Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters/Archive 1

Editing Needed
This article really needs a judicious amount of editing. Verb tense keeps changing from past to present and back again, and there are many other editing issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.127.27 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge?
Rebecca Hendrix is a notable enough character with enough references to justify some kind of inclusion in at least a list or at least as a redirect with edit history intact per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. She is, according to one source, the actresss who portrayed her's most notable role and she appeared in episodes in three seasons of an award-winning and decently rated mainstream television show. Clearly some of our readers and editors see use in coming here looking for information on her. Thus, we should be able to at worst agree on a compromise that we at least cover here in the character list and have a redirect with edit history intact. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose and this should be taken to the AfD not attempted WHILE it is going on. She is not a notable character at all. One mention of her being in the series is ridiculous, and that source does not say anything about it being her "most notable" role anywhere, just "maybe" he most well known (and seriously, do you actually think that's a realistic statement considering her lengthy career before that? I'd imagine one could very easily find multiple reliable sources saying otherwise, particularly with the awards she won for other roles before that). It is a minor character, no matter how famous the actress is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * She is a notable character by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. She is verified through reliable sources and had multiple appearances on a major show. Our editors and readers want to come here to learn about her. We don't need much more than that. There is no reason not to at worst mention this notable character in a character list that is hardly unwieldly. There is no reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT not to at least have her included in the character list and with a redirect with edit history intact. That is beyond a fair and reasonable compromise. Finally, some five day AFD is not some kind of binding court of law that prevents editors for editing and in any event WP:IAR as deleting the articles prevents us from improving this article per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Having one line in the article acknowledging her and redirect is hardly anything to cause any problems for. She is a recurring character in a major show that editors and readers believe worthwhile.  Three or four editors in some snapshot in time AfD thinking otherwise hardly reflects what the community actually wants here.  Why not meet half way?  I think and those who created and come here for the article think it should be kept outright.  A much smaller minority think it should be redlinked, which really is supposed to be a last resort.  We should be able to compromise and say, okay, well let's at least give her a line in the character list and redirect.  And in any event, I would be happy to help work on this article to bring it to DYK or Good status.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, she is not a notable character. A character that appears 2-3 times in a 219 episode series is NOT notable. Just saying "she appeared" is NOT isgnificant coverage. Viewers of the articles is irrelevant. And no, this is NOT a "fair or reasonable compromise" as she doesn't belong here. No such character is included in ANY quality character list period, so there is no reason to shove it in here now. And please don't start the WP:IDONTLIKEIT or those other things you like to throw around as if they are applicable 100% of the time, because it has nothing to do with anything. Consensus at this point is clearly to delete, not redirect, not merge, because it is such a minor character. And no, BEFORE nor PRESERVE have nothing to do with it either. There is nothing of value to preserve. Her appearances are already well documented in the episode lists, which is the only place it belongs. Nor is there anything to improve or attempt to improve for such a ridiculously minor character. And please don't make me lose respect for you by starting to mouth the same crap DreamFocus does. Ugh. Consensus is clear, whether y'all like to meet it or not. Attempting to run around it like this by not even suggesting "merge" in the AfD instead of trying to sneakily doing it is rather low, and I'd frankly expect better from you. And just because it was created doesn't mean it should be kept. Heck, people create hoax articles all the time...so because some other people edit it means it should be kept? That's ridiculous. And no, there will be no line, no redirect, etc unless the AfD closes as such. Thanks fro the offer, but the help isn't really needed. This is a recent split from a larger, horrendous list. Just working on the formatting and adding in the proper summaries from the character articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, she is a notable character for a wikipedia as she is one of only a handful of such characters that have that many reappearances in a notable show and she does not have just 2-3 appearances, but at least 5 across three seasons. Viewers of the article is relevant per Editors matter. These viewers come here for this verifiable information and become editors and donors. Consensus based on strength and validity of arguments is clearly to redirect. No one provides any real reason why we would not redirect; the fact that other people exist with the same name is a call to create a disambiguation page or arguable write a new article should there be a more notable person with this name, but not to outright red link. There is not reason why we would not WP:PRESERVE this information in some manner. It is not a hoax, not libel, nor a copy vio. It is however information that far more of our readers and editors than who have commented in the AfD find valuable. Just because three or four editors think she is minor doesn't make it so when a far greater number of editors and readers find it worth their time to work on her article and/or read it. If we cover her, we have everything to gain, we gain nothing from deleting it; in fact doing so just makes us that much less useful as a reference tool. We should not remove citable information once it is clear that it does have worth to a segment of our community. Finally, please do not make any digs at other editors, i.e. DreamFocus above. You will note that while I strongly disagree and am not exactly fans of various editors, there is no need to call them out or personalize things. We should be able to disagree without personalizing things. And again, AfDs are not some kind of contract with a deity, binding resolution that prevents us from improving articles if information exists in them that we can use. If we realize that we can benefit from using information, then that matters far more than strict adherence to some procedure. And in this case, I believe quite strongly that the character by being unique in the sense of her recurring role is worth at least a line and redirect with edit history intact. And that should be a fair and acceptable compromise. Believe me, I would rather we keep the separate article, but I am happy to meet you at this point instead. By the way, I have transwikied the article, but still think it should be covered here in some capacity as well. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 18:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't make a dig at him, but at his extreme philosophies and irrelevant arguments in discussions that basically continues to say "dismiss all the guidelines and policies cause I don't like them". There is no consensus to redirect Hendrix article. Consensus based on the arguments is very clearly to simply delete it. Viewers run around looking for illegal content, but we don't put that here either (nor do we point them to where to find it). An extreme example, but would you argue we should include examples of Child Pornography just because it has thousands of hits to its article? I doubt it. Same reason applies here, we don't include excessive, minute plot detail just because its viewed. Consensus is binding, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it in an AfD or elsewhere. Consensus is very clear that a minor character such as this should not be covered in a list. "Merging" or redirecting here would be pointless. If/When the list is prepped for featured list status, it would be one of the first things removed as irrelevant and pointless. So why put it in there at all? Now, hopefully on some of the merges I've done, which are short appearing, but more major characters, we can agree that the merging is good and the coverage fine I pretty much merged their entire article in the spirit of compromise, except of the course the infoboxes which don't belong in lists and doing some grammar/prose clean ups. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * His philosophies as far as I can tell are hardly extreme or irrelevant; they are just what you disagree with. And truth be told far more editors and users have worked on and come here to read the articles under discussion here, so wanting to keep it is the majority opinion.  Consensus based on the arguments is very clearly to redirect it.  Comparing an article concerning a character from a major franchise played by a mainstream actress for which reliable sources exist with child pornography is apples and oranges, red herring, etc.  A merge is hardly excessive, minute plot details, rather just acknowledging in this list one of only a handful of recurring characters, this one particular notable character.  There is no consensus not to include this character in the list.  A handful of editors don't think we should have a separate article, but there is no real reason to redlink.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to add the character either. If there were, people would be saying merge or redirect in the AfD, not delete. At this point, only you and DF feel the character should be kept in any way. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly true, as others have indeed called for at least a redirect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, okay 1 said redirect, to the main article which has never had a mention of her at all. Anyway, I think its clear we aren't going to agree here, so I have followed the appropriate "dispute resolution" steps by posting at the Television project to request additional views on this topic. Hopefully this will help bring more people to the discussion, as this is a new article and unlikely to be heavily watched by anyone else. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My feeling here is User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and I am always happy for a discussion with greater participation. Let's work to notify everyone who worked on the article of both the AfD and this discussion.  Is there a merge notification template?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its already been noted in the AfD when it first started. Nor is there any need to post a notification to every talk page every IP, etc that worked on the Hendrix article. Indeed, no one has even edited it in any real sense since it was tagged for notability in 2008, and a SPA account that also spammed the main SVU article rewrote it to add in all those inappropriate TV.com links back in 07. Those who did and are still interested will see the notice on the article itself. If there is a merge notification template, I'm not aware of it.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We should at least be sure that the article creatore and main contributors are at least aware of the AfD. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The creator was notified at the time the AfD was filed (Twinkle does this automatically) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about how the GFDL across wikis works, but is the edit summary at here sufficient attribution? I figure my "merge" here doesn't matter much, because I basically merged the reference I added to the article anyway, so no real concern if myself is not attributed, but what about with transwikiying?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather insulting of you. Didn't we agree you'd leave me alone? And what I state is not crap, but the facts as any reasonable and open minded person could see it. If you don't like the article, you aren't likely to find your way there to begin with, unless you were just looking for something to delete. You don't help the wikipedia by destroying articles that someone might find interesting. It is not a hoax, nor spam, nor anything you'd have a reason to get rid of. There is no shortage of space on the wikipedia, so no reason characters can't have their own pages if there is enough information to warrant it. And how can you loose respect for someone, when you never had it to begin with for anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view of things? Now go and protest and distort things, rewriting history and filing complaints as you always do. You seem to quickly fall into the same pattern time and time again.  D r e a m Focus  19:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And no, admins agreed you need to leave ME alone. You don't help Wikipedia by trying to keep unnotable topics here when they are not appropriate topics. Space has nothing to do with it. This is not a fansite, its an encyclopedia. And I do have plenty of respect for A Nobody, and others I don't also agree with. So don't question my motivations. Don't refactor my comments again. And I won't waste my time with "filing complaints" as you aren't worth the effort, so long as you don't attempt to be disruptive.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't refactor anything. Someone else posted the same time I did or something.  All I did was post my reply, not change anything at all.  Odd wikipedia error.   D r e a m Focus  19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No one edit conflicted with you at all. So not a Wikipedia error. Perhaps you just weren't paying attention and accidentally deleted it...selectively...along with A Nobody's reply. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And why exactly would I do that? That makes absolutely no sense at all.  I see a few words edited also, he probably doing that when he posted his response, as he can verify.  It was clearly an error.  Wikipedia usually says "someone has posted a new reply, edit conflict" or something like that, and then lets you edit your text.  That didn't happen this time.   D r e a m Focus  19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the history, no one posted 1 hr, 22 minutes before you did. No one posted until 3 minutes after you, me restoring the comments. There was no edit conflict. We will just call it a mistake, perhaps you were trying to highlight something to copy or the like and deleted it instead, but its clear it was not a software error. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know very well I did not change the word "that" to "her" in a section I hadn't even read yet. It was an error, wikipedia making them sometimes.  I had no possible reason to delete anything, and certainly not to replace a word.  I did not highlight anything.  The software has bugs in it, I usually do not.   D r e a m Focus  20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any way that this is a Wikipedia "glitch" or "bug". pablo hablo. 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See this? That change was apparently reverted, as was the one before that followed.  Check both edits.  A third edit was also reverted .  How exactly can three edits made at different times, by two different editors, be reverted all at once, while at the same time I posted my addition?  If someone had clicked revert, it'd show up in the history, unless someone was able to clear their history somehow.  Its clearly a bug.  I surely didn't go through the history, pick three edits at random, and undo all the text exactly just before posting.  That'd make no sense at all.  The edited text is exactly as it would be if three edits were reverted.  Bugs happen, there is no other logical conclusion here.   D r e a m Focus  03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors know the difference between glitches and mischievous editing. Jack Merridew 03:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I guess you must not be an experienced editor. Honestly now.  Why would I undo one edit which did nothing but change the word "her" to "that", then undo two other edits, including one from someone who agrees with me?  That doesn't make any sense.  Click on the links, and see.  Stop all these ridiculous bad faith accusations.   D r e a m Focus  12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were editing an old version of the page. Or there may be another reason, but it does look like a problem with the organic end of your interface. pablo hablo. 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on. That makes sense now that I check.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_characters&diff=281932247&oldid=281931806 is where I was contacted to look at something, and perhaps I edited from there, instead of checking for a newer version.  Alright then.  My fault.  Should've made sure it was the most recent version of the article before editing.  It surely was not done on purpose, that making no sense at all.   D r e a m Focus  12:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merges of Unnotable Characters
Kim Greylek was merged to this article over a month ago, after having no demonstrable notability (as shown by actual, reliable, third-party sources giving the CHARACTER significant coverage) and being tagged as such since March. This was done during the AfD of another minor character which closed as merge. User:Redfarmer has now objected to this merge and undone it. Below is the discussion from that article's talk page, which I am moving here to ensure the issue gets proper attention, and to have a central place to discuss any more he objects to.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has already been merged to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters. Not content was lost. Kim Greylek is not a notable fictional character. She has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Merge was conducted as part of creation of the list and under the watchful eyes of several editors. Coming in a month later to argue about it when the article was tagged for notability issues for a month BEFORE the merge was done without providing actual evidence of notability seems to be rather inane. Please provide evidence of her actual, real world notability or restore the redirect. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied from Talk:Kim Greylek
 * Consensus in the past has been that if a character has appeared in the opening credits of a TV show (i.e. they are regulars and contracted for a certain number of episodes), they are notable. See Articles for deletion/Nicolas Falco.


 * Nevertheless, if you insist on "real-world" notability, I direct you |here, where a slew of articles discuss both her arrivial on the show, replacement by Stephanie March, and subsequent departure, more than enough to write a pretty good stub. No doubt as the season finale nears, this number will increase, especially if she is the character to be killed off by the serial killer. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A slew of articles on Michaela McManus is NOT showing significant coverage of the character. Please actually point to significant, real-world coverage in specific sources for the character Kim Greyleck. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles are on McManus joining the show, taking a hiatus, and leaving the show as Greylek which are all related to the real world. The only articles in this search not related are regarding her role on One Tree Hill. Redfarmer (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point made, the WP:GNG coverage of McManus is overbearingly in direct relationship of and pertaining to the character Kim Greylek, giving the character the WP:GNG coverage required.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Redfarmer's reasoning is significantly flawed, to me. There is no consensus that says that a character appearing in the opening credits is instantly notable enough for their own article. There is no guideline nor policy supporting this idea. The standard of notability has always been: "significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources"; for characters, this means coverage of the characters, not a bunch of a news stories about the actress who portrayed her that mention the role in passing. Further, these merges all have consensus, already, at the TV project as they were discussed as part of the issue of cleaning this up. As such, I feel that a new consensus is needed to resplit out these articles, otherwise the merge should be restored. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you think my reasoning is flawed or not, you really are refusing to acknowledge this is NOT an uncontroversial matter, which you should have realized by now. Your own attempt to outright delete the Nick Falco article was met not with a consensus of merge but with a consensus of keep based on sources added to the articles during the AfD--and he only had five appearances in the entire run of the show! Further more, I have showed you articles similar to those that are now in the Falco article and it took me adding proper reference tags to the article and removing the merge tag since you hadn't responded for two weeks to get you to respond. The only other user who has responded agrees with me, yet you treat this like I'M the one committing a unilateral action on the encyclopedia. As long as you continue to assert that this is not a controversial matter, it seems we'll have no further common ground to discuss this on, and I suggest you start a request for comment. P.S. I may not be able to respond to anything you say right away because I have company this weekend. Redfarmer (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, insinuations of me maliciously removing merge tags in the edit history don't bode well for AGF. You're right...I did remove the merge tag...at the same time I removed it from the Kim Greylek article as you had not responded in two weeks, which is a reasonable time to expect to hear something...anything from you. If you wish to insinuate that I removed it to keep people from knowing about the proposed merge, you better be able to back that up with some facts. Otherwise, I don't appreciate you leaving insinuating edit histories like that. It seems, judging by the discussion above, as if this is not the first time you have made uncouth comments regarding an editor's behavior. Redfarmer (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind. Either I didn't respond after "one week" or now "two weeks" (obviously, of course, it was really around one). And yes, at this point you are still only one editor (MSQ dropped in with a single comment), against the consensus that was established when the merge occurred MONTHS ago. What happened a single, seriously flawed AfD is not relevant to the discussion. Another similar AfD on a similar character closed as a merge, as noted above. And if we're going to throw around that card, the one above is more valid as it is at least in the same series. Again, these merges were done months ago, with consensus and discussion. You alone wanting to undo them does not mean they should be undone, and you are basically trying to claim that your personal view overrides the existing consensus, which is of course incorrect. The merges were done completely in-line with all policies and guidelines, while your bold reversal was not as you did not follow BRD after it was reverted. Rather than discuss why you felt it should be resplit, you undid the merge and refused to allow consensus to stand. And, as a note, I have left a comment at the Television project asking for more comments. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm done discussing this with you. If you cannot see there are a significant number of users who disagree with you (which I can acknowledge there are a significant number of users who disagree with me), I have no further reason to discuss with you, especially in light of the fact that, rather than apologize for an uncivil edit history regarding me, you decided to debate whether it was one week or two. I will not respond to you here anymore unless another editor makes a comment one way or the other and any attempt to take unilateral action will result in a complaint from me and a RFC started. I'm not trying to edit war but you've provided no evidence you discussed this matter at all before you did it besides a now deleted talk page on Kim Greylek that featured one comment, which opposed you and you ignored. Redfarmer (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One user is NOT a significant number of users. Two users is NOT a significant number. You don't get to extrapolate one AfD's discussions to this discussion. No one has complained about these merges for over two months, until you did. I'm sorry if you find it insulting, but again, you are NOT a significant number of users. If you want to threaten to complain and file RfCs, fine. I don't really care. The merge was done per consensus. I have, attempted, to address your concerns through discussion and by not reverting your undoing of the merge again, though my actions would be more valid than yours in continuing to unmerge it. As noted, the discussions on these merges occurred in the Television project talk page, which is a perfectly acceptable discussion forum. They were done through consensus, not on the opinion of a single editor. The talk page was not deleted, it was simply removed from the project. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD's consensus is perfectly valid discussion here when the reason you wanted to delete that article is the exact same reason you want to merge here. And no, I didn't know there was ever a discussion on the Television project talk page as you never told me nor did you ever link the discussion. And finally, as I've said before, just because I was largely inactive for a month does not mean I cannot object to a seemingly unilateral action I disagree with. I unmerged the article all of one time and, when you undid my action, brought it to discussion to avoid an edit war. Like I said, I'm done. You seem to be doing your damndest to paint all my actions negatively and I really don't need that. Redfarmer (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's a term for one or two people objecting to an action: no consensus to take that action. Redfarmer (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Its a different series, different character, and different topic. By that argument, would you say that every last character on Wikipedia should instantly be given their own article because one single character was kept? I'd certainly hope not. It was noted weeks ago that the merge was done by consensus, but you never seemed to notice that and continued declaring this was a unilateral action despite my repeatedly stating otherwise. And no, if two people disagree with an action that had consensus, the result is that there is no consensus to undo that action not that two people get to change consensus. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re your "official warning" on my talk page: You have no right nor authority to demand I stop participating in this discussion, nor is your warning valid unless you give one to yourself first. You start this whole issue on a hostile, bad-faith foot by presuming the merge was done on a whim, despite being told otherwise. Your very first edit summary when you undid the merge was snarky and snippy, and then you followed up with bad faith accusations rather than asking from the get go for the discussion history. So do not complain when others respond in kind. Now, you want to drop the attitude, I'm happy to do so as well. It really adds nothing to the conversation. As requested, here is the link to the original discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 10, and before you ask, no, specific individual articles were not named, just a general note that it was needed. Two editors there made notes, and the project as a whole was kept abreast of the situation and free to comment at any time. Further, due to the Hendrix AfD occurring at the same time, there were many eyes on the article at the time. Hendrix closed as a merge, and during that discussion, it was suggested even that ALL of the characters be merged. Note that I disagreed with that few, as clearly some are very notable in the real world (Benson, Munch, Stabler, etc). You also never ever answered my original question to you. Considering that absolutely NO information was lost in the merge, what is your real objection? Its the same information, in a better form (grammatically speaking), and in a list rather than standalone. For those curious about the series as a whole, they save a click to find out she was a short lived character. For those searching purely for her, they are still brought straight to her section. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one asked you not to participate in this discussion. I was trying to politely ask you to leave me alone as you've been uncivil until a third party could come in and offer an opinion since you are repeating the same things over and over again in each of your replies and it is obvious we will not see eye to eye. You do not seem to understand how uncivil you are coming across and I was trying to defuse the situation off this discussion, but I can see you insist on bringing it here. Furthermore, I've searched the television project's talk page archives and the only relevant discussion I could find includes no discussion of merging main character articles. The closest thing I could find was a user who stated, "Merging recurring (not main) characters is always a good idea when the articles consist of pure plot..." which is far from an endorsement of merging main character articles. Furthermore, the idea of having a discussion on a WikiProject regarding the fate of an article without even courtesy notification on said article is highly inappropriate. Strange enough, I do agree with you that Rebecca Hendrix should have been deleted or merged...she was not a regular character and was only brought in as a guest star to replace B.D. Wong in a few episodes. And you're the one arguing that an unrelated AfD has no bearing on the current discussion (despite the fact that Falco's article was kept and it had the same reasoning you are giving for Greylek's) so you can't have it both ways. My objection is I do believe main characters are notable, as sources that show their notability almost always exist, as I have proven with Nick Falco once and have linked to with Kim Greylek for you. I now believe more than ever that you made all of these merges unilaterally with no proper discussion and have exaggerated the truth when you said there was consensus to merge the articles. I maintain that, had the proper channels been taken, no such merge would have ever happened.Redfarmer (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, for the record, I do not even see references to any other SVU article on the Hendrix AfD. Also, my edit summary was "Excuse me, this is not an uncontroversial move. Some discussion might be nice." Since there was no courtesy notice on the talk page, no discussion on the talk page save for a note you made with a single comment that disagreed with you, and no link in your edit summary for any discussion relevant to the merging of the article nor any indication the discussion ever happened, it is not unreasonable to assume that there was no discussion. Further, I do apologize about the comment I made on your talk page accusing you of deleting the talk page; I know you never did that now but someone did delete the talk page and I thought I had seen your name attached to it. However, that does not change the fact that the discussion there only had one response disagree with you, which makes it not unreasonable to assume it was a unilateral decision. And there was enough ambiguity in your actions that another unrelated user seemed to agree with my assessment and reverted your changes saying my request was not unreasonable. I am initiating a RFC below since you have provided no evidence and seem determined to revert the article anyways. Redfarmer (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECx100) MS is not an "unrelated user", he is from ARS and one of the few who wanted to keep Hendrix. An objection made by one unrelated user (you, not him) over a month after the merge happened is not a good basis for undoing it. The merge stood that long under many eyes. I'm not going to respond to the bad faith remarks made above, but will instead repeat my earlier question. You said "I do believe main characters are notable" - this is a statement of personal believe, not a verifiable fact by Wikipedia standards nor in keeping with Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines and policies. In truth, most main characters of series are not notable and do not "deserve" their own articles. Nor is she a "main" character in any real sense just because she was stuck in the credits for a bit. She was a very short lived replacement of an actual main character. As no content was lost in the merge, I ask again why you continue to object to it at all. It would be one thing if the original article was five pages of plot and it was lost, but it was not. It was a short, pointless stub summarizing her role in the series. It was tweaked for grammar and merged in whole. Despite this very lengthy discussion between the two of us, not a single bit of notability for this specific character has been actually shown to support an argument that the article should be resplit. No one has produced reliable sources discussing this character in a significant fashion, shown significant coverage of reception and creation/conception (two must haves for any character article), etc. If you feel she is notable, the onus is on you to prove it through actual sourcing, not personal belief. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked to articles that discuss her in a simple Google News search. If you do not agree that this is sufficient, then that is your prerogative and you should wait for the RfC below to take its course. But please do not say I have provided nothing. I have provided evidence that I believe is sufficient based on other prior cases. If I am wrong, the RFC will find me wrong. However, the fact is it now seems more evident than ever that no discussion ever happened regarding the merge so that is what I am attempting to do now: start discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to Google news results is not evidence, nor do any of those seen provide significant discussion of the CHARACTER (noting who played her is not significant discussion nor even necessary to cite). Again, please point to specific references that actually show shie is notable. Whether you agree with the existing discussion or feel it was inadequate does not mean it didn't take place. You are the one who now needs to wait for the RfC to decide is the merge should be undone, rather than arguing against the standing consensus. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should Kim Greylek and Chester Lake be merged in List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters or are they notable enough for their own articles?
Are Kim Greylek and Chester Lake notable enough for their own articles as main characters in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or should they be merged to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters? See discussion for evidence regarding notability. Redfarmer (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Relevant evidence regarding Kim Greylek's notability here. Also relevant is a recent AfD in which Nick Falco, a character on the original Law & Order, was found to be notable by a majority of users despite the assertion that he was not notable for the same reasons user is claiming Kim Greylek is not notable. Also, would suggest anyone responding familiarize themselves with the almost entirely two way conversation that has been going on above. Redfarmer (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, a side issue is that the user claims she has consensus to merge the articles but has not provided any discussions directly relevant to said merging and continually keeps redoing the merge. Only discussion provided thus far was regarding the cleanup of the Law & Order characters list article, which stated from a user they should merge all recurring characters and specifically said "but not main characters," as Greylek and Lake both are. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BS, the discussions were linked above. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the merge stands until there is consensus to resplit or undo the merge, not one user can disagree with it and undo it well after the fact. Nor is Greylek a main character. Other side issue is Redfarmer's continued bad faith claims, which are not conducive to any legitimate discussion. If the only way one can "win" is by attacking the other party, one only shows how weak their position is. I have argued my case based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, while he continues to attack the process and the person rather than provide evidence to prove his point.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then point them out right now to me. Please, by all means. I genuinely want to see them, and this is not an attempt at sarcasm. The only link I've seen are the Wikiproject discussion, which I link above. I am not trying to "win" by accusing you of bad faith. I am simply trying to make sure this is what most users want. Is it so hard for you to assume the best that I just want to see discussion, which is what I've been telling you all along? I just want to see opinions besides mine and yours, which I still have not seen. I kept the accusation that you were being uncivil off this talk page. You're the one who brought it here. I do not assume the worst in you. I believe you genuinely want to do what's best for the project. The fact that you have so many good articles and featured articles under your belt is proof of that. I just disagree with you. Redfarmer (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the question is are they notable enough to resplit from the character list, per WP:N, as both were merged to the list more than a month ago with no disagreements until now. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a disagreement. In fact, the only user who responded was in disagreement. And the time period in which I am now responding to it is irrelevant to this RFC. Redfarmer (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there was not. One user disagreeing is not enough to overturn. You have no consensus to resplit the article, as such, the current state is what stands, not your preferred version. And yes the time period is relevant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering you have yet to provide a discussion where this actually took place, even after I point blankly above ask you to link to such discussions, and considering no one else has stepped forward to discuss this, I would say I'm within my rights to protest the fact that you merged the article to begin with. It really looks as if the only person who wants it merged is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfarmer (talk • contribs) 03:39, June 14, 2009
 * Considering you have yet to provide consensus to resplit the articles, and the links have already been provided to you repeatedly, yes you can protest all you want, but a protest of one is not enough to overturn. You are, in fact, the only one to actually protest after such a lengthy time, and considering your protest has no real merit nor argument beyond pointing to some other article, I see no reason to split. Even after this RfC and all this time, no one has come to support your position.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor characters?
Just thought up a few characters that aren't on here. Just thought I'd bring them up. StryyderG (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Defense attorney Oliver Gates played by Barry Bostwick - Not sure why he's not on the attorney list. I'd put him up but I don't remember his air dates and can't access IMDB from work.
 * Judge Oliver Taft played by Tom Skerritt - Only in one episode in season 5 (Poison) so I don't know if he should be on the judge list, but I figured I'd mention him.
 * FBI Agent Dana "Star" Lewis played by Marcia Gay Harden - Pretty significant role between season 7 ep Raw and early season 8.
 * Former Attorney/Judge Mary Conway Clark played by Marlo Thomas - One of Novak's mentors and featured in a few eps (Poison being one).

Sr/Jr Detectives
Where, anywhere does it say some detectives are senior and some are junior? C T J F 8 3 chat 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good question, and I wonder why the note was left on the article. This is the best answer that Google can find. Clicky It seems plausible, but probably not reliable.  I guest who ever left the hidden note is no longer active.  Mike   Allen  21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you're the one that reverted me! I assumed you had a good reason other than the note.  C T J F 8 3  chat 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The note said "Current consensus is that Olivia Benson is a junior detective. If you have evidence otherwise, please comment on the talk page or your edit will be reverted." :P  I think it's time for new consensus.   Mike   Allen  19:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I don't think we should have any sr/jr listed, as in all the episodes i've seen, they never mention that. Your thoughts? We may need outside input.  C T J F 8 3  chat 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A WP:RfC?  Mike   Allen  19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, or first do you think it should be kept or removed?  C T J F 8 3  chat 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It seems plausible that this is the case but I don't recall Oliva's history prior of SVU.  I know Eliot was a police officer long before SVU (a la Jo Marlowe).  I can't remember 240+ episodes. lol  But I don't see it in reliable sources that she is a Junior, so yes I think she should be removed under "Jr".  Do you think replacing Sr./Jr. with a "Partner" column would be better?  Mike   Allen  04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hhhhmmmmm....Olivia and Stabler aren't partners 100% of the time, but with the 95%+, I think that is ok to do.  C T J F 8 3  chat 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you want to word partner? Do Fin and Munch get partner status too?  C T J F 8 3  chat 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it ever been stated that Fin is a Sr. detective?  Mike  Allen  05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of anyone refered to sr or jr detective.  C T J F 8 3  chat 06:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * During season 1, Benson and Cassidy were very clearly referred to as being juniors as early as the first episode, working under Stabler and Munch as their senior detectives. As Jeffries and Tutuola were replacements for Cassidy, they would also qualify as juniors. Things have become a little murky admittedly in the last few seasons, especially since Lake's joining the squad and quickly departing. Redfarmer (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you for or against sr/jr?  C T J F 8 3  chat 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for, if for no other reason than organization and precedent established in the show. Redfarmer (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Judges
If nobody objects, I'm going to add a 'notes' section to the judges to note the ones who have been murdered throughout the show.

Also, several judges say that they're from xxxx-2010, while one judge says xxxx-present. Is this intentional or an error? 69.106.238.139 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a "Judge" missing. Alan Dale as Judge Koehler from 2009 "Liberties" The episode with- 'a tyrant will find a pretext for his tyranny' Dcrasno (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TVGuidePattonADAVon": From List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes:  From Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Garrett Blaine - Executive ADA
I have placed Garrett Blaine as well as Sonya Paxton into a seperate list from 'ADAs' because they are not Assistant District Attorney's but they are Executive Assistant District Attorney's. There is a difference, they are considered second in command, DA's first, EADA's can hire staff, etc.

It is crystal clear that Sonya Paxton is an EADA, as it mentions it in her first episode, but with Garret Blaine it is not as clear. Here is diologue below, from the episode he was in (ep.17 Disabled - season 11):
 * Cragen: "You find me a replacement for Alex Cabot?"
 * Blaine: "Still Looking. Stuck with me for now."

^Executive ADA's and DA's are only allowed to hire staff not ADA's. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Munch.
Removed this line: "If Belzer continues the role through the fourteenth season of SVU, he will claim the title of longest running character portrayed by the same actor in television history."

Could have just added a cn. But it's a little crystal ball at the moment... plus it's clearly not true.


 * Corination Street:
 * Kenneth "Ken" Barlow played by William Roache. He is the only remaining character from the first episode of the series in 1960, having appeared in it continuously from its inception.
 * The Bill:
 * Graham Cole played PC Tony Stamp from 1984–2009.
 * Jeff Stewart played PC Reg Hollis from 1984–2008.
 * Trudie Goodwin played Sergeant June Ackland from 1983 to 2007.
 * Mark Wingett played DS Jim Carver from 1983 to 2005.

That's just UK shows that spring instantly to mind. Other shows in other countries could have examples. When it comes time "American television" and probably "primne-time" will need to be added. And more likely in the Munch article than here. 124.186.190.42 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Munch hasn't been in every episode.

Photo's for Characters
I would like to upload a picture for each ADA that has their own section in this article. Not the temporary ADA's but the ones that are in the ADA section. I will then do the same for detectives, and so on... Here is the first -- EADA Sonya Paxton. thumb|Executive Assistant District Attorney Sonya Paxton ([[Christine Lahti)]] I would like your honest opinions. I really want something to work out. Thank You :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This usage violates WP:NFLISTS. We do not permit per character depictions like this. It's wholly unnecessary, and fails WP:NFCC #8 as well as #3. The images used here to portray police characters all have their own articles, with an image there. The images you used here did not have rationales added to them for the use here, so even if they didn't violate WP:NFLISTS, they would still be in violation of WP:NFCC #10c. For the other image uses, the most any of these characters has appeared in the series is in 4 episodes. The series has in excess of 250 episodes. By any definition, these are minor characters. (it would appear the episode credits are completely wrong in the article)) We do not need an image for each character in order for the reader here to understand the subject material. Lastly, we already have a case photo from one of the seasons at the top of the article. This is pretty standard practice. I've removed all of the images but the cast photo, which caused five of them to be orphaned, making them subject to deletion. Please do not re-add them to the article. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "it would appear the episode credits are completely wrong in the article" - Would not know where you pulled that from, anyway, I have removed subject for deletion on the image, the image already is currently still in use on the Casey Novak article, under fair use rights (simmilar to previous pictures in that article). "This is pretty standard practice" - Maybe if you have been on Wikipedia for years, or you have uploaded many pictures etc. Many editors, inc. me, have only been here for a few months.
 * Sorry for the trouble. Any other issues, feel free to take them up with me. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 07:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done the same for the image of Alexandra Cabot. It is now being used as the infobox image for Alexandra Cabot.
 * Images Sonya Paxton, Jo Marlowe and Kim Grelek have been added to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 10) and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Obviously alowed, have a look at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12). In Kim Greylek's case, she was a main cast member. In Sonya Paxton's case she was featured in 7 episodes as Special Guest Star...She was the main focuss point in most of those episodes esp. in episodes "Hammered", "Gray" & "Pursuit". In Jo Marlowe's case her character is known for being Elliot Stabler's partner, 4 years before Olivia Benson. Problems or issues, feel free to discuss on my talk page. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See discussion here about the non-free images being added to the season 11 page. Also please note that all the images on the season 12 page are free. — Mike   Allen   08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Except for the infobox image (which probably doesn't need to be included.. but that may be a different discussion). — Mike   Allen   08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast Table
Jane Rizzoli (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, Mariska is due to continue as the lead for 13 episodes (more than half the season, probably with the "starring" credit, before being in a reduced capacity, but still appearing in the remaining 9 episodes, I think it would be more appropriate to have her at the top of the cast list, at least until she actually begins her reduced role in 2012. Also, should former characters be moved to the bottom, i.e. Stabler after Cragen etc. in the table? Thanks Jane_Rizzoli
 * The table is going by the exact same format as the previous, only it's sideways instead of going down. We first have to see where they line up Hargitay in the credits, before she's moved. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that Stephanie March in the 10th Season was only supporting actress! McManus was out the whole time in the opening credits. Season 6 in March came on only once, so guests. Watch the opening credits of season 10! -- LAW CSI (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * March appeared in the opening credits, for all the episodes she was featured in for the 10th season. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's sure, Stephanie March was not a main character in Season 10! I've watch the complete season 10 on DVD. No Stephanie March in the opening credits!!!
 * See here (no picture of March on the cover) or Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 10) or Season 10 intro of season 10. -- 91.65.248.26 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because she was only featured in the episodes she appeared in. You're not the only one who has the Season 10 DVD. I don't personally, think she should be a regular - if she's only in 6 episodes in that season. I don't even know who made that rule up. So if no one objects I'm happy to change it, aslong as there aren't a whole heap of editors complaining. Resolved. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, March wasn't in the opening credits for the tenth season, she was listed as "Guest Star", she was, however in the credits for the episodes she appeared in during season 11! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.46.110 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

McCoy
Wouldn't McCoy still be seen as the District Attorney? Even though the original Law and Order was canceled there has nothing been said that replaces him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.66.210 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the season 13 premiere, just last month, Cutter (who made a guest appearance) reveals that there is a new DA - meaning McCoy has been replaced. McCoy was definately DA throughout the 12th season (2010-2011), as he is mentioned in the season final of that season. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 23:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that Cutter was just promoted to oversee the SVU department by the DAs office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.66.210 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He was - he's the new Bureau Chief EADA - this is what Elizabeth Donnelly was from seasons 2-7, before becoming a judge. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 04:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

people don't lie go and stalk Dick Wolf and find out if its true.

Rank in the DAs office
So everyone understands, this is the rank in the DA's office:
 * 1. District Attorney - eg. Nora Lewin ; Manages office - top spot
 * 2. Chief Assistant District Attorney - eg. Charlie Phillips ; Second in charge
 * 3. Bureau Chief Assistant District Attorney - eg. Elizabeth Donnelly ; Manages a Bureau - in this case the Special Victims Bureau
 * 4. Executive Assistant District Attorney - eg. Sonya Paxton ; Handles executive tasks - may work with another ADA ; although will sit first-chair
 * 5. Senior Assistant District Attorney - eg. Casey Novak ; Title to ADAs who have been in the office for many years ; title in this case, was explicitly given in "Haystack"
 * 6. Junior Assistant District Attorney - eg. Connie Rubirosa ; Title to ADAs who have not been in the office for many years
 * -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of Detective Benson
Detective Benson is still promoted? As the actress has signed for Season 14, it is still promoted in Season 13? You should to be promoted center the 13th Season. Is that still relevant? -- 91.65.251.53 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. of appearances of each character
Is there any easy way to found out how many appearances each main character has made? Some of the characters have approximate counts, but have definitely not appeared in all the episodes that they were credited in. Would iMDB work? Davejohnsan (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

no it says that Munch and Benson appear in every episode but they missed some in season 8 and Munch has missed some episodes since then.

Kressler
Kressler is listed as reoccouring from Season 3. He appears in the first episode of season 1 as Kressler so this is clearly wrongBomberswarm2 (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ned Eisenberg portrayed two different characters, before portraying Kressler in season 3. —Mel<b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)