Talk:List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes

Arlington, VA, not DC
I changed the description of part 1 from DC to Arlington, VA because of the shot of the view of the crime scene being across the river, with a shot of the Washington Monument and the Capitol Building on the other side of the river. Duckie even mentions in the dialogue: "...from the Potomac to the Capitol dome." in describing the view. If I knew how to cite the source of it, I would. I'm not very good at that, but it does occur at 4:36 in the episode.

While it could be called Original Research on my part, it does not change the fact that Virginia is across the river from DC, and Arlington is directly across the shot the Monument and Capitol dome.Ciderbarrel (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

unneceseary bullshit
theres a product code and a season code...or some shit like that..but anyways there the same thing so delete one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.239.238 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 March 2010


 * Won't be done. One is the Episode number, which is the order that the episode was aired in. The other is the Production number, which is the order the episode was *filmed* in. Nothing bullshit about it...just two different numbers that can be used to keep track of an episode, and in the case of episodes that are aired outside of the order they were filmed, can help explain continuity errors. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are episode numbers not production codes. CBS numbers episodes according to order produced whilst WP numbers them based on broadcast order. Sadly i can't find one CBS produced & broadcast show that has it correct. A production code is unique to a specific episode of television. Every article that lists "101" is essentially using a place-filler. The really fun part is when episodes are produced in "Order A" and are intended to be shown in "Order B" but the network shows them in "Order C". See List of Wonderfalls episodes for an example of that wonderful confusion. List episode 3 before 4 & 5 but having an air date that follows episode 5.


 * I hope this clarifies what i am saying. I always found visual aides can be helpful. This way there is no contradicting the reference as to the episode number or the air date. CBS doesn't seem to be too forthcoming with production codes for shows they produce. This article is obsessively referenced; the only thing not referenced is the production codes. Many sites replicate the errors of a few. Because tv.com gets it wrong is no excuse to do so here. The temptation to fill tv.com with wrong info exists because there is no option to hide the column if there is no information to display. Here we can just simply not display the column, thus removing the temptation to add wrong info, and work with that info which is available and verified.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see what you're saying. We always order the lists by airdate, but perhaps a simple change to the header would suffice. How about I change it to "Prod. order", and change the fields from "101" to just "1" or "1-1" or something else. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there really any difference between "production order" and "production code"? The production code is based on the order in which the episodes are produced. As far as I can see, they're the same thing. There is a poor assumption here about the codes used in this article. They're not from tv.com at all, they're from the press releases issued by CBS, as used by thefutoncritic. As such, we can't really change them to our own format. As for the article being "obsessively referenced" there's certainly a case for removal of some of the references. There's no need to use the same reference more than once in the same episode and we really only need one reference per episode. I prefer The Futon Critic because it uses the official CBS press release and includes, among other things, writers, directors, guest stars and a reasonable synopisis. Sometimes TFC isn't available, which is why MSN has been used. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The info in the Futon Critic sourced press releases contain episode numbers, which is column 2. tv.com takes the episode number from a press release and calls it the production code. It is a quick and easy way to fill the field with data. Most websites do this. It is not changing the data but how it is presented. The production code indicates the production order however the production order is not the production code. On older shows it has been 4 or 5 characters but of recent it is typically 6 though on a few shows it is as many as 8 characters that comprise the production code. No production code is used for more than one episode of television; it is how they are identified as unique creations. Each production company has their own styling of production codes. Even this week's Doctor Who being pc 1.5 is a simplified code but tradition dictates use of that, though it really should be 5.5 per that tradition but i won't get into that further. That is why i am certain in stating that the press releases contain the episode number. From some extensive searching it seems that the production codes for NCIS DC & NCIS LA are not so readily available to the public. The List of Ghost Whisperer episodes does not contain production codes because, like NCIS, it is a CBS produced and CBS broadcast show and the production codes are not disclosed. The first episode of GW is pc AHA00781. Subsequent episodes do not contain the production code in the end credits.
 * Warner Bros. is very nice about sharing their production codes - just look at List of The Mentalist episodes. I am working on fixing List of Close to Home episodes where the episodes did not air in production order. The Emilio Estavez directed episode "Baseball Murder" was produced 3rd and aired 10th. Even the season 1 finale is the 21st of 22 episodes produced that season. They are listed by air date, with the production codes all over the place. At one point tv.com had the production codes for season 1 but then someone thought for continuity between seasons to replace them with 101, 102 etc. and those are what was used in creating the article on WP 3 years ago.
 * There is one instance i know of for a current show where tv.com has the actual production codes, List of Southland episodes. If you put it by air date then per the press releases the NCIS LA eps would be 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6, etc. If you put them by episode number per the press releases then the air dates are out of order, which is my above example. Either of those will convey the production order while not manufacturing a place holder for the absent production codes. CBS is soooooo not helpful in this matter. :P
 * I don't normally venture into editing high-rating current shows but i found the writer and director credits for this week's NCIS LA and thought to see if they needed to be added. I found the entire article was lacking such info since its creation. I only added all of the references because it seemed like those who edit this article more often want everything referenced. Normally only forthcoming episodes are meticulously referenced and only the rating is referenced once an episode has been shown. See List of House episodes and the history of any season's article. I use the press sites if TFC doesn't have the info posted. Much of my editing is to lists of episodes. :D I used to be more active on tvtome / tv.com but once CBS really took over it became to troublesome too get information posted; i even had to be moderated on edits to obscure shows which i added to the database. :(  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 04:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather make a WP logo for a language i have never heard of before than comment on that edit . delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The references to tv.com are irrelevant here because tv.com is not being used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss that i am saying you are making the same error that appears on the tv.com entry for NCIS LA. It is a comparison of the presentation of the data that i am making in mentioning tv.com. You edit other articles that include real production codes. Look at List of Chuck episodes. The information released by CBS and regurgitated by The Futon Critic, tv.msn.com, et al. does not include the actual production code; it merely indicates the production order. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I've gone ahead and changed it to "Prod. order", as that just makes the most sense in its current usage. To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable having that whole column present, since those numbers aren't sourced and really are just trivia bits. But, I'll leave removal to further consensus (or someone bolder). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated earlier, the numbers were sourced. They're in every CBS press release and are used by The Futon Critic, which is used as the source for all of the episodes. As I also indicated in that post, we can't really change them to our own format because that's OR. Referring to them as "production order" because that's an assumption that the episodes were produced in that order. Since there seems to be opposition to "production code", the only really neutral term we can use is "production number". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nay to use of "production number". It is a synonym for "production code". And on a matter related to the press releases, CBS majorly goofed on "Predator". When i added the writers and directors it seemed really odd to have the same writer and director credited for episodes so close to each other. An anonymous editor changed it but was reverted. I looked at the episode itself. The anonymous editor was right. I looked at the CBS press releases for the episode. On the most recent press release for "Predator", from 8 April 2010, the credits have been removed. http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_entertainment/release?id=24718 On the previous releases it had the wrong people credited. November 30th, November 29th, November 12th, and the first one on September 29th. Make of that what you will but i usually only add in the info once i have checked both press releases and the episode(s) but due to the large amount of data to enter i decided to forgo checking the episodes themselves. 'Twas a bad choice on my part. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 01:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, a production number is something altogether different. For that matter, so is a production code. But, since you disagree and we can't use "code" or "order" what do you propose? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You cite the episode itself :P I didn't because i thought that would be too unverifiable for you. So i cited CBS' change of press release in what i could of the edit summary and in detail here. The info doesn't contradict all press releases. The press release i cited omits the contradictory data because, i presume, someone at CBS noticed the goof and rather than contradict their own previous press releases decided to simply cease perpetuation of the error. You might want to watch what you write. Be bold but be accurate too.
 * Like Huntster i am not in favour of inclusion of the column when there is no official info available to the public in any obscure corner of the internet and it is not in the end credits to be able to cite the episodes themselves. I provided a visual aid in my first post that conveys my preferred presentation of the data. Given the oopsies from CBS i am no longer so certain that the numbering in the press releases is accurate. Perhaps something can be found from the other production company. If you really want to confuse the performance of or the moral standards of various performance arts with their manufacture then oks. Same term in different context having different meanings.
 * Since you really want to have the column then the most accurate heading would be production order, though that still assumes the episodes were produced in the order CBS numbers them by in their press releases. An actual production code would specifically indicate the production order. If we had that then we would call it Prod Code and not be having this discussion. I have directed your attention to numerous lists that properly include or exclude the column as applicable. There are surely hundreds of articles that get it wrong. It comes down to which would you rather have it, and will others agree with you. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with citing the episode, which is why Cite episode exists. A mention of a url in the episode summary is not a citation. I should point out that cbsexpress is not a good reference to use as it seems limited to a certain group. I'm not sure of the extent of the group but I can tell you that in Australia we get a 403 error when attempting to access cbsexpress. You've missed the point about the names contradicting the press releases. Perhaps I should have said "not supported by any of the press releases', since I couldn't find one that supports the names, but I didn't think anyone would be so pedantic. As for production numbers, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no official info available to the public in any obscure corner of the internet etc". The numbers are in every press release, which is why they are so widely used., not only here but at many other articles. Whether or not you believe the accuracy of the press releases, they are still presented by reliable sources. As strange as it may seem, reliable sources don't have to be accurate.
 * As I indicated earlier "production order" is not an appropriate, or accurate, heading since it means resorting to original research, as you've acknowledged. As it is now, all we have is a number that, for want of a better name and as per numerous other articles we've called "Prod code". Although I'm happy to go with the wider community consensus, I've changed it once. "Title number" might be appropriate since the number is in the title of the press releases, but I think that would lead to confusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oi, just remove the column. Frankly, even the press releases don't specifically call them production codes or numbers or anything. They are just numbers assigned in some fashion we're unsure of. Trivial, and simply unnecessary here. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

UK ratings
I've just noticed that the cited source for UK ratings is being edited by the same editor who has been updating the figures here. This is inappropriate because Wikipedia and the source are mirroring each other and tyhe cited sourc is self published, making the source definitely not a reliable source. Consequently, I'm going to remove the reference used for UK ratings and add add citation needed to each figure. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are there even UK ratings to begin with? It's an American show and its prime audience is America. The ratings for the UK and Australia may be interesting to some, but have nothing to do with the show as a whole. The show is broadcast in way more than 3 countries, so we can't just pick the UK and Australia just because ratings are available. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's US ratings that drive the future of the program. Every person in the UK could be watching but if the US ratings are down, the program will be cancelled. Other than a comparison of international reception, which isn't in the article, there seems no encyclopaedic value in the UK, Canadian or Australian ratings. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted use of Google Sites for ratings again, added by the same user who added them previously. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

split into seasons
Hi all, i split the article into seasons a few minutes ago. Season 2 has been confirmed ordered. I used the press release to reference that but i included an archive link so hopefully that will work for you Aussie. The list page was 41kb and the season article is now 38kb. I didn't copy over the edit from the IP who added a summary for "Callen, G" while i was in the middle of this as the summary is straight from the CBS press release, in html or MS Word. Cheers delirious  &  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 03:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Woah woah, splitting an article into two for just two seasons is rather inappropriate. I'll go with whatever consensus says, but this was way too bold. Such splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons that's making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here. There's just no need for splitting at this point. Further, maybe I missed something, but when is transcluding one article into another ever a good idea? It just makes working with the individual articles that much more difficult. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, fine at 2 to 1 against i guess you can revert it. I was thinking of making more comprehensive season articles but if noone wants that then i guess it can wait 'til season 4. So much for my grand idea. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 05:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not go ahead an make a more comprehensive season section? I mean, that's what having various levels of subsections are for. Dooo eeeet! And, erm, its 1 and 1...no one else has chimed in on this, have they? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought to expand on my reasoning but i got an edit conflict. As to the transcuding of episode lists, look at any show that has season articles. It is even in the MOSTV to do so. I had been wanting to expand this from more than just a list of episodes and ratings but that is not a season article so i never did. Looking at things it gets a bit more difficult to create season articles as a show gets older, even if it is a huge success. I thought it better to start sooner. I waited until it was confirmed there would be more than one season. JAG could have had season articles but the show mostly pre-dates WP. NCIS DC could be more than it is but it too had season articles created well into its run. Lost (season 2) was created about this time relative to it's run, May 29 2005, when season 2 was still almost 4 months away from premiere. It was nothing to be proud of then but it blossomed into a very nice featured article. Given the combined 18 years of NCIS LA's two predecessors and its ranking as the number one new show of the season it is not unreasonable to believe it will last at least a few years.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 06:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aussie chimed in on my talk page on this. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 06:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on what others think of the split this may not matter but my biggest concern was honestly poster or dvd cover art for the infoboxes on the seasons. Lost uses posters, which have the advantage of being available by the time the season starts. NCIS DC (where it has any), House (which i uploaded), and Smallville use the dvd cover art, which is not always the same as the poster but is more readily recognised by most people, however we would have to wait until well after each season ends before that would be released. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, what I posted on Deliriousandlost's talk page is here. I generally use a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose (introduction, contents of the episode list, and ratings table) to determine when an article should be split and even then it's rarely the case that an episode list needs to be split before the end of the third season unless the episode summaries are extremely long or there is additional content on the page. That loose interpretation came up with a readable prose size of ~13kB here. A strict interpretation results in a much smaller size. I find the most common justification for splitting is usually one of easier editability; when the article's byte size is >70kB or so, editing can be awkward, above 100kB it can really be a pain. The other justification is adding extra, season specific information. Neither of those apply here so there's really no justification for a split at this time. As for transclusion, I both love it and hate it. If season articles are created I would prefer to transclude the whole episode table and not eliminate the episode summaries. To me the summaries are more important than the writers, directors and production codes but most editors seem to prefer transclusion as recommended at Template:Episode list, which eliminates the episode summaries, as has been done here. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, yes i have yet to add anything more to the article as a season. Discussion here and there, dinner, and o watching the NCIS DC s7 finale kinda had my attention. I don't make a lot of little edits to a page; i tend to make one bigger edit to the entire page and incorporate any revisions that happen while i am editing. My simple little plan is to make it as much like a season of LOST as i can before i get too tired and pass out. That of course means reading a lot of reviews so this first take on it might be more minimal. It seems that crew are often referenced to network press sites. AussieLegend, i realise you can't access cbspressexpress.com but if you could let me know if the webcite archive works for you that would be good to know.
 * As to transcluding the entire episode list rather than a substitution transclusion, the MOS says not to (MOSTV). I know a few shows, such as Grey's Anatomy transclude the entire episode list. As a reader, let me just say that if i want the summary it is much easier to click on the link to access the main article. If i am looking for future episode air dates or curious when my favourite writer's next episode is then a substituted list is much more user friendly. I edit on my computer but i often read on my phone. The Grey's Anatomy ep list is a right pain to read on my phone. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 08:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What if you were looking for a specific episode, such as the NCIS episode in which a boy with a bomb held his schoolmates hostage? You'd need to look through up to eight articles to find it. However, if the episode summaries are transcluded there's no such problem. Now try to find the MythBusters episode where the myth that two phone books with interlaced pages couldn't be pulled apart. One article. Transclusion of episode summaries is useful. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Episode 64 but i had to search "NCIS classmate bomb". I do think this could come over to IRC (see my talk page) since it is just the two of us discussing things in two places right now.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what, when the removal of what i was starting was not undone i kinda took that as consensus to not make it a full and proper season article. Redirecting it now is the icing on the cake for me not saving my version which i have been working on off-wiki. delirious &  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 05:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sneaked or snuck?
Actually, both can be considered to be correct, although "sneaked" is the more traditional usage. "Snuck" has crept into mainstream English usage over the past 20 years, although this is more true in the US than it is in other countries. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the issue was taken to our talk pages. Either is fine, I've just never seen "sneaked" used before on anything using American English. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary Season 2
Why is not summarys in season 2 from episode 2??? -- 91.64.27.99 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't write one yet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

403 on many links
I get 403 errors for all links to http://www.cbspressexpress.com including the homepage. I am in Europe. Anybody else similarly affected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGreil (talk • contribs) 07:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's normal for people not living in the US or Canada. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the rudeness of CBS notwithstanding, I humbly suggest to use other links then, in future, i.e. ones that can be accessed from anywhere in the world. --IGreil (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I always try to use futoncritic for press releases, but there are times when cbspressexpress is the only option. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Crossover with Hawaii Five-0
How should the season 3 episode 21 "Touch of Death" crossover with Hawaii Five-0 season 2 episode 21 "Pa Make Loa" (Touch of Death) be noted? Bizzybody (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The season 3 entry for "Touch of Death" seems to adequately cover it. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Redux
Earlier today episode entries for the Hawaii Five-0 were added. Since this is a List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes, not List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes the addition was reverted. They've now been restored again, with the edit summary, "In the original NCIS, the have the JAG episode where NCIS was first used. This is fine." Indeed it is fine, becuase the JAG episodes served as a backdoor pilot for NCIS. In this article, the episodes of NCIS that served as the backdoor pilot for NCIS: Los Angeles are included. However, the Hawaii Five-0 episode was not a backdoor pilot, it was simply a crossover to another series, and we don't include crossover episodes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A crossover episode is an episode none the less. There should be a crossover section. If I want to see all the episodes of NCIS LA, I would want to see the crossover, too.Kude90 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an episode but it is is not an NCIS: Los Angeles episode, so it shouldn't be in a list of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. It is correctly listed in List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Season 8 Episode Numbers
CBS counted the first two shows in Season 8 as one episode. Because of this, CBS just ran Season 8, Episode 5, but the List of Episodes here called it Episode 6. Yes, it was the 6th hour of the season, but since CBS aired the first two hours as one episode, shouldn't that be reflected here, as well? Or do we number episodes differently from the way the network numbers episodes? 99.184.36.54 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005092406/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/06/top-cbs-primetime-shows-april-27-may-3-2009/18172 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/06/top-cbs-primetime-shows-april-27-may-3-2009/18172
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528034735/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/12/top-cbs-primetime-shows-may-4-10-2009/18549 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/12/top-cbs-primetime-shows-may-4-10-2009/18549

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)