Talk:Rookie Blue

Location

Thank you for changing it from Boston to Toronto. At this point there is still no official news on where this show is supposed to take place, even if it's fictitious. But there was absolutely no reference to Boston, the police car colors look nothing like Boston, definitely not Bostonian architecture and most importantly if anyone thought it was Boston then why would these characters pronounce their r's? Any New Englander knows it's the land of the forgotten r's. CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If WikiProject Toronto were not a hint let me give another affirmation that the show really does name real places in Toronto. I'm not sure where Boston comes from. And given this is a Canadian show that also airs in USA there really needs to be a move of USA dates, ratings, etc to secondary or not mentioned. Unlike Smallville or The L Word, which are American productions in Canada, this show is a Canadian production in Canada for Canadian tv that, like Flashpoint, was picked up by an American network. Original air date would be the CAN so should they diverge at some time... and ratings for USA can be tracked too but CAN ratings are what really belong in the episode list. Flashpoint is a mess because the show refused to identify as in Toronto for a long time and those editing the article fought about setting. Ten minutes in and Rookie Blue is oozing 'we are in Toronto'. iPhone's lack of tabs makes it more tricky to get the refs for this </rant> delirious agus cailleadh ☯ 14:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article only briefly had mention that the show was set in Boston (about 30 minutes) by an edit here and partially fixed here very quickly thereafter---that edit was probably just vandalism. I don't think anyone really thinks the show is based in Boston. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No this is not based in Boston, and I am unsure if there was a source that mistakenly said Boston at one point. In anycase, the show is clearly based in Canada, whether its Toronto or not MAYBE debatable. Having said all this, we only need to look as far as the recent episode which shows Swarek handing over a stack of CANADIAN 20s to Emily towards the end of the episode.Meowies (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Must the debate happen with each show set in Toronto that airs on an American network. Maybe you don't get the inside references if you live in San Diego or Perth but for anyone who has lived in Toronto or has a Toronto station as their local for any of the Canadian networks you probably recognised the name of the area mentioned in ep 1 where the shooting took place. Then there is the police cars not looking like Boston ones... because they look very much like this Toronto Emergency Task Force SUV File:TPS ETF SUV.jpg. And for anyone who might not have noticed it i am pretty sure these look a lot like the $20 in my purse, which Meowies also mentions. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that Falcon Beach was shot twice, once when dialogue placed the show on Lake Winnipeg and then again for the airing on ABC Family, that version having the show set somewhere in New England. Or maybe the confusion comes from the fact that ABC airs Boston Med (TV Series) after Rookie Blue :P Or maybe it was just vandalism.

So um, any objections to having the Canadian ratings in the episode list, with or in place of the American ones? delirious and lost ☯ 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am completely lost here. There is no debate/argument that the series is based in Boston. Why is everyone trying to justify/prove that the show is set in Toronto/Canada? There was ONE edit, which was quickly fixed, which was probably vandalism, which changed it to Boston. [1] It had no basis, no proof, no nothing. He was wrong, let's get past that. On a separate note, Canadian viewers were in the episode list originally. For whatever reason, an editor took them out here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Canadian viewership. It is not common practice to have both Canadian and American ratings, especially not within the episode list table. In fact I have only ever seen it for the flashpoint entry and even then it is a section entirely dedicated to the ratings themselves. Personally when I was first creating the page, I wanted production codes in place of ratings, but being unable to find them, I opted to go with a column for ratings.Meowies (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I was at first dumbfounded to see any mention of Boston. Plus half of my post was composed on my phone and the remaining, redundant, part came via my computer a little later.

Global is one of the networks that does not release production codes, and so you will not see them in the end credits or press releases. Maybe, just maybe the cursory 103, 104, etc. but not the real codes like can be found in the credits of a show made by Warner Bros. or FOX. I happen to be a huge fan of wikipedia:is not american and so seeing US ratings on a Canadian show just is sooooo wrong to me, especially when the Canadian ratings are not there. I realise i am writing about the episode list and this is the main article's talk page but this is where the action is. In like manner i balanced out the critical reception. It is a bit large, for now, relative to the rest of the article but as i left it it is: 4 pro, 4 con: 5 American, 3 Canadian. I think that is fairly balanced. Plus i love John Doyle. There are some articles from The Globe and Mail that could be used for a production section, however as the newspaper eventually converts most old content to paid i strongly advise you make an archive link for anything you cite from The Globe and Mail. delirious and lost ☯ 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an issue because some people from Toronto insist on turning issues like this into a big issue. It's called a persecution complex, living in the footsteps of a country like the United States, which gets more attention than wannabe Toronto does. Pure and simple. It doesn't take place in Boston, and I don't think anyone has suggested it does. Aurora30 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the bit about the vehicles to the article. I am also not from Toronto. Calling Toronto a wannabe city is just hostile. One person had put the article to read as the setting being Boston saying the ref from THR said so. It isn't and it doesn't. It was reverted. As to reporting this as an American show, you are quite right i take great issue with that. The article was created saying it is an American show and it read as such for the better part of a year. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More evidence that it takes place in Canada: Canadian money! (From S2E8) http://i.imgur.com/tW8KB.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuler (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation numbers don't match refs?

Is anyone else seeing a problem with the references? There are 23 listed refs, but 24 citation numbers. The article has no in-line citation [15], and then [16] leads to 15 in the references section, [17] leads to 16, etc. Very curious, I've never seen that so I'm not sure how to fix it. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone set it to group references at the bottom of ratings and put <ref name="whatever"/> in the article. Considering it is a note rather than a reference i made a "Notes" section and now it counts 23 refs and 1 note.

And please do not group all the refs at the bottom as it makes section editing a right pain in the <insert body part here> when you are also adding a ref or two, cause it is either 2 edits or forgo section editing. delirious and lost ☯ 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Meowies, you seem to have missed the purpose behind putting it in a notes section. Your preferred formatting is breaking the number sequence of the references - the ^[20] within the text actually goes to the 19th reference. Not everyone will be following the link. If someone prints the article then they get a hardcopy with references 15 onward all skewed by one. Accordingly i have put back in the notes section. If you don't like the notes section then use something other than ref tags to make the note. Also, i am not sure what that is. Are you sourcing ongoing ratings average or are you calculating it yourself. Personally i don't much mind so long as it is correct however Wikipedia is not so agreeable to calculating the ongoing season average yourself. delirious and lost ☯ 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The original edit is located here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rookie_Blue&action=historysubmit&diff=371551873&oldid=371518675 The purpose of the note was to remove the unnecessary asterisk that was in the previous edit. And whilst I agree it skews the references by one, I thought I had addressed that. I realise now I was short a definition (albeit redundant) it has now been corrected. In regards to calculating the ratings myself. That is something I DO NOT do for this article. My prerogative as far as ratings have done on this page is the critical reception and to update the said date in relation to the ratings update. Beyond that I do not touch the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowies (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again I have made changes to the note. I have changed out what is the standard note citation and used the Scnote Template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Scnote. Although it had seem to have corrected issues; the definition changed nothing in breaking the format of a print out or PDF export. Despite finding that a the reflist command involved with standard note citation created a separate references list, which in effect broke the reflist into two sections, I was unable to find a way to force them back into one. To that end a "subsection" if you will has been added to ratings which has been defined as "note" to appease both myself and Deliriousandlost. The Scnote Template will stop any references from skewing further and has rectified a format break in a printout of PDF export.Meowies (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

American vs Canadian

So is there any particular reason why this Canadian show can't have the Canadian official website in the infobox? WP is still not an American encyclopædia. Maybe i am the only Canadian to be editing this show. Considering it is a Canadian show i actually would love to see most American mention stricken from the article. American shows that happen to be broadcast in Canada do not give anything more than listing in International distribution for Canada even when aired at exactly the same time. To take Canadian shows that air in the USA and fill their articles with American information is systemic POV editing, WP:ISAMERICAN, and Manifest Destinyism. Rookie Blue was not made by a Canadian company for an American audience like Queer as Folk (North American TV series) was. It was made for Canada and happens to have been picked up by an American broadcaster. Look at Being Erica. While it could do with some reörganisation of the information it is a Canadian show that happens to also air in USA, Netherlands, and UK among others. That article is not full of information about it airing on SOAPnet. I was watching actual tv the other day instead of downloads and noticed that the image used in the infobox is an American promotional image. Either every show airing in other countries needs extensive coverage of distribution in the other countries to the exclusion of their domestic distribution or the American info needs to be toned down by say 95% in this article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure about what you want me to say. You can't possibly expect anyone to agree with you given that the thought of striking any information because its American not only be a POV edit but easily discerned as an edit made in bad faith. I do not have a problem with adding Canadian information to this article, but I am unsure of two things. Exactly what Canadian information you would like added. Secondly where to find some decent sources (pref not blogs). In regards to your concerns about the ABC website overwriting Global. It really is a judgment call. On the one hand Global has more behind the scenes stuff. On the other hand ABC has the cast doing commentaries on each episode. Even a search on Google will bring up the ABC site, where as Global is no where to be seen. In regards to concern about the picture in the infobox. I have no problem with a possible change to it. Having said that if the ABC airs the show in Canada I really do not see a problem with the current image. My suggestion is EITHER go with one of the shows constantly changing intertitles OR find something similar to this http://www.sorozatguru.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/copper_xlg11.jpg. Just be sure to apply the correct licensing if the later option is used.Meowies (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As to airing the show in Canada on ABC, it is only because Canadian cable and satellite companies include American broadcast networks, something not reciprocated by most non-border area American companies with regards to Canadian networks. In Canada the ABC simulcast is subject to simultaneous substitution, meaning the Global signal is seen on both channels. The only way to see the ABC signal in Canada is via over-the-air broadcast if you happen to live within reach of an ABC signal, such as Windsor/Detroit or Niagara/Buffalo. I was watching the news from Seattle on KOMO-TV when i saw the promo for Rookie Blue.

I would really like it if the Canadian ratings were what is used in the episode list. They are not available from any reliable source until about 5 days later when the ratings company releases the weekly ratings. I am not sure where the blogs get their numbers from; i spent hours looking for a non-blog reference for ep 2 ratings a couple of days after that ep aired. Solution here is to use the Canadian ratings in the ep list (yes this would mean there is no rating the morning after the broadcast included in the ep list) and include the foreign (ie American) ratings in a comprehensive table of ratings below the ep list. There is a chance the bloggers are putting out the number from the Global press release of the overnight ratings. If i can swing making my fan site for The Good Guys into a fan site for both cop shows maybe CanWest will grant me press access like FOX did. Then i could get a nice version of the Global poster for the infobox and properly cite its source as press release material.

The use of the ABC website in the infobox is exactly the trigger for my outrage at relegating Canadian info to secondary status on a Canadian show's article. If the CTV website were better for Desperate Housewives there would still be outrage or at least a fast rollback and a vandalism warning come my way should i swap out the links because it is an American show. For all of the mess regarding episode & season numbering from market to market on Flashpoint it is still a Canadian production and has the CTV website in the infobox.

Google.ca might be more favourable to returning results from Canada than Google.com is. Maybe not. American media also tends to have a larger foothold on the internet than most anything else in English. Even i sometimes have to really look for Canadian coverage. The 3 refs i found for critical review came from looking through the respective newspapers' websites as there is zero Canadian reviews included in Metacritic.

The poster is a practical option given the titles being text over the show rather than a specific titles sequence. Still, the poster lists ABC first and CanWest third :P If it were alphabetical CanWest would be second. Only problem being it has the old name for the show :P

As to striking American info, yes i highly doubt anyone will support it due to the sheer percentage of Americans among contributors to WP. It would set a precedent that would not be taken favourably because when all the platitudes are ignored WP is more American than it likes to profess being. Still, my point that any show originating outside of USA that airs in USA gets preferential treatment to the point of almost treating USA as the original broadcaster while any show exported from USA does not, for example, treat the transmission in the UK with the same level of coverage, not by a long shot. That is where my claim of systemic American POV lies. Almost every scripted series on American broadcast television, and some on American cable channels, are shown in Canada. Given enough time i could add extensive info about most recent American shows' Canadian broadcast to articles to the point where it would be about 50/50. It would also likely be called POV editing and maybe disruptive too. So why is it endorsed to do so with foreign shows airing in USA? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading all this you have still failed to identify two crucial things. One what information would you consider "inappropriate" to the article. You surely could not mean the one sentence about being aired on the ABC at the start of the article and surely you do not mean the American media in the critical reception (they are entitled to their opinion). The only thing you could point to is the ratings inside the receptions section, in which you have stated yourself sources about the Canadian ratings are hard to come by. I would be more than glad to add something about Canadian ratings if there were a viable source. Short of this I can see nothing else that you could consider "inappropriate" (except infobox which I am getting to). The second is what information you would like to be added to THIS article. I find it extremely hard to believe that this whole exchange is about an image and website link. If it is, it all seems a little trivial.

To answer your question as to why it is endorsed to do so with a foreign show airing in the USA. I really cannot answer that question for two reasons. The first is that I really doubt that it is the case. Having said that this is the only article I know of that is debating this line of argument. Secondly, as far as I am concerned there is nothing "American" about this article with the POSSIBLE exception of the image and website.

I am going to take this opportunity to shift all appropriate discussion about ratings AND episode list to Talk:List of Rookie Blue episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowies (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It was never just about ratings and the episode list. It comes down to what language the article is written in. I have it redone on my wiki in Canadian English, with more balanced coverage of Canadian info. [2] You can also see my proposed image for the infobox there (hint: it is the ep 4 intertitle). Likewise the list of episodes is available too. [3] The American is still there for those wanting it, but it now appears second to any comparable Canadian info. If there are no objections i will put it onto Wikipedia. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just seems to me like you changed the dates for the Canadian English version. I don't have a problem with that, but I would add the appropriate suffixes. It just doesn't seem to flow to me. For example just say the following out loud. July twenty TWO 2010. July twenty SECOND 2010. Twenty two July 2010. The first two seem to just flow but the last one does not, which is your current revision (on the jessicahunter site). It really should be 22nd July 2010. Other than that I'm fine with it.

In regards to the picture. I would have gone for episode 2 given, it has a bigger shot of Toronto. But given I suggested intertitle I really don't mind any of them. In regards to global webpage in the infobox. I am officially applying WP:JDI on MYSELF. I don't want to discuss this again. But to be clear my official stance is neither for or against the global site.

In regards to the ratings on the main article. Did you ever find out which source was wrong? BBM or Canwest. In regards to the ratings on List of Rookie Blue Eps page, I am happy with that except I would add "Canadian" Viewers in the episode list table as to not confuse people. The redundant dates are somewhat unfortunate but I guess that cannot be helped. Meowies (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

At this time there is not much to the language that noticeably varies. It is tiny little things. What are the suffixes that i missed? Thanks to xeno's comment on the ep list talk page i discovered that the date format is a massive huge extreme gargantuan monstrous contention. Apparently many of the most active of Canadians editing WP like to use the American style of writing the date. I never have. I give in on any article written in American but not for Canadian articles - so i might soon have nothing to do with this show if it means adding a date even in a reference. I actually say "twenty-two July twenty-ten" or "thirteen April twenty-nine" with a slight pause between twenty and nine. To me writing month first is wrong. So i have to blatantly ask here if there is any objection to the Rookie Blue articles using Day Month Year format.

I would have done episode 2 too except that it is pink-skyed and i didn't want to offend the guys who might read this by having pink on their screens :P I have yet to watch ep 5 so maybe that one will be better still.

In regards to the ratings i did not find an explanation for the variance of 200K people for the premiere. That is why my draft notes sources for the ratings. All BBM. A line could be added that CanWest released revised finals that bumped it up 200K and put it into first for the week but i felt it better to use the consistent source where i know how and from where they are getting their numbers. As to "Canadian" being in the column on the ep list, the trend i found was to state "U.S." when such but to otherwise not state as it is implied throughout the rest of the respective articles. The redundant dates in the ep list for the table on US ratings are a preëmptive measure. Think of Flashpoint and how it is all over the place with ep 25 as to what season it is part of and thus what its ep # is within the season - thank you CBS for massively varying from the CTV broadcast. On the off chance that ABC does something like this with Rookie Blue it is already set up to handle it with a quick change of date in the US ratings section instead of disclaimers or/and awkward prose. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The suffixes I was referring to are "st", "nd", "rd" and "th". As in instead of 22 July 2010 it should be 22nd July 2010. I don't have a problem with dd mm yyyy but it just seems to read wrong to me without the appropriate suffixes.Meowies (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than the simple truth. Those never came to mind as what you meant when speaking of missing suffixes. If i saw them i would remove them, however the date is formatted outside of a quotation. If in a quotation i would not buy a book to verify but anything else i would most certainly confirm belongs in the quotation before i left it in an article. This is just my personal opinion. However in taking a moment to look into it as WP has a rule for most everything that could be imagined i did find one such rule - WP:DATESNO. It would seem that WP and i agree on something. This is an odd feeling. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Like I said I don't have a problem with a the format to begin. Just always seemed a little odd to me to write or even say the number first without the appropriate suffix. Meowies (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Having waited to see what the Global website would say is the spelling of the title of episode 8 i am now ready to swap in my revision if it is ok with you and anyone else who happens upon this before i read your response. Main article and episode list. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Only thing I would change is remove the redundant references in the ratings and share columns in the episode list. I think having the reference in viewers column is just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowies (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who didn't want both in the episode list? Maybe that was someone else. I had it that way at one point on my wiki i do believe but someone said no to it. There is no redundancy in references. The US overnight has the 18-49 rating/share while the finals have the 2-120 yr old rating/share info. That is why as of writing this those columns are empty for ep 8 - that info comes out later today or tomorrow. At that point the viewers is revised to the final number and the ref for it switches from the overnight to the final. It sounds odd writing it out here but to try a different way, the overnight is used for the 18-49 rating/share and temporarily for the total viewers whereas the final rating is used for the overal rating/share and replaces the temporary number of viewers from the overnight info. It is because the entire row is not referenced to the same source that each field is referenced. They do have descriptive ref names to aid in editing them. Then there is the Canadian ratings which are entirely different and as such have their own reference. It does result in 3 references per episode but it is also comprehensive coverage and all of the Americans i know want to know this sort of thing. If their show gets cancelled they want to see the numbers that show just how unpopular the show was/became. That might be the reason for the release of more comprehensive data from US than Canada.

For a show in this situation, were i to find it not yet created on WP i would make it this way. I also need to update the average ratings in the main article before i swap it in. I just realised i forgot to do that earlier. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we maybe on slightly different pages. I understand why you have referenced each column as there are different sources. But it seems to me that it is unnecessary to reference EACH number especially when the ratings, the share and the amount of viewers all share the same reference. The simplest way I can explain it is; assume we are writing a paragraph. We DO NOT reference each sentence. Only at the end of the paragraph. I really doubt any editor will tag everything with "citation required" if we removed the overlapping references in the ratings and share columns. Perhaps an admin could clarify this. At the moment this COULD be called WP:Citation overkill. Meowies (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you like to outdent a lot I would tag it as citation needed if i couldn't find it in the reference given. Or just remove it as {{lies}}. I don't reference each sentence. I come from the glory days of who cares about references so long as it is not wrong information. Other people are very picky about references and to avoid them complaining and putting ugly tags everywhere i reference anything that might call for it. So no, i do not reference each sentence and i also do not reference at the end of a paragraph. I might have 3 references in one sentence and then the next two paragraphs have no references. Ratings are something that is often challenged and thus gets specific referencing from me when i add it for a show. Yes, it would be nice if the 18-49 was in the same reference but r b is just not that popular with the 18-49 demo to place in the top 25 for the week, so it comes from the daily overnight instead.

If the 18-49 were omitted then i could agree to an additional column that contains the reference for the entire row. However, people would want to know why the 18-49 is omitted.

See variations on my wiki for options i could support, in order of preference. Please do note that the 4th option requires a customisation of the template and the folk on WP don't seem to take too kindly to it as most of the ones listed are redirected back to the main template. However on my wiki i am free to customise however i want since there there is noöne to tell me 'no'. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I outdent when it seems to me that its just getting ridiculous to continue to make everything look like columns. On the topic. I only see 2 variations. Did you removed the other two? In any case, lets stick with the first one. I still maintain that it's WP:Citation overkill and any editor that tags it as "citation required" is obviously looking for trouble (unfortunately I have seen such behavior). But quite frankly I really cannot be bothered to argue something that isn't policy (one way or the other) and clearly we have differing views on what is considered citation overkill.

Approved.Meowies (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done and outdented. Now to see if anyone has something to say but had not noticed this massive discussion we have had. Any thoughts on which screencap to use? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New Image

So after much searching - Let's change the image. So here are the 4 options:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9697/season1in2009007.jpg
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9971/season1in2009006.jpg
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6682/rookiebluepromo002.jpg
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4159/abcrookieblue.jpg

Can we try and choose something that best represents the series and not because its a Global promo (Canadian). All images can be used under promotional material license so copyright is not an issue. Meowies (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice accusation there. I actually want to use a screenshot instead of a titled or untitled poster. If you really want a poster then yes i prefer the Global one. But you already knew that. So, none of the four above linked images gets my vote. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So about the screencap for the infobox, my wiki is presently using episode 5. I could go with episode 8 as my second choice. Gosh it is so hard to pick as most weeks it ends up being my new preferred screencap. I just know that the US logo is not known in other parts of the world and really needs to be replaced with a more (love the pun) global image. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry completely missed this part of the talk page. I don't really mind, although it seems to me the inter-titles are starting to repeating themselves or they are starting to be very similar. Although having said that I think the an aerial shot of the skyline is better than a top down shot like in ep 5. But I can live with any inter-title.Meowies (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not repeating. If you can find my simple and not to popular fansite you can get a screenshot of each episode's title. I don't mean to make it a puzzle but rules about promoting things means i can't link to it here. Episode 9 has the CN Tower, some pretty sky, and Lake Ontario which is different; first time an internationally known structure is featured in the titles. The similarity is that most of the recent episodes have blue sky - what an odd thing to see ;) - so that might be what makes one think they are repeating. Number 9 is my new favourite.

Episode 5 is similar to a portion of the title sequence of Without a Trace so i thought it fun to use for myself as i do like the titles for WAT.

While they are all nice i am leaning away from ep 1 & 2 as the show is not "rookie gold" or "rookie pink" :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC is not a co-production company and it is not a Canwest-ABC joint venture

I tagged "The series is a joint venture between Canwest Broadcasting and ABC," in the production section as citation needed because nothing says ABC has anything to do with producing the show, except Wikipedia. Logical Fuzz added it in on 8 April 2010.[4] From the end credits which show Canwest, Thump Inc, E1 Entertainment (in that order), to The Hollywood Reporter reporting on ABC buying broadcast rights [5], to a Canwest press release saying it was developed by Thump Inc., produced with E1 Entertainment, and picked up by ABC during development [6], to Variety reporting on ABC pucking up the E1-Canwest production Copper [7], to the Brasilian reference added in today saying it is a co-production between Canwest and E1 Entertainment that has aired in both Canada and on ABC in the US (original Portuguese: A série é uma co-produção entre a Canwest Broadcasting e E1 Entertainment, ambas do Canadá, com a ABC americana.) [8]. Thump Inc is a small company owned by series creator so it is not surprising that Thump Inc is often left out of press releases and other media reporting. Nothing says ABC is producing the series. ABC is the American broadcaster who chose to air the show at the same time as Canwest did and as such they jointly announced renewal of the series, each adding their own domestic bits into a common press release.[9] [10] Imagine how foolish ABC would look if Canwest were to renew the series, because it is a big hit here, while ABC held back for a bit longer to get more weeks' ratings. With ABC buying broadcast rights it meant more money in the budget for production but when shows are bought for broadcast in Canada or the UK prior to premiere the respective Canadian or British company is not a defacto producer and almost always is not at all involved with production. Canadian shows airing non-simultaneously in the US end up being a mess. Just look at Flashpoint and the more recent debacle from last week with 18 to Life being in production for season 2 in Canada and having a 6 month delay before the US premiere, only to be cancelled in the US half way through season 1. CTV's The Bridge and The Listener faired even worse, being renewed here but cancelled in the US after only a couple of episodes aired for each show. Simultaneous airing is the best way to go and ABC learnt that lesson early on. However that does not make the company a co-producer of the series.

I could get more references that don't mention ABC is a producer, including some from ABC itself [11], so i strongly believe that anything saying ABC is producing the series is a result of confusion with their being a major broadcaster, the American tendency to label shows airing on networks as "CBS' The Mentalist" (WB produced), "ABC's Rookie Blue" (Canwest produced), "Spike's Blue Mountain State" (Lionsgate produced), or "The WB's Charmed" (Spelling produced) when it is nothing more that a blip of network branding applied to a show, or the result of media using WP as a source for their reporting.

I tried to hint at it being wrong by adding the citation needed tag. Apparently that resulted in perpetuating the problem. Depending on how you define "joint venture" it is at best confusing and at worst complete fabrication. Considering neither Canwest nor ABC at any time describe this as a "joint venture" i am taking that line out of the article. Not that it matters much now as countless blogs, global media, and mirror sites have picked up on this claim - the WP mention pre-dates all other sources. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm now extremely confused. I'd rather like to avoid another american/canadian debate but lets just try and break it down. From what I have read I am starting to think Canwest doesn't do production either. Could you define production? For example is it just the funding of the project? Because if so it seems to me ABC and Canwest fund the show. Does Canwest have productional control over the show? For example in recent memory 20th Century Fox executed productional control over the series Dollhouse and told Joss Whedon to keep with stand alone episodes rather than advance the main storyline. Does Canwest wield such control? If not, exactly how extensively involved is Canwest involved in production?

Like I have said before in a post somwhere around here, Canwest only signed first because they had a first look deal in Feb 09. ABC signed on in Apr 09. Production did not start until July 09. Canwest have said ABC signed on during development (which is true I would assume). But were Canwest involved in development of the show (casting of Missy and Gregory for example) between the months of March and June 09?

Simply put is there a source that suggests Canwest is doing more than just paying for the rights to air the show in Canada? Because right now we have Canwest listed as a production company and I am rather unsure of whether what they are doing is any different from what the ABC are doing. Meowies (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about we just remove all mention of any companies and countries? Have you read a press release or seen the end credits to any/all of the episodes. There is the logos for the 3 production companies and the Canwest one even says they are producing the show. See a picture of the On Demand standard definition. And one from a couple of seconds before in the credits that lists the executives in charge of production for Canwest Broadcasting. (Sorry for the SD but it is not offered in HD on demand and i deleted my recordings from CICT.) There is no mention whatsoever of ABC in the end credits so it is hard to show that without putting up a link to the video. If you are in Canada or USA you should be able to see the end credits in the official site flash video. If you are elsewhere in the world then there is not much i can suggest for you to be able to see for yourself.

First look because it was brought to them first (maybe 2nd, i'm not sure if CTV passed on Rookie Blue).

Funding is NOT production. Funding is funding. Funding often gets one production credit as a 'back scratching' receprocation. ABC is not funding the series. ABC bought broadcast rights and the money they paid for those rights does affect the budget. Probably even more would be the cushioning of the bottom line thanks to Universal's buying nigh-universal broadcast rights. But no one is pushing them as a production company.

ABC press releases call Canwest a production company for the series, the end credits of every episode call Canwest a production company for the series (yes, even the American broadcast, which i can watch from Detroit), Canwest calls themselves a production company for the series, dito THR, Variety, and every reputable North American news source that i can find which mentions production companies for the show. I am honestly bloody ^&%( baffled that you want to remove the production company because you think they are not a production company despite being named so in nigh every possible instance. Shall we take out Thump Inc because it is barely mentioned outside of a few press releases and end credits and is nothing more than the company of the author of the pilot script? How about we take out E1 because of some reason i need to make up first?

In the middle of writing this i asked chzz to find the production companies for Rookie Blue. chzz found E1 right away. chzz then asked me if there were more. chzz found Thump Inc and info going both ways on Canwest (via omission). chzz did also find a quote from someone at ABC in NYT calling it a "classic co-production" [12] however the article is on the new trend in Canadian shows on American tv networks so how that is classic i don't know. To me that kills the credibility of the person being quoted.

The ambiguity of what company is written of when it is called a Canadian co-production with Canwest/Global is rampant as both ABC and E1 are American companies. I still stand by the simplest proof being that no press release from ABC names ABC as a production company, either by direct statement or implication. Would they really forget to take credit for this, continually, if they are a production company for rookie blue?

If you want to delve into the obviously unreliable then there are plenty of sites that quote Logical Fuzz' uncited claim that ABC is producing in a joint venture. The ABC exec quoted in NYT might have even come to that understanding thanks to WP. Who knows? It was there quite prominently for 4 months during the time of peak interest in the series.

And while i wrote the following before asking chzz as a person in UK who has no access to watch the show to look into it it still does convey my feelings though i will remove the bolding that was in the original version.

Actually, if you really want to fight over something so damn petty and explicitly mentioned in at rough guess half of the references in the main article then call me done with this. I would rather enjoy watching the show than fight over writing about it. However i never said boo for roughly 8 years being on WP and now there are scores of policies that i find absolutely ridiculous and it is too late to do anything about any of them. So yes, now when i really have issue with something i say so in no brevity.

Simply, noone had issue with me tagging it as citation needed but when i contest the addition of a citation recently published that thanks to phraseology bares a probable strong correlation to previously existing language in WP there is objection. The fight to include Canadian info was well more drawn out than it needed to be. There are references all over the bloody place for the production companies, explicitly naming them. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are wondering about the timestamps on the pictures, there is a 10 minute "Your purchase has ended" message. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did the US ratings go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.28.91 (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On the season page, Rookie Blue (season 1), below the episode list in its own table which now has more than just viewers. Reasons: 1) it is a Canadian show; 2) the American ratings information is more comprehensive and can justify having its own table.

If you see all above, it is i who is most adamant to use domestic ratings and other info. I however did not take the list of episodes and split it off into the season article. I just cleaned it up a little when i found that it had been done. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recurring guest star

Should we add another section to the cast? I have created an article for Camille Sullivan, who played Detective Jo Rosati. She guest starred for 7 episode in season 2. 07 Matthew (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Season 5's 22 episodes now 11

As mentioned here, a Facebook post states Season 5's 22 episodes, and its split, are now 11, with the other 11 becoming Season 6. I've noticed Season 6 edits here. I think we need more reliable confirmation than Facebook. — Wyliepedia 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely true as of today, because they aired 11 episodes in 2014 and, now, in 2015, they're already airing 11 more.Toddabearsf (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Setting

I disagree with the statement in the main article under "Setting" that "...it [the series] does not make overt references to local street names or landmarks". It most certainly does. They're constantly referencing "Bloor Street", "Spadina", "Yonge Street", etc., and they often show distant shots of the Toronto skyline -- the CN Tower is unmistakable. In addition, you see street signs hanging from traffic signal overarms -- Queen Street, etc. Though they refuse to speak the name "Toronto" and they never name the police department represented -- and the police uniforms display a fictional shoulder flash that doesn't resemble the one found on real-life Toronto police officers, they've made it plain enough that we're watching cops in Toronto, Ontario. In every episode, there's plenty of indication of where the drama takes place.Toddabearsf (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)