Talk:In Plain Sight

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

Crossover confusion[edit]

Mary's character appears in an episode of Law & Order Criminal Intent yet in another episode a subject she is interrogating says 'she has been watching too much Law and Order' what the heck is going on? Matthewbrownny (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity error? If its mentioned in any reliable sources add it to the article.casecloser (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's last name[edit]

Mary's last name has not been thoroughly examined. In some instances, she says its Shannon, while in others, she says its Sheppard. It's not a cover ID either, because in the latest episode, she says it to the cop in Albuquerque PD that she talks to. Should this be reflected in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.42.99 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think the issue with her last name is due to the fact that her job to a degree is classified to an extent for the protection f her witnesses. As far as the people in the "program" for protection know her name is one thing, and her "legit" name name is another to isolate her real life from her job and to give an extra layer of protection in case her profession or normal identity comes into the media or any other form of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.81.148 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official last name is Shannon. I noticed the change too, but I agree with 69.208.81.148 Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per USA's homepage on the show, Mary's last name is Shannon. Shepard is the name used to protect her identity to witnesses and in court and so forth.173.31.239.217 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

season 2[edit]

anyone know the song used in the season two trailer that aired before the premier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.254.11 (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural plot shift citation[edit]

The article cited toward the premise change has two contrasting views as to how they're going to change the show for the third season. The show's creator speculates that it'll go more procedural while the USA exec brushes that off. Either way, saying that's what will happen for certain when even the article cited doesn't show certainty seems a bit premature. --99.186.111.95 (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

Hi all

I will try and get on a bit more round christmas and help expand the article, but the section on "Plot" could do with some help if someone has the time before then ...

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hi

Just a little point - it is against policy for you to remove british english and it is unwise to leave a comment saying you did so

Your edits went a little far as well - so just to be clear "Owning" an article is also against good faith editing

Next time perhaps a little discussion first ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly fine to remove British English when the article in question is solely about an American topic. Please read WP:ENGVAR under "Strong national ties to a topic". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with me in particular, that belongs on my talk page, not the article's page. As Stephen says, it is perfectly appropriate to remove British English in an article about an American show, just as it is appropriate to remove American English from an article about a British show (see the edit history for Top Gear for evidence of that.) You may also want to exercise more care in making an accusation of ownership of an article, particularly as a backhanded means to make an accusation of bad faith. My edits were reasonable and appropriate, particularly given the level of redundancy and the need to consolidate text fragmented into tiny sections. If anything, I'd suggest your reaction to having your edits reverted or revised suggests a sense of ownership of them that is inappropriate here. Likewise, so is the sarcasm in your last sentence. One might remind you of WP:CIVIL. Drmargi (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Grk1011 - did not have that info before. (see comments on your talk page)
DrMargi - I have no issue with you - and I did not accuse you of owning the article, as stated I just wanted to ensure that was not your intention. There was a lot of redundancy and I certainly felt that it needed some work.
Wiki is open for all to edit and I have no problem with my edits being edited, however it does seem as if all the work I did has been removed - hence my comment "Your edits went a little far". As for the british english comment, I believed that was the case when I made the comment and was merely trying to advise you of that fact - I now know it was not the case when I was corrected by Grk1011 and pointed in the direction of helpful info on that particular matter.
Please do not assume sarcasm when there is none, and certainly do not accuse me of any backhanded anything let alone an accusation of bad faith.
In future I will comment on your chat pages if it anything arises...Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelydarksky reversions[edit]

I reverted Lonelydarksky (talk · contribs) HG-based reversion of my hanges because they are not unconstructive. I am looking forward to discussing what the real issues are. Thanks. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be contributing constructively, so I apologise if I've reverted your edits wrongly. I'll leave it to you and other editors to discuss the issue. _LDS (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reverted again. Some of your edits are useful, mostly to the narrative, but some are problematic. Any edits that update the show to Season Three are a violation of WP:CRYSTAL prior to the beginning of the show, particularly when they lack sources as yours do. Moreover, you've removed Lesley Warren from the cast despite her appearance in two previews currently running on USA. I'm not sure what the narrative description of the image is about, although I assume its to make it 508 compliant, but it's not working. Drmargi (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion is too blunt an instrument to be used when only parts of the changes I did could (if not referenced as they were) be construed as violated WP:CRYSTAL. Better yet, fix them instead of throwing away the baby with the bath water. I added a date for the first broadcast of the new season--is that the issue? I cited an article that quotes the USA network's president of original programming about two cast members whose contracts have not being renewed, including Warren. As explained by other's edits, Warren will still be seen in the episode originally proposed to be the second part of the season 2 finale. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I just checked again: the ref named "eonline.com" is legitimately cited for the departure of Warren as a cast member, a change that doesn't preclude, as it also cites, her future appearances as a guest or in a recurring role (the USA exec is quoted about this). 68.165.77.192 (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
To further document the sources (on top of what I added earlier), I now also cite a ref called "pressrel2010" which is a press release about the cast changes described already by the eoline ref which was quoting the network. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
You need to read the WP:CRYSTAL policy regarding updating information on a season ahead of its broadcast. Moving Warren, changing the producer, etc. violate that policy. You're also using sources to deliberately include errors in the article. We really don't know the standing of these two characters, just that the actors won't be regulars any longer. EOnline and the press release you cite were discussing what was announced when Maples was fired, before McNamara came on, and as such is dated. It was also made clear there would be further changes. Same goes for the as yet unaired 16th episode, which quite clearly is NOT the season opener, given the publicity surrounding Donnie Wahlberg's appearance in the opener, an episode that was shot when they returned to production in January. On the other hand, the premiere date for the season is fine, but better to use USA's page for the show as a source if you didn't.
You also need to relax and recognize people edit here as time permits. Leaving a message on my talk page that a reply to your discussion is needed soon is pretty bad form. You have to expect that it may take time to discuss edits and reach some measure of agreement. That's what consensus is about. Consensus also means you leave the article as is while we discuss, so I've reverted back to the version before your edits. Once we get the problem solved, then you restore edits as appropriate. You're now also in violation of WP:3RR, which could get your IP blocked. Let's resolve this rather than playing the constant edit game.
It would also be a good idea to register if you plan to edit here much. It shouldn't matter, but it does. Drmargi (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Departed characters and WP:RECENTISM[edit]

The use of a "former characters" subheading has been reverted, based not only for the lack of a source confirming Tod WIlliams will not return (the press release announcing his change of status indicated he would appear as a guest star, and the dialogue explaining his absence suggested he could return) but also because of the recentist bias that creates. Bobby D, Jinx, Will and O'Connor are still characters who are part of the overall narrative, and there is no need for headings that reflect their current status - that can be explained briefly in their character descriptions. Moreover, I would suggest avoidance of the use of "revealed" to describe plot developments. This is an ongoing story, not a magic show or soap opera, and the constant use of "revealed" in the narrative connotes surprise developments, which few of the departures actually are. Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPS use[edit]

Hi all

@IP user:-

The proposed inclusion of "IPS" raises several issues:

  • Is it the most commonly used way of referring to the program
  • The numbers of people who use IPS in preference to In Plain Sight
  • Where, and how, it would be placed in the article if it was shown to meet the criteria for inclusion.

Google search gives:

  • "IPS" "in plain sight" = 215,500
  • "in plain sight" = 5,250,000

Thats ≃ 24:1 in favour of In Plain Sight and means "IPS" is not the common name, in fact it could be considered a fringe name.

In articles with established or more commonly used shortened names, such as UK, FIFA, VTOL, UFO, etc., the full name is given first and followed by the abbreviation in brackets. In these cases the abr. is then used throughout the article.

This is not appropriate for In Plain Sight. If you like you can always place an entry on the IPS page, although it may be contested at some point there are a seemingly large enough number from Google to give it credibility as an abbreviation. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

There needs to be some clean up done on the ratings section for consistency. The first three seasons show the overnight rating per episode and then, in the summation for the season on the front page, what appears to be an average of those numbers. The fourth season has the same on the per episode listing, but the season summation number is clearly not using the same rating measurement as it shows a higher average rating for the season than any single episode garnered which is mathematically impossible. The season number is based on the live+7 rating according to the cited article which is not the same measurement being used for the individual episodes or the previous seasons. The fourth season needs to follow the same criteria as the first three or the rest need to be completely redone both per season and per episode. Having one rating standard for one data point when all of the others are using another is inconsistent and inaccurate. To be consistent with the other seasons, the number should be 3.51 instead of 5.00.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.209.63 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I was the one that added the season 4 rating, which was not the simple average. I don't remember where the other three came from, but they do not have sources and should probably be removed. Since it definitely appears to be the basic average, the first three seasons should just be removed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There still needs to be an explanation in the Ratings section that the Viewers column is not using the same unit of measurement as the individual weekly numbers. The weekly numbers in the episode by episode listing are the overnight numbers. The season total viewers on the front page are the Live +7 numbers for all airings of the show. That's the only way you wind up with episode viewer totals of 2-3 million per episode the last few seasons but viewer totals nearly twice that on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.221.82 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

How is Karen Sisco related in any way, shape, or form to this show? That's like adding a "See also" section on The Killing to Twin Peaks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like someone noticed that they were conceptually similar and figured that "See also" meant "You might be interested in..." The tag has been on there long before I started editing, so I really don't know what the rational was for the addition, if there was any at all. I'd be okay with it going away entirely. It might be worth mentioning earlier in the article if there was any critical coverage of the similarities. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only "similarity" that I have seen is the fact that the lead females are US Marshals. I vote for removal. (Note: this series is listed at the Sisco article as well.) — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It always struck me as irrelevant. I doubt anyone would pay it much mind if you were to remove it. --Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tangental: What is the point of the "See also" section in a TV show article? It's certainly not designed to be a list of other recommended viewing; usually these sections list related reading and similar more encyclopedic applications, not a list of other shows a viewer might like. This same issue has just arisen on the Person of Interest (TV series) article, with an editor making a POV addition of "Minority Report", which is about as related to POI as "Karen Sisco" is to this show. This may be an issue that needs some closer examination. --Drmargi (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor nearly three years ago added the reference to both articles.[1], [2] My guess is the well-meaning editor simply noticed similarities between the two programs and added this bit of trivia. It should be removed from both articles, and the consensus seems to be that it would be uncontroversial to do so. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took the bold step and removed it (as well as at the other one). Since this show and Karen Sisco have completed their TV lives, this should not cause problems. Thanks for all who commented! — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link for mary shannon[edit]

it leads to a tennis player called mary shannon instead of a bio for the actual character on the showFor death and glory (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In Plain Sight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Plain Sight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

Ambigious title. THE MAIN TOPIC IS AN IDIOM! Move ASAP. --Ireadbooks12 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not ambiguous at all. This is the name of the series. Grk1011 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Plain_Sight&oldid=1202793456"