Talk:List of Law & Order: LA episodes

18-49 demographic rating

There is an edit war about the merit in adding this rating, and where to add it. I agree, it's an important rating. If we keep that rating, it needs to go in with the episode list somehow; so let's focus on how to implement it there? Thanks. Mike Allen 00:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If this purports to be an encyclopedic entry about LOLA, then it seems to me one would want to include all the relevant stats about each episode. Like it or not, the demo rating of viewers 18-49 is the most important if not the only criteria that networks use to evaluate a series' success -- and therefore seems like the most relevant stat to mention to gauge the show's success week to week. Otherwise this entry just becomes a fan page of no consequence. if that's what the kids here want, maybe they should start a LOLA page on Facebook.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.91.116 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding the 18-49 rating goes against the established convention. Look around, not many articles contain it, and the ones that do I would argue have fallen through the cracks. Most people have no idea what it means, while viewership numbers are easy to understand for all right off the bat. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So we shouldn't add important information just because some people don't know what it means? Wouldn't it be simpler to explain what it means and why it's important to their favorite TV show - since it is the most important factor to whether a show stays on the air or not (demo ratings indicate what portion of adults 18-49, the segment of the population most desired by advertisers, watch a particular episode. The higher the number, the more a network can charge for advertising, ergo the more successful a show is. There, that wasn't too tough, was it?)? Reporting irrelevant information (like total viewers -- many shows with large viewerships get cancelled if their demo ratings are too low, i.e. below a 2) just because it's easy to understand doesn't seem like a valid reason for listing some information and not others. Ratings are reported by every major news media, even US Today reports the 18-49 rating, so obviously many do know what it means. Not including the demo 18-49 ratings in an entry about a TV show is like listing baseball games without the score. As for where to put it, at one point the demo rating shared a box with total viewership in the episode listing -- either put it back there or create a new box in the episode listing grid for the demo rating. Doesn't seem like a big deal to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.91.116 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as articulated by Grk1011. the argument against including the rating is 1) conformity ("goes against the established convention") and 2) ignorance ("most people have no idea what it means"). It's unfortunate that some see Wikipedia's mission as fostering conformity and prolonging ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.91.116 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Full summaries

I'm new at this, but when are the full episode summaries allowed to be posted?67.239.77.19 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DA-Team

Why isn't listed the DA-Teams. In episode 6 and 7 is the same team! -- 77.23.248.138 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Playa Vista episode description

This episode is being referred to in many Parental Alienation support groups. Describing this episode as a retelling of Tiger Woods being abused/abusive is certainly part of the storyline. However, the punchline shows the very damaging effects of child abuse when the perpetrator is a parent, the target is another parent and the weapon is their common child.

To omit this from the episode description, is like asking Mrs. Lincoln, "aside from THAT, how did you enjoy the play?".

Robert Samery

reference http://www.paawareness.org http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/parental-alienation-law-o_n_791401.html http://padsupport.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/tennessee-moves-to-split-custody-evenly-in-messy-divorces/ http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=11432 http://padsupport.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/tennessee-moves-to-split-custody-evenly-in-messy-divorces/ http://nuzcom.com/parental-alienation-law-order-tackles-topic

70.31.48.100 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for "based on" or "inspired by" statements

I've just gone through and removed a couple unsourced and one poorly sourced "based on" statements from episode descriptions. This is always slippery ground: it often seems obvious to the viewer what the source event for an episode might be (heaven knows the original L&O nursed OJ and JonBenet Ramsey for all they were worth), but we can't climb into the production team's heads and be sure. The same standards of evidence for these statements must apply as for any other data presented in this article, or we're in WP:OR territory. Moreover, sources have to be reliable; I removed one statement (relating to the John Edwards scandal) that was sourced by little more than a statement by a critic from a minor website who perceived a "John Edwards element" in the story, which was far from adequate. Drmargi (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact is we should keep it, because the original "Law & Order" has the based on or inspired statements in their episodes. It's only obvious what these cases are based on just like in the original show, be it te Edwards case, or the Tiger Woods case, or even the Bell paycheck scandal. So cut the bullshit and keep the statements. 24.213.255.208 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:Civil. Just because it's wrong elsewhere doesn't make it appropriate to ignore policy here. Doing so will get you reverted. Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have always agreed (just check the article's history for the number of times I've reverted) that these statements, must be sourced. To IP, it may be "obvious", but it's still original research if we add what is obvious. It must be backed up with a reliable source. That's how Wikipedia works, believe it or not. :-) —Mike Allen 01:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We've got a related problem with the addition of production notes to the summaries. We don't need a note telling us a given episode was shown out of order, or now, filmed before the so-called "retooling" of the show, particularly under the guise of being "crucial" information, as though a reader is foolish enough to think Winters has come back from the dead. The production code and cast make obvious the newest episode was filmed to have been broadcast earlier in the season, and such filler notes are more fancruft than encyclopedic. Drmargi (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Monday's Stanley Cup Final Game

I've gone back and forth with this over the last few days so I'm opening it up to discussion. According to NHL.com Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, which is now guaranteed, will be played Monday and be aired on NBC in the States. In that case the next LOLA episode won't air until 6/20 unless they choose to air an episode in the middle of next week. However, NBC.com disputes this, listing the regular Monday programming for 6/13. All the other sports site I've seen match what NHL.com has and the the various on line TV Listings are split down the middle. Since I think the NHL would know when and on what stations their games are being played I would say we leave it blank, but others are flipping it back. I say we leave the air dates blank until we can figure out for sure what is going on Monday night.

NBC.com sets the schedule, and thereby is the most reliable source. You're over thinking this, and not making allowances for the time of day the game is on in different time zones, and the corresponding adjustment to the time LOLA will be on. Drmargi (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The game is in Boston at 8 eastern and I'm not over thinking this. NBC may not be correct here. The NHL says it is on Monday at 8 ET on NBC and I'm reasonably sure that they know when and on what channel there games are on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drn211 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NBC does set their schedule but they do not dictate the NHL schedule. Everywhere else says there is a hockey game on Monday night. Most everything but NBC.com says NBC is showing the game on Monday; nothing says it is on Versus. NBC's schedule has also read this way for how many months now? Outdated and not updated is more what NBC's schedule is but certainly not reliable and current. A new AGT, a repeat LOCI, and a new LOLA are what they have for Monday on NBC.com. Do you honestly believe they are going to show an episode of AGT on the west coast only? It is sadly one of the network's most popular shows. I get KING from Seattle and it has an hour of local programming at 8pt, a repeat of SVU at 9pt, and to be announced at 10pt as this coming Monday's schedule. Rather than preëmpt Oprah and the news the hockey game will be shown live on KONG, a channel i don't get. They do this every year. And i still laugh at the channels KING & KONG. The flip side to not showing AGT on the east coast is not showing Boston possibly win the series. I'm sure WHDH would be threatening disaffiliation if they were not allowed to show Boston possibly win because i would rather the network show LOLA. I'm certain that the hockey game will be on and the folk at NBC will eventually update the schedule they announced months before the hockey play-off dates were determined. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I suggested otherwise. But by the same token, I think it's reasonable that NBC knows its own schedule. The NHL knows when it scheduled the game, which is done in collaboration with the network, but it is not the authoritative word on the time of the broadcast (remember all the accompanying pre/post malarkey), much less the remainder of NBC's schedule, which includes LOLA. Under no circumstances will an NHL or sports-related source ever be the final word on whether LOLA is/isn't on, much less more reliable than NBC. BTW, it is common practice to sign your posts. Drmargi (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NBC.com has now updated their schedule. The have listed the hockey at 7 and LOLA at 9. Since sports game are generally given three hours (hockey sometimes only gets 2 and a half depending on the station) so this can't possibly be correct. Looks like Hockey on Monday.

NBC.com now has hockey from 8 onward on Monday night and no LOLA at all. If this is what you consider NBC.com being reliable then LOL they have gone through 3 different schedules in less than 24 hours and now are on the one that the NHL had all along. You can call it original research or whatever but it is still LOL that NBC is so unreliable in what they will be showing and everyone but them knew. NBC.com's current info only goes through 15 June so who knows. TFC kinda just moved things back a week but they also listed the same episode a couple of Mondays in a row as the most current revision so... NBC's press site still says there is an ep on 13 June. More LOL. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In defense of NBC I think they were leaving their regular Monday schedule up until Game 6 became necessary. That happened last night when the Bruins evened things up hence the changes within the last 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drn211 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 20 ep was "Van Nuys"

The article lists the June 27 ep as "Van Nuys" and the June 20 ep as "El Sereno". However, the Futon Critic link (the reference used to source the June 27 ep) confirms what my guide told me -- June 20 is "Van Nuys". SmallRepair (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. I have the June 20 episode sitting on my DVR, and it's "El Sereno." Despite the abiding faith in Futon Critic as a reliable source that most editors have, they do a lot of projecting of dates and episode titles, and subsequently, make a lot of errors, particularly recently. Drmargi (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge into main article?

I've just reverted an editor's undiscussed and edit-summary free merge of this article into the main article. While I see the sense of doing this, I'm of the belief this major a change should be done only after discussion, particularly given content of this article was omitted upon merge. So, here's everyone's chance: should the merge stand, and if so, should it include content previously omitted, such as the episode notes? --Drmargi (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave it separate. It would make the main article rather long, and so, per WP:SUMMARY, a daughter article for the episodes makes sense. Also, it maintains the pattern across all the L&O series. Even if LA, and TbJ for that matter, were only on for one season each, it's logically and aesthetically superior to keep the pattern. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep separate. Maybe if they had axed the show after 5 episodes maybe, but once you get about 9 or 10 in an ep. list, it starts to get bigger and longer. If it were on the main page, it'd be excess clutter. Plus, "rumors" are still circulating that 'Law & Order: LA' could get picked up somewhere else so, you never know. But the logical thing indeed would be to keep them separate.
There are a lot of axed shows on this site w/ one season only in seperate articles: List of Chase episodes, List of Mercy episodes, List of The Cape episodes, and List of Trauma episodes. These are just some recent NBC shows alone so... keep separate.--SVU4671 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Seperate: As per SVU4671's comment. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

With an edit on 2 January 2014, this article was redirected to Law & Order: LA. There appears to have been no discussion about this redirection, but i wonder if it should be classified as a merger, so should have been discussed here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Production Code Error

Both Big Rock Mesa and Reseda are marked down as 01016. I assume one of them should be marked down as 01017. If so, which one? Plus, where did all these production code numbers come from? Can any of them be called upon with absolute certainty?--Futuremoviewriter (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)