Talk:Live PD

Lawsuit

There is mention of a lawsuit, but no description of it. I searched the web, but couldn't find anything about it. Skaizun (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Current Departments and Officers Followed and Analysts

Please do not re-add Trooper James Casey to the Arizona DPS list. He stated on his Twitter feed that he will not be returning to Live PD for Season 2. Also Greenville and Calvert Counties may or may not be returning for Season 2, depending on what their respective deputies decide, as was tweeted by both agencies. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the list of Officers, I have added it back IN ADDITION to the new list, and updated it, so as to make it less "woefully incomplete". I will continue my weekly updates of it (when Dan Abrams tweets the linuep of officers for each show), and ask that the list please not be removed again without broad consensus and prior consultation(s). Thank you Fhsig13 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, Sergeant Sean "Sticks" Larkin of the Tulsa PD Gang Unit is now a regular analyst on Live PD, as was confirmed in November by Dan Abrams and Tom Morris Jr. on the show. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. Do you have a source for that? The offical website only mentions Abrams and Morris. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no sources, that site is never updated. If you want proof, watch the show. I'll be unreverting. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Arizona

Todd Poole was a frequent officer on the show before their city dropped out. Sh33na 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Can someone create a timeline for the police departments that were involved in the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRunner (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. Give me a week or two though as I have to compile the data. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@RealRunner: I've finally finished the timeline and added it to the article. Is that what you had in mind? -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix: Wow! Look's awesome! Thanks!

Department/Officer List Arrangement

Hello all, I wanted to ask for opinions on how the list is organized, and if we could make it better, as I think it stretches down the page, in a hard to read kind of way. If anyone has any ideas, I'd love to hear them. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing the table would fix the problem of it stretching down the page. I went ahead and did that to show you what it would look like, feel free to revert if you don't like it. Another option would be to split it to a separate page, something like List of officers featured on Live PD. There would then be room to expand it past the "currently featured" criterion if desired. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Tavix, however, I don't love the idea of collapsing the the table, as the information within is not readily visible, despite it not stretching down the page. Hence, I am going to split the article to it's own page, and move the timeline and other such info with it. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Syndication

Live PD: Police Patrol doesn't air on The CW on Sunday afternoons, at least in my area. It does air weekdays in syndication. Terehend72 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live PD/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time reviewing this article, as I've seen Live PD before and find it an interesting show. Unfortunately, I can't see this article as anywhere close to the GA criteria at this time. I'll add some comments below, so that this article can be developed in the correct direction.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose-wise, there are a number of minor errors, such as missing italics and some work to be done with condensing paragraphs that are only one or two sentences into a broader main idea. These could probably be easily fixed now. However, there's quite a bit that does not comply with the MOS. The lead does not cover the main ideas of the article and could use some serious expansion; see MOS:LEAD for an idea of what should go into a lead section. I would recommend this be done last, however, as work on other criteria will affect the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The references in the article need some minor cleanup work to make them all uniform, but are otherwise appearing to be reliable, and I don't believe there is any copyright violation issue. There are several statements, however, that have no citation at all, which can be seen as possible WP:OR and need to be cited for this to be considered as a GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There's a lot missing here that would be expected of an article on a TV show. Where is information on the show's development? How has it been critically received? These questions answer why the subject is notable. As it stands, the technology and associated programs could be blended into a new development section, which would also reduce the impression that this article goes into unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No real points of view to cover here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears relatively stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Lot of missing information on the non-free fair use rationale on the image. This needs to be filled in properly, or the image could be removed for copyright reasons if the WP:NFCC can't be established. I would say, it shouldn't have a problem meeting the NFCC, but it needs to be spelled out on the image's page. Also, as the article is expanded to make it broad in coverage, can another image be added? Maybe of a show creator, or something else relevant to the series?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   At this time, there's a lot of expansion that needs to be done just to satisfy criteria 3a; while GA is not a comprehensiveness review, basic establishment of development and reception is necessary to meet the broadness criterion. After that, there will be a lot still needing trimmed, and at this time I don't believe putting the article on hold for a week will give it time to be completed. All new sections of the article need to be researched and constructed for this article to be deep enough to satisfy the GA criteria, and then its sections need to get in line with the manual of style. If and when you believe you have this together, feel free to message me and I'd be glad to have another look at the article.

Red Phoenix ^talk 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Series has been cancelled. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:2552:4DA5:8AF3:67A2:3264 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s not even requesting a change, it’s just restating what the article already entails, which is…weird--BaseFree (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Live PD → On Patrol: Live – The latter redirects to the former. However, On Patrol: Live is the show's new name so the page should be renamed. Aresef (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• On Patrol: Live hasn't aired a single episode yet, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. I'd also argue that since it is a new show on a different network, it should have its own article. 162 etc. (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the move currently under the above reasoning. I don't believe that it's a new show though, sources state "revived" ([1], [2], [3]), it just simply appears to be a new name and new network. It's no different than Cops (TV program) being cancelled and revived at a new network or The Seinfeld Chronicles being renamed to just Seinfeld after the pilot aired. A move can be re-considered once the series actually starts airing on the new network. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a redirect here with a bolded mention of the new name would be fine for now. After it starts airing, having its contents here or in a separate season article could be considered. Articles for multiple seasons happens for TV shows even without name changes. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - new show, not a rename. -- Netoholic @ 13:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose until more information comes out about the revival/new show. Apart from sharing similar hosts and being described as a revival of Live PD, I don't think there's any comment from A&E that this is, in fact, a revival. I think it's just a show with a similar premise by the same producers. Askarion ^{💬●✒️} 16:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Patrol: Live - a new show?

Recent edits ([4], [5], [6], [7]) suggest that there is some disagreement as to whether On Patrol: Live is in fact the same (like actually the same) show and is merely a rename of Live PD, some are citing press coverage that calls On Patrol: Live a Live PD "revival" (see also the June move request). Just because it's a "revival" doesn't mean it can't be a new show (see CSI: Crime Scene Investigation being "revived" as CSI: Vegas as an example). On Patrol: Live has completely new branding and airs on a different channel. The fact that it obviously uses the exact same concept, including 2 out of 3 of the same hosts and even some of the same featured departments somewhat understandably leads to the conclusion that this show is in direct succession of Live PD. Some of that is clearly intended by the producers of the show, mainly to regain viewers from the previous program. I personally think however that it has been made clear by the makers of the show, including Dan Abrams himself, calling it a "new show". If we could establish Consensus about whether or not On Patrol: Live is a new show, instead of going back and forth every other week, that'd be great I think. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before actually creating the article (slipped through my watchlist somehow). Anyways, although I initially believed otherwise, given the A&E Lawsuit I think it's pretty safe to assume that it should be considered a new show (or at the very least, closer to your CSI and CSI: Vegas example). There's still a few other things that I need to do to the OPL article, but there's plenty of information for it to sustain its own article independent of this one. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the lawsuit makes it very clear. – Recoil (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References