Talk:Chicago Justice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lori Nagle[edit]

About the names of the characters, I got my info from the NBC website, in particular the episodic pictures. That site indicates it is not Lori Nagle, but instead Laura Nagel. http://www.nbcumv.com/nup1730190215jpg?network=33129&show=151063&photo_type[0]=61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmulder (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cannot be accessed. You are required to have an account. Please find another source. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is another source right now, but here's the exact text that is shown above the picture:

CHICAGO P.D. -- "Justice" Episode 321 -- Pictured: (l-r) Ryan-James Hatanaka as Daren Okada, Joelle Carter as Laura Nagel -- (Photo by: Elizabeth Morris/NBC) NUP_173019_0215.JPG Wednesday, May 11 on NBC (10-11 p.m. ET) Episodic Posted: May 6, 2016 2016 NBCUniversal Media, LLC Wmulder (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I cannot access the source. It requires an account and you have to be affiliated to a company. Sorry, but this source will not be used. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, is there a reliable source for "Lori Nagle" apart from a website scribe who understood/wrote it wrong? I don't know how good this will be as a source, both names are used: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5640060/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm The TVDB site uses Laura Nagel: http://www.thetvdb.com/?tab=series&id=311896&lid=7

You can probable use Wikipedia for company, as an editor. I did something like that, except another site I was an editor on.

Wmulder (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are unreliable as well. Please see WP:CITEIMDB, WP:USERGENERATED and WP:FANSITE. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll just have to wait for the character bio by NBC then, do what you have to do if you think the source that put it as Lori Nagle was reliable enough.

Wmulder (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that NBC media site can be seen without logging in, although you can't see the pictures in large format. However, I just tried something, maybe this will satisfy. I don't know.

http://www.nbcumv.com/programming/nbc-entertainment/chicago-pd/photos?keyword=Laura+Nagel&network=33129&photo_type[0]=61

I searched for both names, only "Laura Nagel" gave a response, "Lori Nagle" did not. Do select "All" or "Episodic".

Wmulder (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cast members[edit]

An editor has been removing the lists of crossover and guest cast members. While it is true that these lists are not included in the other main show page articles of the franchise, the season articles DO have them. As this show has only recently been started, I feel they should be included at least until separate season articles are started. Just wanted to get other users opinions on this matter to avoid an edit war. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They're fancruft. The nature of these shows is that the characters will cross over constantly. We don't need to document every one. A case might marginally be made for them being in the seasonal episodes where they've done the multi-part episodes, where storylines tie together, but listing every character from every show every time they appear on another in the group is excessive, and breaches WP:UNDUE. They simply aren't that important to this show. --Drmargi (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Drmargi. The reality is that pretty much everyone crosses over from one show to another at some point. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Chicago Fire (season 5), Chicago P.D. (season 4), Chicago Med (season 2). Jdavi333 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And those lists are excessive. I'm left with a "so what" feeling. You don't identify their home shows, or what their significance is. It's just WP:LISTCRUFT. What would be far more meaningful is to have a narrative description of the crossover episodes that ran in early may, identifying the key players across shows. Making lists just takes up space and tells the reader very little. --Drmargi (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions are your right to have, but if these lists have been made for these articles and no other editor has felt the need to delete it until now, and they have been peacefully sitting there for years, precedent would dictate not to delete the section from this article until a full discussion is started and a consensus can be reached. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Med article has never had a crossover list. It was added the other day, and immediately removed for just that reason. Over time the extended cast of all three shows will end up on lists in the main articles. That's just pointless and takes up waaaay to much space. --Drmargi (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to point out is that the individual season articles of all the other shows in the franchise have such lists. This show does not yet have such pages, as such I feel that it is not unreasonable to include them on the main show page until such season articles are started. That's why we have discussions and precedents, so that things are not unilaterally changed without consensus. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that. The issue is how many places do you really need to list the crossover cast? They're in the franchise articles in big elaborate tables (talk about fancruft!), they're listed in the season articles, and now you want them in the main article. That's just too much! --Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely sufficient, albeit unwieldy. My advice to any editor wishing to wave their crossover fan flags is to create a franchise character list page, then simply add a hatnote on the respective articles directing readers to it, should they want to check off who appears where. (Oh wait...) — Wyliepedia 06:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Justice image[edit]

What is a free image?

this one was made up by an artist paid by either the NBC or their production company to give a certain look to the title of the show.

This other one was made from a screenshot, edited to take out extra info like the network name (Global Television in this case) and the shows rating (TV14), but it was also paid for by NBC, the owner of the program.

File:Chicago Justice Title Card.jpg

I think neither of them are "free", but both qualify for "fair use". I also think in the interest of similar looking pages for the "Chicago" shows the second one should be used. Wmulder (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first image is ineligible for copyright protection as it does not meet the threshold of originality required. Courts in the US have deemed that pure fonts cannot be copyrighted. This is further explained at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. Even something as elaborate as The Disney logo is ineligible. Such images are always free. The first criteria of our non-free content policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The first image is a suitable equivalent to the second image and should not have been replaced with the non-free image. Nor should the non-free image have been used on this page. Links to non-free images are acceptable, but using them on talk pages, or any other place where there is no fair use rationale for use of the image, is not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is fancruft guiding editorial decisions. There's no need for all four articles to be identical; the logo meets policy, communicates the needed information, and is just fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a wiki. --Drmargi (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the same rational apply to the other series like Chicago P.D.?

http://www3.telus.net/wildrosewally/Chicago/PD.jpg Wmulder (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, people seem to still be misunderstanding WP:NFCC, and believe that non-free content should be replacing free content. livelikemusic talk! 01:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert with free images, which is why I stay away from that area unless it's film posters. I have one question regarding this whole thing, how come the rest of the Chicago shows have the logo theme but this one can't? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally tried implimenting the free logo for Chicago PD, but was reverted, because the other shows had the title card, and I'm told they are "more suitable" for television series. But, per NFCC, is a free image (or logo in this case) in available, it is preferable to use. Because non-free images are replaceable, while free images are not. {{Infobox television}} states: "Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated. Free content should be used where available", and in this case, free content is available, so it should be used. livelikemusic talk! 02:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes so much more sense. Thanks for clearing it up. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing free of TV show logo pictures and not just title card screenshots. All TV show logos are already copyrighted as is just like title card screenshots and we can't find all logos. Title cards are more fitting in infoboxes than logos because it fits better for the show articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the logo even doesn't match the show's current logo. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Note that NFCC says "equivalent", not identical reproduction. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This, to me, seems to be the case of a fan wanting to keep all four series uniform, even if it means ignoring Wikipedia's policies, etc. A free equivalent is available for Justice, as well as all other Chicago franchise series. livelikemusic talk! 13:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should find something else that is free on that franchise or refrain yourself from it, because black and white logos doesn't fit the style of that franchise. The only thing that is more stylish in the infoboxes is those title cards despite they are non-free pictures. So I strongly you think about what to do next for that franchise. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking to people like you're authority. News flash, you're not. Per AussieLegend and Livelikemusic, the current image will be used per Wikipedia policies. That's the end of it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't match with the other shows. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I don't understand. But you are going to find a better image than the current one. That's end of it. I don't want to hear another word about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BattleshipMan: you are seriously not hearing me. You are NOT authority. "I don't want to hear another word about it"?!?!! Please get a new perspective. You're not authority, you don't own this page, you don't own Wikipedia. Stop acting like you are and actually start discussing. This isn't the first time I've told you this. Stop this BS. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, knock it off, or take it to one or the other's talk page. Battleship Man, you don't give the orders here. If you want something else here, find a free image that fits the criterion, and propose it. The burden is on you, not those editors who are removing the image to align with established consensus and policy.

Bringing the discussion back to topic, Battleship Man, what is the "franchise's style"? There seems to be an emphasis on uniformity more typical of a fan site or wikia, but not an encyclopedia. I agree that the title card is esthetically more pleasing, but the priority here needs to be the encyclopedia's style, and the policies that guide it. Between this and the mania for micro-documenting who crosses over where, the fancruft quotient is far too high. --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

BattleshipMan, stop WP:CANVASSing. I see you just tagged a bunch of talk pages of WP:TV editors with no rhyme or reason, including mine. I don't watch this show so I have no opinion on this issue and didn't know why until I read this discussion, and I don't wish to join. Listen to the existing consensus and don't build your own through a bludgeon. Don't tag me further in this either; all other input on this topic, I will ignore. Nate • (chatter) 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:One Chicago (TV franchise)#Requested move 9 October 2018[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One Chicago (TV franchise)#Requested move 9 October 2018. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Justice&oldid=1206653521"