Talk:List of Law & Order characters

Senior partner

Is Eames or Goren the Senior partner? Her bio says she is.

Eames/Goren

Eames is the senior partner technically, but when they're investigating, Goren usually seems to be the one who leads the way...

Even if Eames is the senior partner, when Eames was on leave and Goren was partnered with Bishop, Goren would've been the senior partner there, no? I wouldn't have thought of Bishop as the senior detective. 71.230.26.182 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recuring characters means recuring

Will people please stop adding people who have only appeard in one episodes. DanDud88 16 May 2007

It says "major, notable, and recurring," not simply "recurring." I don't know why this is difficult to understand --Craverguy 19:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? IT says Recurring Characters Then below it lists The Medical Examiners ect. DanDud88 16 June 2007.

At the very start of the article, it says: "This is a list of major, notable, and recurring characters appearing in the American television police procedural and legal drama Law & Order and its franchise." --Craverguy 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy now, iv edit it so Notable apperences has its own section. DnDud88 17 May 2007

First: Recurring, not recuring. And appeared / appearance, not appeard / apperences. And why isn't Emil Skoda on the character list. I am pretty sure he's in more episodes than Elizabeth Olivet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.77.179 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

First: This is a discussion page, not an article so spelling doesn't need to be up to scratch. Second: if Skoda wasn't in the opening credits for any season, he wasn't a regular cast member. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding new characters

Is it all right to update the list with the new cast changes coming up in the fall?

Notable appearances

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order of the listings under this section outside of separating by the main show name? It's really quite difficult to follow as it is. If there is no objection, I might attempt to alphabetize the names by surname. Wildhartlivie 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Olivia Benson status

Why is she assigned as a "Junior Detective"? I realize that usually in the L&O universe, it's a junior and senior team. We know Elliot's been in SVU for 12+ years. But if Fin was promoted to Senior Detective status, surely Olivia's earned it by now...--24.168.214.199 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not been said on the show and, until it is, that's original research. A recent episode of CI confirmed Goren is still a junior detective, so I see no time limit on how long a person can be a junior detective.

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale edits of article

I object to the wholesale deletion of the entire section on single-episode notable appearances, as well as the buzzsaw attack on the recurring character section, and I should like to take this opportunity to answer the arguments in their favor one by one.

First argument: The notable appearances section is indiscrminate. Answer: Untrue. After editing this article for two years, I have developed a set of quite well-formed standards about who does and does not get to be listed. These are:

1. Has the actor been awarded or nominated for an Academy Award, the highest honor a member of the film industry can receive? If yes, I add them. 2. Has the actor been awarded or nominated for another acting award that is widely and generally agreed to be notable, for example an Emmy, a Golden Globe, or a non-ensemble SAG? If yes, I add them. 3. Has the actor been awarded one or more theatre acting awards that are widely and generally agreed to be notable, for example a Tony, an Obie, or a Drama Desk? If yes, I add them. 4. Has the actor, either before his or her appearance or since, been a regular on one of the Law & Order franchise shows? If yes, I add them. 5. Has the actor, though never having been awarded or nominated for a notable awards, appeared in a lead role in one or more major TV shows or motion pictures that are widely and generally agreed to be notable? If yes, I add them. (For example, the actor Harold Perrineau has never won or been nominated for any awards. However, he has starred on both the TV series Oz and Lost and in two of the three motion pictures in the Matrix franchise.)

Second argument: The notable appearances section is unsourced. Answer: If it means keeping the section, I am willing to devote the next week or so of my life to copying and pasting a reference link from the Internet Movie Database next to each and every entry in this article (which I could do, since there is not one single entry on here not documented on that site), but I think it would be easier on my nascent case of carpal tunnel syndrome if we just added a link to the IMDb homepage at the bottom of the article.

Third argument: The notable appearances section is excessive. Answer: We're talking about a franchise consisting of four shows, the oldest of which has been on the air continously for 19 years and the youngest that is still broadcasting for 8. Yes, they're going to accumulate a long list of famous people who have appeared, especially since many of the people who appeared in bit parts in the early years have gone on to fame and fortune in the intervening two decades.

Fourth argument: All recurring characters who have appeared less than 10 times are "ridiculously minor" and should be deleted. Answer: Congratulations. You just deleted the character of Arthur Gold, who was the nemesis of lead prosecutor Ben Stone for three of his four seasons, and who was played by an Emmy- and Tony-winning actor. You've also deleted characters portrayed by Candice Bergen, Eric Bogosian, Barry Bostwick, Beverly D'Angelo, Jeffrey DeMunn, Giancarlo Esposito, Edie Falco, Michael Lerner, Peter Riegert, Chris Sarandon, Ron Silver, as well as all of the appearances by former cast members Richard Brooks and Carey Lowell. Remember, the notability of the actor is important. And, of course, the explanatory paragraph at the beginning of the article does say that it is a "list of main, notable, and recurring characters appearing in" etc., etc. If a character appears more than once, they're recurring. Doesn't matter if they're played by James Stewart or some guy they hired off a street corner.

I have no objection to the deletion of the announcer and "repeat offenders," but of course it would be hypocritical of me to delete them unilaterally as others have done. -Craverguy (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather amusing. You've developed your very-own standards? This list is 90kb; ridiculously over the top. I'll check back tomorrow as it is getting late. I informed Coll; you seem to have forgotten ;) nb: imdb.com is not a reliable source. Jack Merridew 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have my own standards for what I add to an article. You are welcome to your own standards for what you add. And when we disagree on certain additions, we hash it out and debate it like adults, rather than deleting 90% of the article unilaterally. And since when is IMDb not a reliable source? And if they're not, who is? And if there is no reliable source for articles on which actors have appeared on what TV shows, does that mean we'll stop adding such information altogether? I thought this website was a source of information. -Craverguy (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Second everything Jack said. Your criteria go against both general Wikipedia guidelines and the guidelines and MoS of the Television project. And no, you don't get to decide that. And IMDB has never been considered a reliable source. Held up more times than I can count in just about every possible venue here. This list is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Just because someone won an award elsewhere does not mean they should be included here, nor should every character ever seen in a series be included. Even most of the die hard inclusionists would balk at sticking every last one episode character in a list or giving them an article. This is just the first part in a very massive attempt to clean up the very bad list that appears here. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#List of Law & Order characters Where the discussion on this list, and its need for splits and a clean up, are occurring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If they only appear once, let the episode/season/etc. article (whatever location has the respective plot summary) list them. List every minor character that appear on a show is bordering WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You cannot make your own standards on who is worthy of being listed and who is not, unless those standards are Wikipedia's standards. If there is real world information on the character...great. If they appeared once, then there probably isn't real world information and removing them is not detrimental to understanding the article. You have to remember, Wikipedia IS NOT IMDB. We are not here to just indiscriminately list every joe blow (no matter how successful they were in other projects) for shows. IMDb does that well enough for us, and they can continue to do that. I also concur with the argument that IMDb is not a reliable source (it isn't, and has not been considered one for a long time). IMDb has limited editorial oversight, and takes information submitted by its users (kind of like Wikipedia, but with less control over fixing mistakes...which IMDb often has a lot of). If they are a one-shot character, they should be cut. If they are a recurring character, but with no real world information, then create a list like was done here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), "actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities" are "generally notable" if they "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". Now, seems to me that my standards do not violate that standard. I can't really see how anyone could possibly argue that people who have won or been nominated for Oscars, Emmies, Golden Globes, or Tonys have not had significant roles in notable productions. Consideration for such awards is used by most people as one of the baseline criteria (right up there with box office yield) for saying that a production is notable. -Craverguy (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is notability for those people to have articles, NOT notability for them to be mentioned in every last possible place they have a slim connection to. Just because they won an award elsewhere is not a valid reason to list them in a long section of "guest stars" of L&O series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then what is a valid reason? Or is it your position that there is no such reason? -Craverguy (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To include the list you want, no there isn't one. A character list consists of the major characters in a series, the main characters and those highly reoccurring supporting characters that make up the bulk of the series. 1 episode characters do not belong in such lists at all. For a series this length, 10 episode ones do not either. This list really should be the list of characters in the main series only: the main detectives, the main prosecutors, and where notable, main judges, MEs, etc. Not every last person who appeared for 5 minutes somewhere just because they are "famous." Have you looked at any featured level character lists? Seen the content in them? Noted that they do not include minor, one-episode, etc type characters? At most, well-sourced prose noting that L&O series frequently has famous special guests appear with a few discrete examples is all that is needed here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Craverguy. I think famous guest stars are notable myself. What you really need is some book or commentary, I am sure some must have been written..regardless of inclusionism/deletionism, reliable sourcing is a given and will bolster your case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but by the standards these people have set, I don't believe there is "reliable" sourcing. When IMDb, the online Bible of the film industry, is not considered reliable enough, what is? I suppose there's the actual, physical book I own, which covers the first nine seasons of the original series and includes cast lists for each episode. Oh, wait, no. That's "original research," isn't it? Not so much with that, then. -Craverguy (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is called a WP:POINT violation. Hi Cas. Jack Merridew 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Craven, Casliber did not say "find a source to say they are in the episode". What he said was find information about them. Saying "They appeared here" is not information. It's a generalized fact. One time characters are generally not covered beyond plot information in anything (rare occassions maybe), which is why they don't need to be included. Wikipedia is not a directory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Casliber - that famous guest stars should be included. If User:Craverguy has a book with this information, then this is fine as a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He did NOT say - restore the whole list, despite their being a split and obvious clean ups. If you want to argue the list, argue the list, but just wholesale restoring obvious WP:NOT violations that are nothing but a huge list of names, source or no, is ridiculous. This page, as you have now restored it, is in truth completely and utterly useless to anyone interested in the characters of the series. It has repeats all over the series and has no real content. It is nothing more than the combination of IMDB listings for each. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not IMDb. Unless there is information about the characters (i.e. something discussing them beyond plot), then the page should not be some directory. Let IMDb be the directory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Sorry for jumping in now, but where did the characters from the other shows go? Grsz¹¹ 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see now that SVU was forked. Although the organiztion format from this article was lost. Shame, this was a well laid-out article despite no references cited. I disagree with the fork. If we cut out the minor trivial lists that were at this article, then there is no reason (length concerns) that this cannot be a franchise list. Grsz¹¹ 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All versions of the show have been running for so long that it's best that they all have their own lists. There are far too many characters to cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Even with the trivial lists cut, it still isn't appropriate to cover so many series in one article, despite their occasional cross over connections. With SUV moved to a full stand-alone list (and the others all already had their own lists), it clears the way for this list to be proper reformatted with actual content, not just a list of names, actors, and number of episodes (which is really no different from IMDB). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia has thousands of lists. This doesn't suffer from the normal in-universe problems that other articles to because it's simple with little prose. Also, there is no deadline. Grsz¹¹ 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of prose does not mean it is not ridiculously in-universe. Wouldn't you much rather see this be a real character list, one with proper entries: one per major character of the main L&O series, and one that could actually stand a chance of being a featured list instead of an unusable list with tons of repeats, etc. I mean, in its current restored form, how many times does Jack McCoy appear? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have thousands of lists (many probably shouldn't exist), and the question you should ask yourself is, "If this page was just a list of the one episode characters would it survive an AfD"? That should tell you how trivial the content actually is, and how much it just wastes space. As for the "DEADLINE", I have no ide what you'e referring to. I didn't say anything about a deadline. I merely said this page shouldn't be covering 4 different TV shows, but that there should be 4 different LOC pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should include one-episode "notable" characters (I removed them). I would love to see this as an FL, and believe me, I'm trying to find sources (reliable is the hard part). As far as McCoy goes, I thought about what to do with him a month or so ago. Grsz¹¹ 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's one reason I was trying to get it cleaned up to do a complete reorganization. Rather than the attempted groupings now, a much simpler set of up two sections: main characters and supporting characters, with each character having a subsection and prose summary. This is how character lists are normally set up, rather than the current method. Then a conception/creation at the top, reception at the bottom. Adding reliable sources as we go. Rinse repeat for SVU's list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've re-done the table tidying and such on both the discriminate and indiscriminate versions of this beast, leaving the reasonable version. Jack Merridew 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Hendrix

There is an article for Deletion discussion about Dr. Rebecca Hendrix, a Law & Order: Special Victims Unit character, played by Mary Stuart Masterson. Ikip (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Image without a non-free content rationale for use in this article: File:Law & Order Season 19.jpg

File:Law & Order Season 19.jpg is used here but there is no non-free content rationale on the image page which addresses the use in this article as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Either a rationale should be written or the image should be removed from this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

End dates

I added an end date for Van Buren since, cancellation aside, the actress had officially announced she was retiring from the series after this season anyway. I've left the others open-ended since there's still a question as to whether a miniseries or movie might be produced to wrap up the show. That said, considering the series is officially cancelled and the May 24 episode was promoted in the media as the finale, we could put end-dates anyway for the others, pending later updates. We don't know as yet whether the complete cast would return for a movie or mini anyway. They could just as easily make the "finale" part of one of the other shows. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Cyrus Lupo and other individual character articles that do not have third party sources

Per notability, if the subject of an article does not have third party coverage, Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about that topic. All character articles that do not have third party sources therefore should be merged here. Active Banana (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the mergers. If there is no improvement of the articles, I shall begin merging. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the new Main Characters table format?

The format of the Main Characters table was overhauled between 10 July and 13 July. I much preferred the old version of the table — it contained all of the same information that the new table contains, and it did so in a far more concise, decipherable, and elegant manner. Was there consensus about this change? I for one would prefer to change it back. (I even went into the history and took a screenshot of the old one to keep for my own reference becuase I find it all that much more useful than the new one.) Jeferman (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't need for consensus, as per most crime franchises for example, have updated to this table. Nothing stays forever, it's something to get used to. Also, previous table didn't explain if the character was a Main or Recurring character in seasons they were featured in. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 02:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. I'm not familiar with the customs on the necessity of consensus. In this case I still advocate for a return to the prior format, the crime franchise trends notwithstanding. Law & Order is fairly unique in that there are 6 clearly defined character roles, corresponding to 6 occupations and ranks, which are filled by various characters over the many seasons. The prior table emphasized this by having a column for each role, and it made it exceptionally easy to see what characters filled the different roles over the course of the seasons. The new table de-emphasizes this feature of the show and its characters by simply listing all of the characters together (in an order that hints at the 6 roles but is unexplained and also inconsistent), naming their occupations, and specifying the seasons that they were in. Furthermore, in the cases of Green, Lupo, and McCoy the new table does not specify when they switched jobs. (The information is available in the tables below, but one must cross-reference the years with the seasons to work it out.) Admittedly I don't know which other crime franchises to look at as examples (though I would be happy to look at them), but I can see that this new format would be appropriate and favorable for most any other TV show in which characters come and go. But I see Law & Order as a unique case that is far better served by the old table. Regarding main vs. recurring/guest characters: it should be possible to work this information into the old format. --Jeferman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline?

I put the following timeline together as a bit of an exercise/experiment:

Would it be useful to add this to the article? The current cast table provides different information (so I'm not saying it should be replaced), but is hard to read if you're trying to ascertain what the timeline above provides. If it's not worth putting in the article, no big deal - there are certain style elements I'm not too happy with, personally, but it does present the data nicely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this order is a definite improvement. Seeing which characters/actors held which role within the show, by grouping them together, is much more helpful than a simple chronological appearance listing. (I think arguments have already been made, however, for keeping the current table-based chart rather than using Timeline.) My suggestion for actual role order would be Captain, Senior, Junior, DA, EADA/ADA, Psych/ME. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Law & Order characters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404015436/http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/04/01/s-epatha-merkerson-departs-law-order/ to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/04/01/s-epatha-merkerson-departs-law-order/

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) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Restore Adam Schiff's article

I request that Adam Schiff, the District Attorney character portrayed by Steven Hill, be restored to having his own article, rather than merged into the "List of Law & Order characters" article. He is a significant, and recurring character who was a major character in the franchise for 10 years, and his actions in the fictional Law & Order universe are far more significant than relatively minor characters such as Elizabeth Olivet, Brian Cassidy, and Monique Jeffries, who all have their own articles. I submit this request for the consideration and (hopefully) approval of Wikipedia administrators and Wikipedia community at large. Treybien2 23:53 25 July 2023 (talk) (UTC)

Restore Alexandra Borgia's Article

I think we should restore Alexandra Borgia, an Assistant District Attorney played by Annie Parisse's article be restored. She was in 2 seasons and she was a notable character I submit this request for the consideration and (hopefully) approval of Wikipedia administrators and Wikipedia community at large Movieking134 (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The article has been tagged for sourcing problems for 14 years. There are four footnotes in the lead paragraph, and there are three footnotes relating to the rather obscure character of Max Greevey. Otherwise, the entire article is unsourced. Is anybody planning to work on this? MonMothma (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)