Talk:Las Vegas (TV series)

Frank the Repairman

I believe that Frank, Sylvester Stallone, should be noted in the reappearing guest stars. He is mentioned many times in several episodes, even some that he doesn't appear in. Does anyone feel the same way? Donatrip (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Best Season?

What's the best season according to you fannies? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.160.142 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode 100 is the worst 76.2.152.213 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not five, that one really sucked...they should have kept Caan on the show, if they wrote him out, they should have kept the show going, and wrote him back in in like season 6 or something... If you ask me what the best season was, i would have to say 1 or 2...Nessa was a great character and they shouldnt have wrote her out! Donatrip (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) (i did write this, i just forgot to log in)

Support for show being canceled

I removed the part about the show being canceled. If someone can site to a reliable source fell free to add it back. --Cooleymd 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Season finale, or show finale

That season finale sure looked like they killed the show. Anyone have any info on if there will be a season three? →Vik Reykja 23:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It just aired on Monday. Bayerischermann 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont think it aired in the Tampa bay area (Florida) we've been watching for it and havent seen it on the schedule yet. Any ideas?

The season three premiere starts October 20th. Sam Weber 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

what is the name of the song that is played at the begining of the show vegas

A Little Less Conversation by Elvis -Hoekenheef 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ther is another song, not Let It Ride, that talks about Sin City that is played at the beginning of some shows - what is the name of that song?

Incorrect country link

The list of channels on which the show is aired in different countries link to "Kanal 5" as the Swedish channel. The show is aired on Swedish Kanal 5, but the link aims at a page intended for the croatian channel.

What was the name of the song ....

What was the name of the song that the the outdoor club patrons line-danced to when the cool cop was chaparoning the rich daughter at Belinda's night club? (had a little bunny hop, kind of a latin beat), Viva Las Vegas was the episode name. Anyone?

"Shove it up their asses"?

Maybe I've been watching too little TV lately -- wasn't that quote pushing the limits of network TV tonight? -Jcbarr 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Theme Song

from what i have heard from the audio comentaries, the only time that the Elvis' some was on the show was druing the pilot, following that it was "Let it Ride" i am wondering if they chaned it for the DVDs (because thats what i have) or if it is just a mistake that needs to be fixed.Osmo250 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Have you seen the show lately? (on TV)? Djjonnyd 08:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)djjonnyd (see trivia)

With TV shows that are made into DVDs, sometimes the shows have permission to use the songs in the intro (or in the episode) for TV, but not for DVD, so they have to change the songs released for DVD. This happened on a lot of the songs used for Charmed when that show started being released on DVD. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Season 4

I feel kinda bad asking this here, but i couldn't find an applicable place to ask. Does anyone know when season 4 is about to start? I so love this show, and i so can't wait, so i was wondering if anyone know. When did season 3 start and end anyway? Thanks in advance. :) - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all is that bad to ask, these pages SHOULD tell you when season four started, Although your request is long old now, people should still know that this kind of info should have been on the pages so it's ok to ask JayKeaton 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Update to Characters

As of last season, Mary Connely was promoted to Hotel Manager

SJM 12 January 2007 what is the name of the song played during "the story of owe" when Sam is getting off of the elevator? -> The song is called "Come on Closer" by "Jem". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.45.35 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Piper's father could not have died in Vietnam. Piper is 25, meaning she was born in 1981 or so, the war was over for more than 8 years. Cooper never says he died in Vietnam, he says he died and they were in the Marine's together. Cooper is suppose to have been special operations so there are multiple places Piper's father could have met his end - but none of them are Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.113.198 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Background section?

The entire background section reads like it was written by a fifth grader. If someone more knowledgeable about the show would re-write that it would be great. I'll check back in a few days, and if it hasn't been touched up, I'll try to just word what is there a little more clearly, though I'm no expert on the show, so I wouldn't be able to fact-check at all, just correct the writing on what is there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.79.171 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

New Cast Info

According to this, James Caan and Nikki Cox will be out of the cast starting with the fifth season. [1] Should we add that to the article? 206.66.217.143 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the main cast of characters it states that the tom selleck character will be the new owner but in the season information section it states that he will be replacing Caan as Head boss (surely this should be 'President of Operations' as well). which is it, owner or boss? (Bigandyc 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC))\

Both. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. After Ed leaves in the season opener, the position goes officially unfilled until Danny takes the post a few episodes later. Cooper is the owner. 213.121.241.210 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LasVegas-TitleCard.JPG

Image:LasVegas-TitleCard.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas-tv-series-poster.jpg

Image:Vegas-tv-series-poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Selleck is not the star!!!

On the character list A.J. Cooper keeps being placed ahead of Danny McCoy. Danny is the star of the show!!! Tom Selleck, while good, has yet to become more than a glorified special guest star. He is billed last in the program with an "And" credit. That might merit him place number 2, but Duhamel is clearly listed in the opening credits as the star of the show. Selleck sometimes just shows up for a couple scenes and then is done! Stop moving him to first place!!! Obriensg1 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go to NBC.com, they do list him as the star. Click on credits, he's the first one to come up. Heather Locklear, well known as the star of Melrose Place, was always listed last. So was Alyssa Milano in Charmed. Often times the biggest star is listed last. Fact is though, NBC on their website lists him first when you click on cast. CelticGreen (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His picture an information pops up because they have been promoting him joining the cast like crazy. Look at the actual cast list though! It lists Duhamel first, followed by Lesure, Marcil, THEN Selleck, and Sims. I have not missed an episode ever. He is not the lead. He is a featured supporting player brought in for the sake of a familiar face. James Caan was a lead. Duhamel was an equal lead to Caan and now the head of the show. Selleck is still just a major supporting player and should be listed in 2nd place as "And" billings typically mean you are about on par with the first billed (like Shatner and Spader in Boston Legal)Obriensg1 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what you call alphabetical order. He is, however, shown first, you can't dispute that. He is listed as the star now regardless of your personal feelings. Wikipedia is, however, about facts. Fact is, you click the cast and Tom Selleck comes up first. Ergo, he is the star. CelticGreen (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the same user causing issues with the infobox has chosen to now mess with the order. Need to discuss. KellyAna (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So using inaccurate information makes your information equally inaccurate. Fact: Tom Selleck is not the star. Fact: The star is not the person the shows producers claim is the star...it is the person with the majority of screen time, and around whom the show revolves. If it can be said this show has a single "star" that star must be Duhamel. I see it instead as group effort with no single star...but regardless of your opinion on the matter...Selleck (great though he is) would not be considered the "star" in the eyes of any regular viewer...and hence should not be listed as the star in any encyclopedic listing with any claims at accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "lead" and a "star". Marlon Brando was the star of Superman 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.180.53 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AJ Cooper background?

AJ Cooper information. Didn't the episode Run Cooper Run state that Cooper took place in Khe Sanh? If I am wrong, (I often am,) I apologize. 68.199.243.135 (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regions for DVD Releases

Can anyone tell me what the Regions are for the DVD releases? I live in Australia and I want to know when we will be getting Season 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.8 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding infobox

Several editors had insisted that the infobox contain all characters. The list is short and it falls under the MOS for writing about fiction in that fiction be present tense, therefore no prior cast members. See these edits: [3] and here [4] and here [5]. However one editor insists on removing them based on series like ER (14 seasons in the making) and Law and Order (18 seasons). That is an incredible difference when there are multiple rotating cast members unlike Las Vegas that has lost all of three. Please discuss and come to a consensus. At this point, all stay because it's 5 to one based on these edits, IrishLass' changes today, and myself. Thank you. Starting over as an editor has made issues about this that shouldn't have existed. Post your opinion, no personal feelings or attacks. Put your reasons for who you feel should be in the infobox. NO personal attacks. This is supposed to be about the article. This article, not any other on the site as other stuff may exist but it doesn't mean it is right. It should be kept civil and not include personal attacks. KellyAna (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we're basing this on TV Seasons. We don't decide on what information gets put into the infobox based on how many seasons they been on air. The format for the TV infobox is the same for every show, rather they been on for 2 Seasons or 15 Seasons, it doesn't matter. Now gettng back to the dispute over the infobox, the Las Vegas infobox is the only one under this "present tense" format. All other TV show sites only mention current stars in their infobox. Shows such as ER, Law and Order, Brothers and Sisters, Criminal Minds, Ulgy Betty, Grey's Anatomy, CSI Franchise, and do I need to keep naming them. Now it doesn't matter how many seasons they have, none of them include former stars in their infoboxes. Now if the show were to go off air or stop making new episodes, then you would include ALL present and past characters. My solution; let me point out, I'm the only person to give a solution in this matter, everyone else wants to continue to dispute; is to add "Season 5 Cast" to the Las Vegas infobox, with the current cast under it. Now there is no false information there, its just another way of showing the information. The correct way to show it may I add. Now I like to use ER as an example, as it is my favorite show and one of the best shows of all time. Anthony Edwards starred as the main character for 8 Seasons and there is NO mention of him in the infobox. George Clooney, biggest actor rightnow, NOT included in the infobox. Now yes, ER has had dozens of cast members, but we don't determine what information goes in their infobox based on their # of seasons. If you go to my talk page, you will see 2 or 3 people that agree with my theory The theory that has been used and is still being used to this day. Also let me point out, that Irishlass tried to use his theory of "present tense" on the CSI site only to have it erased serveral times by the anons. You can see that information on the site history and it was mentioned on my talk page by Yamanbaiia. That should be enough proof alone to prove my point. In Regards DJS24 --DJS24 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that all the crap is gone, can you please give examples that support your theory. Can you also give me a reason to support your thought process. In Regards DJS24 --DJS24 (talk) 06:12, 17 January

2008 (UTC)

Here's another possible solution. If the stars are listed as follows;

Josh Duhamel

Vanessa Marcil

James Lesure

Molly Sims

Tom Selleck

James Caan (2003-2007)

Nikki Cox (2003-2007)

Marsha Thomason (2003-2005)

Please respond. --DJS24 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not debating this with one person. This is a request for consensus which means others need to weigh in about THIS ARTICLE, not other articles. If you want people to weigh in on all articles, you need to start a discussion at the main project page. And, AGAIN, do not bring past conversations into the conversation, it is not helpful, it is not relevant, and you are still not understanding what this discussion is even about with all your examples. I'm done addressing your comments, ad nauseum, when you can't even decide what you really want. The example you cited above is what was there that you kept removing. By the way, it's inappropriate to bring in other editor's comments and take them out of context as support for your thoughts. I'm sure IrishLass will have something to say about your comments that claim to be her position but in reality are completely taken out of context. KellyAna (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say that present tense is not MY theory, see the MOS for writing about fiction. Additionally, I didn't even say that how the infoboxes and present tense relate to each other was my theory but rather I brought a link [6] to a conversation from the TV project talk pages to show that the issue had been discussed and a decision made in the past. I don't appreciate my words being twisted as DJS24 did. That is unacceptable and not the way to attempt to reach a decision. As to the theory you claim others agree with, that was not about this article, it was about CSI, the main CSI article and the editor doesn't even want any stars in the infobox. Copied from my archives: I actually think they should all be removed from the infobox (see FA Lost (tv series)), but hey, if you want to add her, go for it.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) So the editor DJS claims backs him actually has stated s/he doesn't want them in at all not that they agree with DJS. As to you list of exampled articles, I will tell you that the ones I check you are incorrect in your statements but just because Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists doesn't mean that it's right. This is about Las Vegas, not about improving other articles. And, Kelly is correct, the total is 5 others that agreed with leaving all cast. The three edits referenced at the beginning of this discussion, Kelly, and myself (a female/her/not a him/his). I'm sure, given time, others will address your opinion. In the mean time, you need to patiently wait and see if a decision can be reached by editors that are involved in this article or the project in general. Lastly, I find the reference to what I did at CSI funny when followed by "reverted many times". Well, if it was, it wasn't my edit and the only edit I did was not reverted by an anonymous user. Again, see: [7] and you will find an anon didn't revert it and it wasn't reverted several time but rather once, by a logged in user. IrishLass (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can either one of you address my above solution. Even though the solution is somwhat like the one I deleted, the names are in a different order. In showbiz the order of the stars names are very important. James Caan,Nikki Cox shouldn't have been the first stars named as they aren't on the show anymore. The only name that should be first is Josh Duhamel. Can we agree on the above solution? There shouldn't be any disputes, as this was they the names were displayed before but now they would be in a different order. IL, I didn't call for backup, but mentioned to people that were disputing this yesterday, that a discussion had been opened. Can you please comment on my solution as we can end this right now. --DJS24 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point too much, but NO, they were not addressing this issue. They were discussing CSI, NOT Las Vegas. And the term is discussing, not disputing. The fact is they were discussing Jorja Fox and when it was realized that I had dropped the issue regarding her, they dropped it. This, as you seem to not understand, is about this article, not CSI or any other article on the internet. It is about Las Vegas. Now, please, let others comment. Others previously involved in this article. IrishLass (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to be very calm and civil. Again are dicing around the issue. Can you PLEASE comment on my solution. Your to busy addressing something that doesn't need to be addressed. --DJS24 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm waiting for others to comment. You have been asked to allow others to comment, please be patient and wait for other Las Vegas editors to reply. IrishLass (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would need to agree w/ DJS24, as infoboxes only include current information. The cast information should come right off the current cast on the official TV show site. In this case the only names that should be in the box are, Josh Duhamel, Vanessa Marcil, James Lesure, Molly Sims, and Tom Sellect. As for the way it's currently beening show, that would be the safe way. As both sides of the issure are being shown. DJS24 is also correct in saying that, ALL other TV show sites on WIKI are under this method. They are under that method, and thats the correct method. See the official Cast site on Las Vegas...[8] --CarsGm5 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DJS24 - DO NOT change the infobox until CONSENSUS is reached and more than you and a new editor have commented. And stop using "theory" as a justification, it's not about someone's theory, no one other than you has a theory. It's about consensus and consensus has not been reached. A request for check user on CarsGm5 is being requested as their edits have been suspicious. A consensus is a variety of editors, past contributors whose edits have not been reverted, discussing change. You cannot go out on your own and change it until more have commented. Even if you take CarsGm5 vote, it's still 5-2 based on edits. However, a new user jumping in to back another new user is suspect at best. Wait for additional comments from editors that have previously edited before proceeding. KellyAna (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the irrelevant comments and subsequent comments to my talk page [9] and am having an admin look into the claims. Once an admin has looked into it, it can either go back or be archived. I have not REmoved anything, just moved it to a user talk page since the comments are not relevant to this issue but rather behaviour of certain editors. Thank you.IrishLass (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted this message, and with no right Lrishlass felt the need to move it....

Let me speak, as a former Wikipedia administrator, that I’m very disappointed in the mess of comments between DJS24, KellyAna, and Irishlass on many pages. Let me mention some info about myself, as I don’t like working under false impressions. I was a Wiki. Admin. for 2 years before my password was hacked and my info was changed a couple of days ago. I worked mainly on TV sites such as the Law and Order franchise. With that, I have never seen such disrupted behavior like this on any discussion page. Now I’m surprised that no admin. has intervened on this issue. Because of that, I have called on some admin to come and discuss this behavior with the three of you. From this point on, I’m not throwing out personal attacks but telling you what I’ve seen of this mess. DJS24 let me start by saying your grammar skills are very weak, as they were mentioned before. Wikipedia is about good articles, and with good articles, comes GOOD grammar. KellyAna, you haven’t once mentioned anything regarding your reasoning on this issue nor your thought process. Instead you’re too busy playing the rules/guidelines queen. How can anyone, especially DJS24, prove a point when you’re only throwing out rules and warnings? Warnings are not to be abused but used when someone is irrational. I’m very upset that, with your irrational behavior, DJS24 has failed to call in for your immediate block. The only reason why DJS24 had to throw out SOME personal attacks is because you were being VERY difficult. The discussion page is for disputes/issues, not to show everyone you know the rules. Irishlass was the only one somewhat civil. As Irishlass and DJS24 are the only two discussing the issue. By the way KellyAna, what is your thesis on this issue? Irishlass, you mentioned that DJS24 was trolling. When instead, he was merely telling people that were discussing the issue to comment. Yes, the Jorja Fox issue is the same thing you’re disputing on this page. Back to DJS24, you need to stay calm and cool, as some of your comments could warrant a block. However, any admin. wouldn’t issue one based on how the people you were talking were acting. Now let me throw in my two cents, as I hope this will resolve the issue. As working on sites for two years, the infoboxes have never contained past characters. Instead they should only contain current information. I’m trying to find the article/discussion page where it was decided on by other admin... In this case the infobox should only contain the current stars, like every other TV show site on Wikipedia. Mentioning other TV sites on this discussion page is not wrong; KellyAna; its proving a point. Now as for the 5 to 1 vote, as you people are calling it, isn’t the way it come to a decision. The people who changed the information before wouldn’t count as votes. As they prob. don’t even know this discussion is happening. Not to mention they prob. don’t even know what the issue is regarding. They gave no reasoning behind their actions. Now when DJS24 gets this message, I’m allowing him to change the stars listed, back to the current stars. Finally let me point out that a discussion page is to prove a point, not to post your position and show the rules. I will be watching this page, as I see anymore more disrupted behavior, I will call in for immediate blocks. P.S. I look forward to working with you Irishlass on the CSI page. In best Regards CARS!--CarsGm5 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I took it off the page, as an admin told me was acceptable, and moved it to a more appropriate place. I even informed you of the move. As to you "allowing" as a user, not an admin, it is not your place to "allow" anything. I was attempting to keep things civil, but I see that is impossible. IrishLass (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Irishlass, I warned you in my recent message that I wouldn't listen to anymore of this mess. As I see you have continued to mess things up by trolling in your fellow admins and have continued to egg DJS24 on. Unfortunately for you, I'm not like DJS24; I don't sit around and tolerate your crap. After this message I'm calling in for your immediate block. Maybe you didn't understand when I said I was a former admin, and with that I know the right people to contact for your removal. I will also contact the admin you contacted and brief them on the situation, as when they find out who I was they wouldn't interfere in my decision or with me stopping this mess. My comments are to STAY on this page as other admins. have been called in on my request and I want my comments and concerns shown. Removing/moving my comments to another page was against Wiki. policies. I'm surprised KellyAna hadn't picked up on that policy yet. DJS24 please keep quiet, as I have taken care of the issue. You saying anymore comments at this point would only hurt your chances against the other admins... Irishlass, I hope you will learn a serious lesson for questioning my position and my comments. In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You warned me? I've been civil and only tried to keep things civil, there was nothing for you to "warn me" about and if you felt you did, you do it on my talk page, not here. As to your "moving" being against policy, I was told differently here [10] when it happened to me. Furthermore, I only "trolled" because you said you were going to call other admins also. If you can, why can't I? I think it's in everyone's best interest to question someone new claiming to be a former admin. I have no "serious lesson" to learn. ASG is only going so far, accepting that someone is an admin when there is no evidence to prove they are, is beyond that. IrishLass (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

The sections are discourage but should not be eliminated without an attempt to incorporate. See this conversation: [11] which indicates that trivia is to be incorporated, not deleted. Deleting without an attempt to incorporate is against policy. IrishLass (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

I believe the Wiki. admins decided the trivia boxes should not be included. I believe theres even a warning on the Las Vegas page that shows how trivia boxes are discouraged. I'm only telling you what I'm reading. --CarsGm5 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a link to policy that says remove, do not add info to article, do not remove the trivia section. Per the admin I asked about it, the sections are discouraged but the information is to be incorporated into the article, not just deleted. And they aren't boxes, they are sections. Discouraged means not encouraged, not not allowed. Please read policy before deleting sections. KellyAna (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. I was only pointing out a fact. --CarsGm5 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you were claiming something was fact that is not. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Making sure you throw in the last word. No surpise there. --CarsGm5 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Get this back on track

The discussion over the infobox here has gone way off track with a lot of comments about the various other users' behavior. The dispute will never be solved that way. I was asked to comment on the debate here by DJS24. Here are my comments about the dispute.

1. Some editors have claimed that Wikipedia policy or guidelines dictates how the infobox should work here. I've checked out the manual of style, including the guideline on infoboxes, as well as the TV wikiproject and none of those pages say anything specific about this issue, instead, they keep things at a much higher level. Wikipedia:Writing about fiction does say that the convention in writing synopses of fictional works is to use present tense, but I can't see why that should extend to other parts of the article, let alone the infobox. It's possible there's something I missed, but there doesn't seem to be any accepted policy here.
2. If there is no guideline/policy, it is worth looking to see if there is a strong precedent, as that would suggest the existence of a broad consensus even if it's not formally written down somewhere as a guideline. From what I've seen, some long-running TV shows still in production like Law & Order and ER (TV series) list only current stars in the infobox, but make this clear by having a line like "Seasion 14 cast:" before the list. Some long-running TV shows like South Park list all cast members, with years of tenure for those who are no longer involved. Some, like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and the CSI series, list only current stars, saying only "Starring:" with no further explanation. I didn't find any long-running shows that included current and former cast members with no distinction between the two, though I do note that Heroes (TV series) does it this way. Some shows like Lost (TV series) and Star Trek: Enterprise don't list the cast at all. I think it's safe to say that there is not a particular precedent we have to follow, but if anything, the current solution seems to be the least common one.
3. If not for a guideline or a precedent, the decision ultimately rests in the consensus of editors here. Right now that consensus is split: Cars and DJS24 preferring to make some distinction, Irish and KellyAna preferring to keep all stars on the list. I would call this deadlocked (if people are entrenched about their positions), but I think that DJS is making a reasonable point: it is misleading to say that James Caan is "starring" in the show when he no longer is. If the show was no longer in production, this wouldn't be a point of confusion, but since it is still in production, the confusion should be resolved. The point I think most needs clarifying is why we don't go back to the old way of doing things where the tenure of each star is included. This seems to be what was done here before the infobox revert war started: this is the infobox KellyAna and Otolemur were restoring, but that one does make it clear who is a current and who is a former star. Does anyone object to this? DJS at least at one point changed the infobox to a list that included the former stars but made it clear which ones aren't current. Mangojuice^talk 19:10, 18 January 2008

(UTC)

Finally someone addresses this. I believe DJS24 gave 2 or 3 good ways of showing the information.

1. Showing the Starring w/ "Season 5 Cast:", w/ the current stars under it.
2. Showing the Starring w/ the cast listed as follows =

Josh Duhamel

Vanessa Marcil

James Lesure

Molly Sims

Tom Selleck

James Caan *

Nikki Cox *

Marsha Thomason *

• = Stars no-longer on show

3. Showing the Starring w/ ONLY the current stars under it. NO former stars mentioned. Those are the suggestions of DJS24, I pick #1 first. I would also agree w/ #2. In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Show the starring where former stars have years of tenure indicated, e.g. "James Caan (2003-2007)". Let's not forget that solution. Mangojuice^talk 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mango, showing the stars with years was how it was before DJS24 started removing them this past weekend. That was what was originally there, and it looked great. DJS24 removed it. Its what was agreed to ages ago. IrishLass (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TRUE, but again, thats the safe way, and I believe the issue was addressed by Irishlass where he says years are no longer allowed in the infobox. I really don't care. However, if that way is used, you would need to go in the order as listed above. But if we include the former stars I believe method 2 would be best. Anyone agree??--CarsGm5 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we have some progress on this issue. I would pick #1, as my main issue is to only show current stars. If we do decide that former stars need to be mentioned, the right format is very important. If thats the case, I believe former stars would need to be listed under the #2 format. I'm glad were finally moving into a positive direction. Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to see, still, consensus or policy that states ONLY current stars. Not "other pages do it" actual real consensus like the link that was initially provided or a policy. The tv project discussed this and the links been posted but no one seems to feel like acknowledging this former discussion [12] IrishLass (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Irishlass, you say the "other sites don't count", then how can a discussion about a different site, not reflecting on the Las Vegas page count. Confused? I've also reviewed the link to that discussion and its nothing more than a 3 person discussion. I don't really even count it as a discussion because each of them only leave one message. This dispute is 10x bigger with people pointing out bigger points. I also see that, you failed once again in giving a solution or voting on one of the methods. Your still dicing around the issue. Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish: that discussion is meaningless to this case. It's not a consensus, it's the opinion only three wikipedians (of whom, the opinion is split) on a relatively obscure discussion page. And if you'll note, the real discussion there was about whether or not the television infobox template should be expanded to include more information fields about the cast. In any case, that conversation should carry less weight than any specific precedent: you'll notice that despite that conversation South Park still has its infobox the way the original poster was complaining about. Mangojuice^talk 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would need to agree w/ DJS24 and Mangojuice, as that discussion does not fit this arguement. That discussion really doesn't even deal with what we're disputing here. Now with that link being the only thing to back you up Irishlass, I feel we really don't need to dispute this anymore. Can we agree to one of the following methods? I vote for #1 and my second for #2(only if we need to name former stars). CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That "not relevant" conversation, as discussion, was on the TV project page. I think the issue is better addressed on the TV project page again rather than just here. It is far and away NOT an obscure talk page. How can the TV project archives be obscure, I believe you, Mango, (although maybe I'm wrong in who said it) said to discuss on the project talk page. That conversation was from the talk page of the project, it's just archived. And I thought this was a discussion. Amazing both editors use dispute repetitively. I still believe, as I did last night, more editors that have worked on this page need to comment. Two new editors, one with very interesting claims, aren't enough. Mango, I know you are an admin and are addressing the issue. I'm still concerned why no other editors of this article are involved. I don't think this "issue" has been addressed enough by neutral parties. KellyAna (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the discussion was at Template talk:Infobox Television, which is related to the TV wikiproject but isn't their discussion page. I think a general discussion is a fine idea but we (1) shouldn't wait for that to settle the issue here, since general discussions can take a long time, and (2) I don't expect that discussion to work well because different shows have different needs. As for the other editors of this article, I think we ought to welcome any input anyone happens to want to give, but we shouldn't wait around to hear from specific editors. If they are active they'll make a comment. FWIW, here's my opinion: significant cast changes have recently been made, so I would rather see the infobox include the "season 5" cast list than to include former cast members. But my #1 preference is actually to not list the cast at all, which is a reasonable solution many other show articles have adopted. After all, the information is all there, properly explained, in the article where it counts. Mangojuice^talk 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me mention to you KellyAna, that we have gain a lot of progress today. Unfortunely for Irishlass and yourself, we're not going to sit around on this issue for weeks. I can already see that you both are trying to stall to keep the information you want it on the site. This decision will be made up very quickly. Also this DISPUTE has been between 5 to 6 different people, the same people that are really the only editors on the Las Vegas site. Also KellyAna, I would suggest you start pulling out some information/discussions/examples backing your side of the issue. You have failed to do that during this entire DISPUTE. I've also seen from your last posting that you failed to mention any kind of solution or mention of the methods suggested. Finally, let me point out, as you might not be aware. I issued an alert/warning for Irishlass after she continued to be a problem earlier today. Don't make me do the same to you, as I see your throwing our personal remarks again. In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lovely accusations. I simply asked MANGOJUICE a question. Your comments are unnecessary and obviously designed to create issues. I'll wait for Mango to respond to my comments. I will not fight with the likes of you. KellyAna (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight, I've been stopping this fight for the begening. I'm only suggesting that you start backing up your comments and your side of the issue. Every comment you make, has nothing to do with the issue. Why are you even discussing this issue, as you clearly have no idea what were disputing but only to add flames to the fire. Consider this your first Warning! As for the second time, you'll failed to comment on possible solutions or methods suggested. CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My comments addressed past discussions that were brought up previously. How is that not about the issue? And why is this a dispute? I thought it was a discussion? As for warnings, I've done nothing wrong and have only addressed relative issues. KellyAna (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna: many of us would like to hear what you think should be done with the cast list in the infobox. What do you prefer? What do you think is acceptable / unacceptable? I think a lot of us are vague about what you want, other than more input. More input is a good thing: let's start with yours. Mangojuice^talk 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but KellyAna, can you just PLEASE back up your thought process for once. I've slaved over this issue for days, answering any questions, giving examples, discussions, and explaining my side of the issue to anyone who asks. I've have also found flaws in your examples. Besides Mango/Cars, I've been the only one sitting on this issue and trying to solve it. I don't even know what were disputing as I'm starting to think this is one big joke. PLEASE comment for everyone’s sake.--DJS24 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MangoJuice I prefer the way it was before DJS got into his revert war last weekend. The names with years. I thought that was clear from the original request for comment. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that my first post would be my position. The comments on the TV project talk page and Irish's comments about tense, I agreed. I don't like the dates but I'd rather have those than a removal of James Caan since he made the show what it is (in my opinion). He's also supposed to be coming back, at least before the writers strike he was. I really thought I'd offered my opinion. I am sorry that it didn't translate that way. KellyAna (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if we are going to keep the former stars, why don't we use the #2 method. I think that makes is clear who is on the show and whos not. It also shows Josh Duhamel first, as he is the starring character.--DJS24 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because an astrix cause issues with formatting. Josh is second billed and always has been. When you pull the NBC cast, Tom shows first. Prior to Tom, James was first. Top billed is based on contract and Tom and James have had the title. KellyAna (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is based on the show's current title sequence. Selleck's name comes up first on the site because they were promoting him for joining the show. On the actual list of cast members on the site, shows Josh Duhamel listed number one. The word "and" is added to Selleck's name, to stop a starring dispute, as his name is lasted. If Selleck was the main character, "Starring" would be over his name and "and" would be over Duhamel. Please use Criminal Minds as an example. The show starred Mandy Patinkin with Thomas Gibson's name second. When Patinkin left the show, Gibson's name was more to #1 with "starring" over it. However, when Joe Mantegna joined the cast serveral episodes later as Patinkin's replacement, Mantegna's was first w/ "Starring" over it. Thomas Gibson was moved to last in the order w/ the word "and" over his name. They only use "and" when there is a starring dispute. However the word "Starring" indicates the main star. Please note, before Selleck joined the show Las Vegas didn't include the word "and" over the last person's name. --DJS24 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would need to agree with KellyAna, that the former stars should be included. However, if they are they need to be listed in the above order. Former star's names should come up last. As for who's name goes first, its Josh Duhamel, as DJS24 gives a good example of Criminal Minds, (I didn't think of that one). DJS24 also explained that the infobox's cast order is the same as the title sequence. That is true, as we should prob. add "and" over Selleck's name. Again please use Criminal Minds as an example. CARS!--CarsGm5 (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll happily add this where DJS and Cars verify they are one in the same [13]. DJS makes a comment, I (admittedly) tell him to go away. He's switch to CarsGm5 and replies to my comment, deletes, then switches back. I've never reverted Cars' edits and I'm not the one confused. This makes so much need to be discussed again. I hope all can see it. KellyAna (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WOW, your so full of crap. Right when things are moving you pull a stunt like this. I'm so tired of your crap. I'm done. I'm putting for a full warning, this game your playing doesn't make for a good editor. I hope to do a full report on you, and believe me, when they read the stuff you put in here they will do some blocking. --DJS24 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you explain how we can both be working on Wiki. at the same time? I can't --DJS24 (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No stunt, just fact. I have proof on my side, I'm not worried about much and I've already filed reports. KellyAna (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "how can we both" it's easy, two browsers one by IE and one by Firefox. The other 0ption is a laptop with a wireless card and a desktop with a land line. Toggle features. It's very easy to be two people at once. KellyAna (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even with CarGm5 gone, he pointed out several things that needed to be pointed out, as well calming this issue down. When you were to busy stirring up the pot. Also this whole discussion was taking a positive course until you came back and now look at where we are. --DJS24 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all DJS24, I'm not gone, I'm still here and I will be her for the entire dispute. Let her have her night of glory as we both know we won't be connected at all. As I have already explained.--CarsGm5 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I have no clue what IE or firefox is, and even though I wish I had each, there's no way I can afford two computers. --DJS24 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all I did was ask a question and "Cars" made false accusations. I have proof that the "two of you" are the same. There's no need to belabor this point. As for who may or may not have calmed things, that credit goes to MangoJuice. S/he gets all the credit and a flack jacket for dealing with this. KellyAna (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree about mango, and I know he will look into this situation I'm sure, but with all things aside, I need to give you credit. I can see you know your NASCAR, as the info you gave is correct, or you a fan? If so, you should join the NASCAR group we could use editors. Their infoa nd grammar is horrible/YES YES as is mine --DJS24 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly talking about nascar, who cares about nascar its not related to the discussion.???? --CarsGm5 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a MINUTE, how don't I know if CarGm5 is related to you two (KellyANa,Irishlass). Because I have clearly distroyed you in this discussion, even before Cars came in to the picture. It had to take a admin. to step in for my work to be shown. And adding Cars would be perfect in destoying my issue/repuation. Let me point out that, when I think about it, when Cars has been on, one you those two aren't on. Cars was on earlier/Kelly wasn't. Cars is on now, Irishlass isn't. I am going to diffinitly do a checkuser now. I have better things to do then take a chance at ending all the work I put into this. I hope someone follows up. --DJS24 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are digging into a place that only makes you look bad. Cars has been on when both Irish and I have been on. You are causing considerable disruption with you false accusations. This week has been so sad.

KellyAna (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm being completely honest, you can look into it. I'm begging you if it will prove my point. YES I will agree about a bad week, as I have never spent so much time on WIki. before. I don't know how you guys do it everyday. --DJS24 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

With all that, I would like to get back to the discussion at hand here. Thanks --DJS24 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer contributing to this site, you can read my reasons for leaving on my talk page Best of Luck!!

In Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what a shame, I see this discussion is no longer back on track. We do need to come to a conclusion rather DJS24 is here or not. --CarsGm5 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Annulled or not?

Bleek25 seems to think that everyone still believes Piper and Mike are married. I just rewatched thanks to full episodes online and I disagree that Cooper and Sam believe they are still married. Which is it and can anyone find references since this is about WP:V not what anyone believes. IrishLass (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that trying to decide what the characters believe is original research, and therefore neither opinion belongs. Barring a direct reference in an episode, the only way to cover this appropriately is to say that no one knows. Lord Bodak (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe it is original research as it was shown on screen that they have doubts. They specificially said, Delinda to Danny: "Those to are still married" Danny to Delinda: "No, you think so?" So there was specific dialog addressing the fact that staff is currently trying to guess if they are still married or not. So there was direct reference to staff debating yes or no annulled or not. What I was questioning was not the fact that there's a divide but if Sam and Cooper think it. See the edit summaries. Regardless, the content you removed should be put back. IrishLass (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I changed the section to reflect that. Lord Bodak (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Piper's father

People keep putting that Piper's father died in Vietnam. This is impossible. The Vietnam war was completely over by 1975 (albeit essentially over in 1973 with small factions still fighting thereafter). Piper has said she's 25. That means she couldn't have been born before 1982. I don't recall anything stating that that's where he died, just that Cooper and her father were best friends. If, and I'll watch again, they said he died in Vietnam, we need a blooper section because that's even more impossible than the 14 month pregnancies women have on soap operas. IrishLass (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay i just went to NBC.com/ and watched the ending at about 38:20 they show piper and cooper around 39:00 he said this: "he was killed" thus he had to have died in vietnam. Tj21 (talk) 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it specifically say "he was killed in Vietnam"? If so, there's a way to word it to reflect Las Vegas' error in historical accuracy. IrishLass (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It implies it, go watch it to see for yourself. You say a person is killed in war not murdered. So he had to have died in vietnam. Tj21 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It can't be implied, it has to say specifically. You can be killed in many ways, not just in the war. You can be killed in a motorcycle accident, in a car accident, in a farm accident. I'll definitely look, but there are many ways to be killed without it being murder. Some people will say "smoking killed...." so "killed" is a relative term in relation to who you might be talking about. It's also sentence structure. I'll look though. IrishLass (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the converstation between piper and cooper that states his death:

Cooper, You are probably wondering how i got in here

Piper, Well you are aj cooper so you either lied to the landlord or you probably paid her to get in

cooper, I lied I told her I was your father

piper, You are a very confusing man you know that

cooper, So I have been total

piper, What do you want?

cooper, I don't know.......... for you to understand.

piper, Well if you are not my father then where is he?

cooper,He was killed.

piper, He was a soldier?

cooper, He was a marine, before he died I made a promise to him that I would look after you

piper, So everything I have every done you have had a hand in

cooper, No no I just stayed close

the rest of it just goes on to give smaller details about cooper and her dad. So then was he killed in vietnam or not?Tj21 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I watched. NO, it doesn't even imply he was killed in Vietnam. It says "he was a Marine" and "he was killed" and then he goes into how they met in boot camp. There's never an indication that he was killed in Vietnam so that needs to be left out of the article as it fails to pass verifiability. Glad that's cleared up. Thanks for the time mark, it was easier to find quickly. IrishLass (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AJ Cooper's family life

cooper seems to have/had a wife and child, there are possible references to them throughout the season, but only direct references to his wife/ex-wife during episode 102 and child in i could eat a horse. Would it be an assumption to add that to his profile?Tj21 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely an assumption. Vague nonspecific references alluded to but not defined do not belong in articles.KellyAna (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TV Fodder as a source

Quite frankly, it doesn't meet reliable source criteria. It is a self-admitted blog. "TV Fodder is an oft-updated blog featuring TV news, features, reviews, commentary and any other TV-related stuff we can throw together." Pairadox (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I said on my page....TVGuide has gone to a "blog" format for their news stories. If we dump references just because they call themselves a blog, we'd be dumping TVGuide. The further issue is, they are right. James Caan and Nikki Cox did leave the show as they reported. So where do we draw the lines? This water is getting murky. KellyAna (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy; TV Guide has a history and reputation that pre-dates personal computers, much less the internet. Pairadox (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone needs to understand that TV information sites are tricking with which ones are reliable and unreliable. TVFodder is one of those sites. Most of their information is considered unreliable but some of their statements turn out to be true. In this case, we're talking about something that has already happened, as we all know James Caan and Nikki Cox did in fact leave the show. So for this case and ones related, I would say that we leave TVFodder as the source for this statement, as their statement did show to be true. However, I don't think we should continue adding TVFodder as a reference for TV information in the future as they are a blog and most blogs are consider unreliable. Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't being used to support the claim that they left the show, but the reasons they left. It's really pretty shaky when you look at the source. "Caan seemed to hint that he might be leaving the show. After all, there are Playboy mansion parties to attend!" "The rumor is that her departure is part of budget cuts." THAT is not a report that meets reliability criteria. Pairadox (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, I didn't see as for the reasons they left. Yeah, I would consider that statement unreliable now, as their stating something that hasn't been proved. --DJS24 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference could be replaced with this [14]. I would say a traded on the NYSE is a valid source. Quite frankly, with people treating this article as more of a blog about the show than an actual article, who cares what the refences are? You've got editors who remove facts to avoid something I can't understand. Why remove references to the annulment party and the way Piper and Mike were married? Why avoid facts? Why remove verified content? This article is becoming one big blog and going away from an actual article. With every further entry it becomes more and more in-universe and less and less an article.KellyAna (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd call that an acceptable source, but not because of some NYSE connection. It's a professionally written piece, byline and all, that relies on interviews with the creators of the series instead of rumor and innuendo. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the article is about; sources should still matter to every Wikipedia editor. Verifiability is still one of the core policies, especially when dealing with living people. Pairadox (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a reliable reference to replace it with. Kellyana you bring up several good questions/points, to which I have no answers. --DJS24 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DJS. At least when you and I were arguing we were arguing verified content. The editor that keeps removing the information about Piper and Mike's marriage makes no sense. He's removing content that is factual. They did get married, they did go for the annulment, they did attend the party, and then in the next episode they revealed they didn't go through with it. Why does all that need to be removed? Why is it being removed? It's personal preference by one editor and it's not factual to remove the content. I'll switch out the reference. KellyAna (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable guest stars

The consensus and history indicate a character description is not necessary and not even available in all cases. The list, which borders on WP:LISTCRUFT issues should at least be consistent. Most articles just have a name and ep, we should be consistent but again, the same editor is reverting changes just because he can. We need consensus decision to keep the list consistent.KellyAna (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna why are you so stubern to have the page your way.This page was doing very well before you came along. I and many others love that fact that you are a fan of the show.But it seems that you are causing more harm than good.Bleek25 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't the original one reverting. You should look at history before making accusations the history of the page doesn't back up. Also, you are violating the personal attack rule. You've already violated 3RR and have been reported since you violated after your warning, this is just another example of your personal attacks. KellyAna (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It does make more sense to keep the descriptions off. Plus the descripition for penny character is not even correct.35.11.200.66 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Penny really a con artist posing as a real estate agent? KellyAna (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

she was a real estate con-artist. Skimming people out of money for their houses.35.11.200.66 (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleek, you are wrong in so many ways here, KellyAna explains how your information is incorrect. DJS--DJS24 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy on names

Since the same user has the same issues, not following policy, I'll try this again. Policy WP:Common names says women's names don't automatically change therefore Piper remains without the Cannon. I'm not reverting again, but her name should be based on policy, not the whims of editors. KellyAna (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

question: wouldn't it be considered changed since both mike and piper refer to her as mrs. cannon now?Tj21 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Did you read the policy? KellyAna (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled?

is the show offically cancelled? 35.11.200.66 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I provided a reference to a verifiable source that states it is canceled. TVGuide announced it today. KellyAna (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the reference since a new editor seems to think I'm lying TV Guide KellyAna (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second link [15] by a different writer. KellyAna (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think this user was accusing you of lying, and I don't see the relevance of their tenure. Please try be civil. CPitt76 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The user I'm talking about was deleted from my user talk page and has been banned for being a sock. Read what is written and not what you think it says and for the record, the person TOLD me I was lying so I wasn't being uncivil, don't make false accusations. The IP knows who I was talking to and probably who I was talking about. KellyAna (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in that user's question do they accuse you of lying, I don't understand what would make you think I was reading what I "think it says". My last post was merely a reminder in response to your statement which seems to accuse another user of libel. It was not meant as an accusation and, if you are offended by what was written, I'm willing to discuss it further on either of our talk pages. CPitt76 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CPitt the user KellyAna is talking about is NOT this ip user who posted the above question. Look through edit histories.Tj21 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Tj21. Thanks. It is about a user that came to my talk page and accused me of "not knowing anything" and even disagreed with my posted links. I never addressed anyone on this page until you came here and told me to be civil unnecessarily. You were reading what you "think it says" in that you assumed I was referring my comments to 35.11.200.66 when I was not. I would have said "since YOU" but I did not. I clearly said "since a new user" and IP 35 is not new in the least. I just brought the reference here so everyone could see it not just the user who told me I didn't know anything about the cancellation. And I won't even address the libel comment as it's too far in left field to even be addressed. KellyAna (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

FCC complains about nudity

I read that the FCC, is complainning that the last epsiode of the show, (air date Feb. 15, 2008), displayed some women's bare rear ends. Their next complaint will probably be about wet T-shirts, as well as thong swimsuits and exercise outfits that are shown on tv. I quess all the dead bodies and acts of violence shown on the other fictional tv shows is okay with them.204.80.61.110 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk

This is gossip and gossip doesn't belong on article talk pages. First, the FCC doesn't complain about anything, they receive complaints from viewers. Second, the show is over, there's nothing for viewers to complain about anymore, lastly you seem to not be even talking about Las Vegas because there aren't a lot of "dead bodies" and "acts of violence" on the show and it's in a 10pm timeslot. KellyAna (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"there aren't a lot of "dead bodies" and "acts of violence" on the show " Oh dear. And your definition of 'a lot' is...? 76.2.152.213 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was originally intended to be the star?

I just re-watched the first several episodes of the show, and I disagree with the bit in the Background that states: "The series originally centered around Ed Deline (James Caan in his first television series role), a strict ex-CIA officer who..." The first few episodes have Danny McCoy narrating the show. I doubt Ed Deline was supposed to be the character the show centered around if Danny is narrating. Can someone explain to me how that statement is accurate? Chexmix53 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

James Caan only agreed to take on a television role if he were considered the star. Josh D. was a relative unknown when the show started having only started on a soap opera prior to Las Vegas. Even Vanessa was a bigger name than Josh when the show started. So contrary to what is decidedly your opinion, James Caan was indeed hired as the star and center of the show when it first aired. KellyAna (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He may have been considered the star, to appease his ego, but if you have ever watched the first season, you would know that that is not the case. How can he be the star if it is narrated by Danny! Chexmix53 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

the pilot was to be centered around Danny and his relationship with Ed Deline, but after they found it difficult to write with Danny narrating everything, they retooled the next few episodes to shift more focus on Ed and with Danny assisting him. 35.11.200.66 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

chem that still makes the background information CORRECT. Every show gets retooled after the few episodes in a season. 24.11.49.160 (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that would make the background information, MISLEADING. It should state that in Pre-Production, it was inteded for Ed to be the star. If you watch the first season from the pilot episode, the show is centered around Danny. Chexmix53 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the show has been centered on James Caan from the beginning to when he left. Just because Josh D. narrated the first couple of episodes, doesn't mean anything. Both James Caan and Vanessa Marcil were much bigger stars at the time the show started. Not to mention the fact, James Caan's name comes first with "Starring" over it. The narrating part is just one of the ways they wanted to connect Josh D. with James Caan. Caan was always the star and his ego is no part in this. --DJS24 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you actually SEEN the first season of Las Vegas? If Caan was meant to be the star at pre-production, fine, but he was obviously not the star or throughout the rest of the show. Everything has centered around Danny, we know more about Danny, his mom, his dad, his high school girlfriend, his friends, than anyone else.

And the 'staring' tag means nothing but he is the oldest one on the show. Watch any show filmed int he 80's and the staring tag is on the veteran actor, like the sitcom family's grandma (who is hardly ever on the show). That means nothing. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

YES, I've seen season one at least 5 times. It's all about how they introduce the characters. They want you to know more about "Danny", because at that time Ed and Danny aren't that close. They keep Ed quite in the begining because he's that strict mean ex-CIA boss. As the season goes on they become close friends. It's all about how they introduce the characters. Then in season two, you start to learn about Mike, as he becomes close friends with Danny. This is a stupid dispute. Anyone who watches Las Vegas knows the Ed Deline(James Caan) is the main star.--DJS24 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fear Factor/Las Vegas

If the show debut on Sept. 22, 2003, which if you look up, was a Monday and the series final was on a Friday, then my information is correct. That does not need a source. The Fear Factor information; as it's claimed it was put after Fear Factor to promote the show, needs a source. Fear Factor might have been a popular show but that doesn't mean they put Las Vegas after to promote it. I'll keep Fear Factor in the article for a few days to give users a chance to show a source. However if there's no source, I will remove it. Thanks DJS- --DJS24 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference to "promotion" in the article all that is there is correct and referenced that the show debuted following Fear Factor, which is fact. Removal of the Fear Factor information is unnecessary as it is true. And I sourced the time slot info so you've got a source that shows it did debut after Fear Factor. KellyAna (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, I think you’re confused, I'm not debating the fact Fear Factor came after Las Vegas, I know that. What I'm arguing is the Fear Factor's relevance to the article. It shouldn't be mentioned just to be mentioned. It has nothing to do with the article; it's just clutter in the opening paragraph. You claimed Las Vegas was put after Fear Factor to promote it. If that is indeed true, then yes it's relevant to the article. However there is not source to show that to be true. I will still remove the line in a few days if there's no source to show "it was to promote the show". BTW, the source you added means nothing. If you're going to add a source, make sure I can go and view it. Anyone could just add TV Guide DJS --DJS24 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to take a trip to the Reliable source notice board because according to Wikipedia, if a source exists that someone can access, which includes published magazines viewable via the Library of Congress that houses all published work, or your local library, it's reliable. You personally don't have to have access to it as long as someone, somewhere does, per Wikipedia rules. And since, gods love my mother, she collected TV Guide, I can look at the magazine and see the listings, it's a valid reference. Go ahead, go ask Wiki, I know I'm right on this and the reference isn't false. The statement is fact. Las Vegas premiered after Fear Factor. That's all it needs to meet criteria to be in the article, for it to be fact. Doesn't matter why it premiered there, it just matters that it did. And it's Las Vegas premiered AFTER Fear Factor, not the other way around. Again, the article doesn't say it was scheduled there because of Fear Factor's popularity, just that it premiered after that for whatever reason. And that's a fact. KellyAna (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, so I can add any source I want and just say I have access to it add home. YEAH RIGHT. Well, why couldn't I just say that, "NBC denied the fact Las Vegas was put after Fear Factor to promote the show and my source is a TV Guide I have at home." PLEASE that's a joke. Show me where wiki. says that's ok to add as a reference that you can't see or view. Saying you have a source at home is incorrect. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you aren't understanding, a source can be a book or published magazine. Are you reading what is in the article because no where does it state anything about popularity being the reason for LV's placement after Fear Factor. What it says is that Las Vegas debuted in the time slot after Fear Factor which is FACT and it's FACT verified by the line up printed in TV Guide. You keep saying "promote, promote, promote" but that's not even in the article. The only thing in the article is a factual indication when and in what time slot Las Vegas debuted. TV Guide's the official guide for listing television air times. As for where it says what's reliable, WP:V is one and for a secific citation, look here, [16] which discusses end credits but also references what is reliable The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC). "Cite the book you're holding" standard. Book/magazine/anything in print. I didn't use the grid for anything regarding a statement from NBC, only as fact for the timeslot it aired in and what show it followed. As big as the internet it, not every book, magazine, and movie transcript is available online, that's why books and printed magazines are verifiable references. And, finally, it's not about me holding it, the library can have copies, as stated above, it just has to be accessible to the public in general. KellyAna (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A Cameo Question

The link under the list of cameo appearances to Daniel Evans goes to the disambiguation page. I've never watched this show, but looking at the list of people on that list, and knowing the work of the actor Daniel Evans pretty well, I'd say it isn't him, but I don't know who the Daniel Evans who was in the show was. Could someone who knows more about it link it to the correct one please? Thanks loads, Kastrel (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 on DVD

Does anyone know when Season 4 on DVD is going to be released in Australia? On the main Wikipedia page it says 5th of March, but this date has been cancelled and no stores know when it is going to be released! Can someone please tell me cos I really need my Las Vegas fix!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 5 out on dvd

Good day

Im trying to find out when Season 5 will be available on DVD?

"High Stakes Game"

At the very bottom of the page it states that Las Vegas has had an affect on pop culture because someone called Jeff Mariotte wrote a book about it. I clicked on his wikipedia page (surprise, there's a page for him) and it seems like that page is a vanity page. The Link to the reference information is a page to purchase this book. I think the content should be deleted from the Las Vegas page. Does anyone agree? Chexmix53 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

you would be wrong to have it deleted. Because you don't obviously know about the book. The book was commisioned by the las vegas producers to give a view of what happens during the summer the cast is gone when the casino is in reconstruction (because this was used as a marketing ploy to connect episodes they couldnt create to connect season 2 end to season 3 opener) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.181.60 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Jane "Sam" Marquez

I realize that this may be left out because it would make her character description too long, but should it be mentioned that she was kidnapped, caused the death of her kidnapper and suffers PTSD for the remainder of season 5? I'm only suggesting it because it introduces more to her character and made her more interesting. I won't be offended if this is completely shot down Facebookery (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree...that was a big thing that happened to her... Donatrip (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Season 6

Why is reported on the page that season 6 will start filming in June 2009?

• I don't know but I can't find any reputable source for that, it should be removed 67.142.166.24 (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be removed. There is absolutely nothing that I can find anywhere on the internet that has any mention, whatsoever, of any new episodes being produced. Yet, people insist on believing it to be true just because somebody posted it on wikipedia without any factual evidence to back it up. In some cases, a lack of evidence does not mean it isn't true, but I do not believe that this is one of those times.Theflayedone (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Detective Luis Perez

Shouldn't Luis be mentioned in the recurring characters list?

Monk didn't visit the Montecito

Even though the logo was the same, the casino Monk visited in "Mr. Monk Goes to Vegas" was called the Monticello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.194.174 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Splitting up the page

I agree there should be a page with all the characters seperate from this one. Because it's a VERY big part of this page. Teysz Kamieński _(talk)</font> 16:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. AJFU (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis at the Montecito

I watched Stargate Atlantis "Las Vegas" frame by frame and did not see the Montecito anywhere. Could I get a time in the episode when the Montecito appeared? LA (T) @ 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Woman Who Sung Let It Ride

The woman who sung Let It Ride is not mentioned or listed anywhere. She sounds like the actress who played Sam. The writer of the song did not sing it at the opening of the show. 2603:6011:644:4000:7987:20B1:2A36:3BAF (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)