the interest of being bold, I have cut Conviction out of the franchise former show list. Properly speaking, the show was not a franchise member. Yes it existed in the L&O universe and shared characters, but so did other shows that are not franchise members. More importantly, the reason it did not carry "Law & Order" as part of the title was the specific intent of the producers and studio to indicate that it should not be grouped with the franchise shows. Conviction addressed substantially different story lines and themes than the franchise shows. Threephi 06:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Conviction clearly existed within the same fictional universe, with the appearance of characters Alexandra Cabot and Arthur Branch. Without the other Law & Orders, it could not have been the way it was. Therefore, by existing within the same fictional universe, it is inherently part of the franchise. Shared characters, same city, same producer, same network. All that's missing is "Law & Order: " before the title. Furthermore, Crime & Punishment (completely different -- reality show) is listed as a franchise show. I move that Conviction be listed as a past franchise show but note within its description that it was slightly further out than the primary set of spinoffs. I won't be quite so bold, but I know this isn't exactly the debate of the century, so I'll make the change if there's no objection within the week. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 07:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose this boils down to how one wants to define 'franchise'. My own personal take on it is that it is like a brand name.  Dick Wolf and the other people who own the Law and Order brand have all carefully decided which shows they wanted to carry that brand name, and which shows would not.  Crime & Punishment bore the Law & Order name, so IMO, for better or worse, it qualifies on that score.  Further, this article provides a section for related shows and other non-franchise members of the L&O Universe (eg, Deadline), so the intent of the article seems to be that membership in the universe alone is not enough for franchise status. Threephi 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for the late response) Alright, I'll meet you half-way. Conviction can stay in the "Related Shows" but I'm also moving Crime & Punishment, as that's much further out. Also, since it is the most directly related of related series, I'd like to re-add it under the related section of the Law & Order template. Please pop something on my user talk if you object. Thanks. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Move from "Law & Order franchise" to "The Law & Order Franchise"
I'm a tad confused why this article was moved. "The" in the title is entirely superfluous and the capitalization of "franchise" is odd since the Law & Order franchise is not the name of anything other than, well, the Law & Order franchise (that is to say, it's not an official name, a name of a company, etc). I say it should be moved back to Law & Order franchise. Any objections? Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested Protection
In response to the repeated vandalism on this page, in which various links are repeatedly removed, character titles are needlessly abbreviated, etc by a user with a dynamic IP on a large subnet, semi-protection was recently requested. MrZaius talk  01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of current cast
I was wondering how the current cast was defined? Specifically in regards to Criminal Intent, which lists Theresa Randle as a star. Although Randle has appeared in (at least) two episodes so far, she is credited as a Special Guest Star. Should she be removed from the current cast since she never officially joined the show? There are numerous other actors/characters who have made far more appearances (for example, Leslie Hendrix as M.E. Rodgers) -- if Randle is included, shouldn't they be as well? D&#39;Amico 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rip From the Headlines: fact to fiction section
I would propose that a section be created either here, independently or within each show's wiki article that would detail the real cases that "inspired" the episodes they are based on. This would also help the articles about the true crime events as people hunt for sources and additional information.

Actually, it's puzzling that at the moment, the "ripped from the headlines" aspect of the every show isn't mentioned as another unifying theme to the franchise. RoyBatty42 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Homicide: Life on the Street ?
Does the series Homicide: Life on the Street qualify as a Law & Order Franchise?

After all John Munch does appear in Homicide and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and a number of producers are involved in both show.
 * In the same universe, but I would certainly not say it's in the franchise. I would say that when Homicide ended, they eventually moved Munch to SVU because of the connection. However, I don't see any involvement from Dick Wolf. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stricter criteria for character articles.
I believe that we must establish a stricter criteria for articles, and consider making a list of Law & Order detectives, containing a short summary of each detective (and a list for the other characters). And in this, we'd merge the less notable character articles such as Nicolas Falco or Alfred Wentworth. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lawandorder01.jpg
Image:Lawandorder01.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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CIopening.jpg
Image:CIopening.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 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) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title Law & Order franchise to Law & Order (franchise) please
If it won't upset too many people, could this article's title please be changed from Law & Order franchise to Law & Order (franchise)? It would help when I link to it.

Here is how I would like to be able to type a link to this article. Law & Order (franchise) Here is how I have to type the link now. Law & Order

The first is simpler. A lot of articles about franchises are already named with franchise in parentheses. Would it be too much a pain to do it here? - LA @ 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Filming question
What episodes of Law and Order were filmed in LA and what sources back that up,thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.31.227 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Castle
Interesting note, in the (relatively) new series Castle, which is a detective show based in New York, the NY Ledger is featured a few times when a character is accessing past periodicals, etc. Thought it could be added as a little cameo. See episode "Hell Hath No Fury" or" Kill The Messenger" (at 32:44) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.214.120 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the producers of Castle (TV series) seem unconnected, and the similarity is insignificant -- especially since L&O did not even invent the title, there having been a New York Ledger, still known to chess or history buffs:
 * "Paul Morphy, aside from being co-editor of Chess Monthly, with Daniel Willard Fiske, for 3 years, also wrote a weekly column for the New York Ledger for one year, August 6, 1859 - August 4, 1860." per discussion of "Paul Morphy's NY Ledger Column" in a blog Laura Jean Libbey "[b]egan her literary career by contributing to New York Ledger [and two other periodicals]", apparently in the 1880s, per "Who's who in New York (city and state)., Issue 7", p. 668
 * Forget it. --Jerzy•t 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Law & Order: Los Angeles
There's currently a rumor that there will be a spin-off called Law & Order: Los Angeles. It's probably true, and NBC is "in talks".. but it's not confirmed or sourced. So keep a watch out, until something official comes up. Thanks — Mike   Allen   03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * HollyScoop.com appears to be mostly a gossip site. But I'm tired of arguing about citations. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UK in Universe
I add law and order Uk into the law an order universe section as it they are currently in talks to do a crossover. 94.171.240.6 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We need a citation or reference for that. Hotel5550 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it in the section! I got a confirmation for that! Note that it is the first Law & Order adaption series to be crossing over with the original Law & Order. Thank you! Hotel5550 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian
can someone transliterate/anglicize/romanize/ASCII-ize the Russian?

Like
 * "Правда" becomes "Pravda"
 * "Гла́сность" becomes "Glasnost"
 * "Салю́т" becomes "Salyut"

It would be nice to see a transliterated/romanized version of the Russian program titles, instead of just the translated titles.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Law and Order: London
I read on the BBC News Website (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7169580.stm) that there is another Law & Order show being produced in London called Law and Order: London. Should this be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.71.11 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because the show is an adaption. It is not a spin-off from Law & Order itself. It's basically another adaption for the citizens in England to watch instead of the American version. More like the French version or the German version to be exact; those two don't exist within the franchise either. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, it already is mentioned, Hotel. (Law & Order: UK) And had been long before you wrote your response to a two year old question. UK isn't considered an adaptation, but a spinoff, btw. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Franchise" vs. "Spin-Off" vs. "Crossover"!
Hello! For what it is worth, here is my input. I concur that for the usage of the term "franchise", "Law & Order" would be in the titles, as that does establish a brand name tradition, just as "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" do for their respective fictional universes. (The expirement with "Enterprise" not withstanding, as it has now been retconned to include "Star Trek" in the title too.) As for the term "spin-off", they are not oblgiged to create a new series with "Law & Order" in the title if they don't want to do so, but I dare say it would mean that it should be excluded from the "franchise brand" grouping. This gives creators more creative freedom. As for the term "crossover" itself, well that's different! The fictional universe and ties to our "Real Universe" are much larger than your article suggests! I refer you to this site: http://www.poobala.com/crossoverlistb.html#byreality

Once there, please find "Group 2", the largest group there. After reading how all of these series/shows/programs are connected together, I now find the drama of the "L&O" series to be less dramatic, seeing as how they all are part of some autistic boy's fantasy world! (Per the series finale of "Saint Elsewhere" that is.) Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Though that crossover list is utterly trivial and, unless cited by the producers as actually relevant, completely irrelevant. One-off, intentionally humorous guest appearances don't really count.
 * But it is funny. oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order UK
I believe Law & Order UK should be moved from the "adaptions" to the "current series" column, it is considered a spin-off, rather than a foreign adaption, as stated by Dick Wolf on Series 1 DVD extras, it is also the only series set outside the US to be produced by Wolf Films, unlike the Russian adaptions. Jane Rizzoli (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - UK is a foreign adaption, and is not part of the US series. If we were to allow UK, we would have to allow the additions of Paris enquêtes criminelles and Закон и Порядок: Отдел Оперативных Расследований and the possibility of Conviction into the franchise list.
 * UK has no connection to the US Law & Order franchise, infact, UK is not even a spin-off in the sense, just an adaption, as every episode has its basis from a Law & Order episode. L&O, SVU, CI, TBJ, LA -- Even shows such as Homicide and Conviction -- what they all have in common:
 * Same universe
 * Characters have crossed-over between the shows (main characters in two shows: Mike Logan, Don Cragen, Alex Cabot, John Munch, Arthur Branch, Lennie Briscoe)
 * Realisticly, chances of there being a crossover with UK and the US franchise's only remaining show, SVU are slim. (Two different tv networks, costs, the story, and just the fact that they are set in two different sides of the world) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast Table
I'm also working on adding a new cast table to the page, its a work-in-progress and any help would be greatly appreciated! Jane Rizzoli (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, the table looks fantastic. Great thanks for the hard work. But I have one suggestion. Take off Exiled. Only a handful of characters appeared in it, and none in the ME or Psychiatrists charts. (I don't know why it's even included on those at all.) As for the characters that did appear in Exiled, a footnote would better serve to cover the few characters who were in it than an entire, largely empty column. It almost seems to be undue weight to include an entire column for one two-hour movie considering the hundreds of hours of L&O programming over the decades. So I don't think we need it at all. oknazevad (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and on a minor note, Cutter needs an SVU cell--Harmony944 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he does...once he has appeared on SVU - which I don't think is anytime soon. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 21:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you feel silly

Anyway, I went throughout and removed the Exiled column. That only a (very) few characters had actual content in them convinced merit was the right decision. I placed footnotes listing the regular franchise characters who appeared.

One other thought on the charts. I know that these have quickly become standard style across many TV series articles (which means these comments have implications across many articles beyond this one). There is one thing, however, that bugs me about the colors: the use of red to indicate a guest or recurring character.

Firstly, because red means "no", not "sometimes". It doesn't properly convey the correct meaning, especially if there's no key to indicate the meaning of the colors.

And there could be access issues for those who are colorblind. Note that where the red and green cells on a chart convention is used, it's always accompanied by text in the cell indicating a negative.

So what I propose is that we replace the red background with a yellow one, similar to the color coordinate FFFF99. As I mentioned above, this would affect more than just this page. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Don't you feel silly" - Realising he will be in SVU - Yes, I feel very silly haha :D I tend to agree with you, red does seem a little "no" type of colour. Yellow is hardly used in the article, and does not really have a "yes" or "no" meaning to it. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

1000th Episode of the franchise
Didn't they hallmark it in any way? RobiH (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify? — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 08:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did they advertise, communicate or celebrate it in any way as being the 1000th episode of the franchise? RobiH (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. We're not going around and saying "oh look, this is the 1000th episode!" or anything like that. It's simply says that 1000 episodes of the franchise have aired; next episode of SVU that airs, will be 1001, then 1002, and so on. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 12:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an example of how a 1000th episode of a show is usually being hallmarked. I don't see, why L&O would be an exception to this rule. RobiH (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't exactly find one of those. Problem? — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It simply is not official. If it is not official, it simply didn't happen. RobiH (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be, because the episodes exist; their airdates exist - it's 1,000 episodes - each added together. Oh, and what's this:  ? — Mel bourne Star  ☆ talk 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having done this without citing an external reference. RobiH (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to apologise - the episode having aired, is enough. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 13:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Law & Order: Trial by Jury
In the Series Overview the first (and only) season of Law & Order: trial by Jury is in the 2005-2006 TV-Season, but the first 12 Episodes aired from March to May 2005, which is in the 2004-2005 TV-Season. Only the last episode aired in January 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affe 37,5 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Affe 37,5 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding an overall airdate to the title card
The first ever Law & Order franchise episode aired on September 13, 1990, so should we add underneath Original work (or anywhere you think it fits) the airdate of the whole franchise? (being September 13, 1990-present) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.233.77 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Character/Cast table
Regarding your changes to the cast table: I've undone said changes based on the following reasons:
 * It neglects to mention character occupations. The current table does.
 * It carries incorrect credit/"appearance" figures. For example: Casey Novak, is credited in 113 episodes. Whilst she does not appear in all of those episodes – she is still credited in said episodes. Therefore, that negates the figure of 106, which was added to the table you created.
 * You did not explain your edits at all. Please use an edit summary to explain to the community what exactly you are doing.

Should you reinstate said table, please make sure it rectifies the said issues above. Regards, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 02:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Law & Order: UK (again)
UK has been referred to widely in the press as a spin-off, its an English language series, and is exec. produced by Wolf. There is little-to-no indication that its considered a foreign adaption (apart from some *very* early press releases pertaining to Law & Order: London. Is there any opposition to adding UK to the franchise section? It seems that the only argument for leaving it out is that it is not American, which is a very US-centric POV. --Unframboise (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It had no crossovers/guest appearances with other series (in either direction; no UK characters on US series, nor US characters on UK), UK wasn't produced by NBC Studios, and most importantly, the scripts were adapted from scripts from the original US series. That last part is why it's specifically an adaptation, because the the scripts were adapted, just like the French and Russian series adapted US scripts as well. If it were in any other language, like those series, there'd be no question as to UK's status as an adaptation. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Concurr with . UK is an adaption of L&O. The name, characters, format etc. are based on L&O which therefore negates the idea that they are somehow within in the same franchise. Also, might I add, we have 2 Russian and 1 French adaption – do you believe these adaptions are apart of the franchise? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Crossover
From what I have seen in the past few hours is a disagreement on what dictates a crossover and what dictates as an actor participating in the crossover. I feel that in order for an actor to be listed as participating in that crossover, they need to be a former, future, or current main cast member. The Jo section is not a crossover as the actress was not a main cast member on criminal intent and that she was not even playing the same character from criminal intent as the episode states that although her fingerprints match nicole wallace's, the DNA does not (the logic for this can be debated for a different discussion). So therefore even though the episode explains Wallace's backstory, Olivia d'Abo does not play nicole in the episode so it does not count as a crossover and therefore the section will be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty16 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The series in question (Jo) has been listed as a crossover series on this page for upwards of two years - this would suggest that there is an unspoken consensus that it exists within the Law & Order universe. Yesterday, I simply moved the series from a prose section to a table section - keeping the same wording and information - for clarity. Upon seeing this, you removed it, and claimed that it had to stay removed until a consensus was reached to the contrary - despite an existing status quo. I will be restoring this information, and you can feel free to remove it once a consensus has been reached. There is no ownership on wikipedia, so you stating that "the section will be taken out", without any agreement on support, means absolutely nothing. --Unframboise (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no question as to whether it takes place in the same universe. However, for the reasons i have stated it is not a crossover as no characters from criminal intent appear in the episode. I have gone on your talk page to see if anyone has talked to you about it. someone did and you perceived to remove his comment with out responding. It seems you have no interest in resolving this so i ask that you please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty16 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be patronising. The person who "talked to [me] about it" was you editing from an IP. The same IP you keep using accidentally on here. This isn't my issue. This episode has been listed as a crossover for THREE years, you can't just unilaterally remove it because you don't think it counts. Its been listed here for THREE years. --Unframboise (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)