Talk:List of NCIS characters

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

Untitled[edit]

In episode The Voyeur's Web, Charles "Chip" Sterling tells Abby that he wears Hi Tec 'level 5's after he has snuck up on her, claiming they have been designed to dampen ambient sound. Anyone knows this is a real product, cause I can't seem to find anything on the web. --Tanek 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Poplife.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ChipSterling.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cassidyncis.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NCIS-HollisMann.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Vance Unsourced information[edit]

Someone entered the following

Vance was often at odds with Gibbs and his team. At the end of season 5, Vance announced that Gibbs would be getting a new team, the former team to be disbanded and reassigned. He was also seen destroying a page out of his personnel file which was a performance review from Oct 15, 2004 which was of high praise.

I have the following issues with this Statement

1) It doesn't specify whose file Vances or Gibbs both are mentioned previous to the statement

2) There is no source stating what the document was

3) I find it unlikely that such an old performance review that was positive would be destroyed and most evaluations are multiple pages and filed in a central repistory which would make destroying the directors file copy useless.

I reccommend the statement be sources or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.24.2 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be seen on screen (primary source) that it's Leon's file. You are correct though in 2), as the page is not shown long enough to make out such details. 3) is speculation and would not be convincing. In light of 2) I'll remove it though. --SoWhy Talk 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, freeze framing through the scenes allows much of the text to be made out. Whilst this reading is incomplete, it does reveal a document which appears to be a positive performance review form. However, several key paragraphs cannot be read. More importantly, it is commonplace for "prop text" to be used, which may well be different to what the writers later wish to have been present on the page, and given the need to freeze frame, it was not the intent of the scene to reveal exactly what he was shredding. As such, any discussion of the report's contents is mere speculation. 82.36.75.12 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NCIS-04x04.jpg[edit]

The image Image:NCIS-04x04.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Vance Character Bio[edit]

The entry doesn't make any sense. It says he attended Harvard, then later left Harvard law to attend OCS, then graduated from Annapolis. The US Naval Academy (AKA Annapolis) doesn't issue graduate degrees. Further, the graduates of Annapolis are commissioned as graduates of a service academy, just like USMA and USAFA - they don't attend OCS. If this is the bio put out by the show, then it's true (or accurate is probably more like it, since it's fiction), I suppose, whether or not it makes sense. However, unless this ridiculousness has been explicitly stated on the show, it makes no sense. He either graduated from Annapolis or Harvard, not both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.33.142 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. This is unnecessary plot summary and without reliable third party sources could be original research. In any case, fictional characters should not have "biographies" which are primarily in-universe. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). McWomble (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let's talk about the paper shredding thing. the imdb link that was referenced previously - where did that reproduction come from? In s08e09 - Enemies Domestic, Vance has an argument with the SD field office SAC (via a flashback) that he is being backstopped for a deep cover assignment. This cover is to include that Vance is a pilot and was director of field office (implied not yet to have been true). According to Entertainment Weekly, this is meant to resolve the paper shredding mystery such that the one page that Vance is referring to in the episode is the page that was in his file that he shredded and that SecNav referred to as fictitious when talking to Gibbs. However, the imdb reproduction makes no mention of the details from s08e09. Now, it's possible that the legend being created was altered subsequent to the flashback to remove such information, but that's reading a bit into things - and it's now clear from the show that it was not a letter of recommendation as previously stated here. It also explains why what was previously thought to be a recommendation was so objectionable as to prompt being shredded by Vance. anybody else have thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here's another Vance bio point to discuss - did he and Tyler Owens (his childhood friend) switch identities? I just rewatched Knockout and I have to say that the implication of this fact is there the entire episode. I'm surprised they never looped back around to this - maybe they will in a future episode since they just got around to the paper shredding thing. anyway, i think it's possible that Vance is just using his friend's story as his own, but in that case, his friend would have had the military record. Vance has the record but his friend has the detached retina. or maybe they both do. I worded the addition to the bio section so that it's "implied" that Gibbs believes they switched identities while the show just leaves open the possibility rather than implies the facts... if that makes sense. happy to discuss or hear counterpoints. but i think this is a huge biographical detail that ought to be included since it was pretty much the basis for an entire standalone episode (if you read it this way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion without reference to reliable sources constitutes original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 8.09, timestamp 3:03, the sub-title clearly shows that Vance is attending the Naval War College, Rhode Island. The USNWC is accredited to confer Masters degrees. His attendance there is immediately before his recruitment by NCIS for the Amsterdam mission Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

The individual character articles do not establish notability of the characters independent of the series. No reliable third party sources and are just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. A verifiable one paragraph summary of each character in this article is sufficient. McWomble (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah, I guess that sounds good. spider1224 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agreed 100% these are nothing more than fan pages. harlock_jds (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel they should be kept seperate. I dont feel a single paragraph for each character on the one page would be sufficient to describe the characters. Lord_Rai_Sparks 06:04, 28 October 2008
If you can find enough verifiable, reliable third party sources to support a more than a paragraph that isn't simply plot summary then you can expand them. Anything else is not encyclopedic. The unsourced, in-universe plot summary being added to this article is exactly the sort of thing that should NOT be in an encyclopedia and is what got the Todd and Shepard articles deleted. McWomble (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Agree - I disagreed with this the last time (I think it was raised in an AFD for Gibbs' page, however, I am now getting a bit sick of seeing the same OR on the character pages. If one paragraph is all that will "fit" on a summary page, then this may cease. — Relyimah (t-c-e) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I disagree - I have more information on Dr. Mallard and his literary sources than can be carried in a paragraph. (71.213.126.235 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC))Prof. Pearson[reply]
  • Strong disagree. - Most major characters for most television shows have their own articles due to the fact that, well, they're main characters and thus have some degree of notability. Now for the minor characters, such as Chip Sterling and Gerald Jackson, I quite agree with leaving them as paragraphs on this page. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree. Despite what Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû claims the characters do not have any inherent notability. They should be merged unless notability can be proven with reliable sources. 59.167.63.122 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being the main character of a show does not establish real world notability. The article does not even remotely discuss a work of fiction from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible". McWomble (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree. The importance of the characters within this TV show does suggest the necessity to develop them on Wikipedia properly, not deleting the related articles.
    • Per WP:FICT#Characters, "For character articles, the second aspect of the three-pronged test, importance to the overall subject, is particularly important. Articles about fictional characters who are not deemed "major characters" are generally deleted or merged. Based on the third prong, articles on characters from a single work (such as a movie or a video game) are generally discouraged, while a character that spans multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise) are likely to be kept." .
    • Being the MAIN character of an ongoing top ten TV show does suggest that it has some notability.
    • According to this article from the LA Times this TV show also tends to build the characters (Also, the producers have spent more time the last two seasons filling in gaps in the characters' personal lives. One episode last month showed Harmon's special agent, Leroy Gibbs, traveling back to his hometown to meet his aging father.), proving that the character are possibily getting more important within the show.
    • This other article still from the LA Times, does little presenting the show and more speaking about the characters and the actor work (The long-running CBS hit's formula is simple: Assemble a crack acting team, pair them with compelling and varied characters, and then keep the story lines smart and snappy.). Simon.huet (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, is there substancial real-world information for each character, to e.g. write at least a WP:GA on each one? What you've provided seems like general reception info that can as well be covered in the main article of the show. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the merger is notability of the characters, not the quality of the article. The notability policy and the current notability (fiction) policy proposal clearly states that notabily should not be evaluated on the article itself but on the subject as a whole : When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.Simon.huet (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree. Surely the central character at least on a long-running and one of the highest-rated shows on TV should have an article. If article has problems, fix it. Nfitz (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Either someone rewrites the articles with sufficient real-world information (are some volunteers around here somewhere?), or the articles eventually get trimmed/merged/redirected. – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So instead of trying to get a better article we should delete and replace it with a one liner. Brilliant. I should have done that at school! Simon.huet (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without real-world information, a four-liner (not one-liner) actally is the better presentation (have a look at character list FA and FLs). Longer is not always better than consise - or do people get A's for long-rambling essays in math tests? – sgeureka t•c 14:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is real world informations waiting online to be added to those articles. Deleting them make adding those informations impossible. Marking the article "bad" make it possible to improve it later. Again this is an ongoing top ten TV show, this is not a B movie 30 year old no one has heard about or an ended show with no new informations ever. There is informations and facts about it and its characters somewhere. Now with the merger it's useless to try to collect them : there is no article anymore. Simon.huet (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figure you're unaware of the possibility to add encyclopedic real-world information to lists and then use {{splitsection}} when the present information can actually support its own article? – sgeureka t•c 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of characters are to be concise. It is not the place to start writing about a character. To add informations, we should start creating characters page. So what the point to delete them in the first place. It is really counter-intuitive for me : some real-world informations are missing so instead to trying to adding them, we remove non real-world informations. The four liners mini-bio is a joke compared to what was before. I am starting to think about linking back to Wikia NCIS pages where non real-wold informations exists but almost complete ~300 lines biographies including characters relationship are. Real-world information are still needed but a good biography is still better for me than (almost) nothing at all. Simon.huet (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merger is premature, seeing as no clear consensus yet exists to merge the separate articles into the list; still, at this point warring over it is insane. However, the individual articles contained plenty of verifiable and sourced information on each character, consistent with what is being done for characters in other series as well. I'm afraid McWomble's insistence upon establishing "notability," is, while well-intentioned, nonetheless misguided: "notability" is such a nebulous and subjective criterion that, in practice, it is altogether meaningless and we would do well to get away from that. My ideal standard (verifiable existence) is not terribly popular, but at least it's objective.

I would like to see the status quo ante restored, and I see no problems with the way the articles originally stood. But apparently not everyone agrees with me. So let's try this: let's see if we can't come up with some objective criteria at which point each character is split out into his or her own article with a link from the list. I would suggest that the actor/actress being listed in the opening credits is a good starting point, as plenty of information exists about those characters--as is evidenced by the breadth and depth of the articles on those characters as they previously stood. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your standard is, while well-intentioned, nonetheless misguided. Notability is a core Wikipedia policy. There are already objective criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Merely being listed in the opening credits is insufficient (and is a primary source anyway). Articles must also conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) in which articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. The character articles at present consist of nothing more than unsourced or primary sourced in-universe plot summary and trivia. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. McWomble (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the merger was the notability of the characters and the merger was done on that assumption that the characters don't have a real notability. Or this has been proved in many way. For me, knowing that there is more than 6000 articles on FanFiction.net about NCIS and a third of them include the character of Leroy Jethro Gibbs is enough to prove notability. This TV show is a top ten TV show, proving by itself that the character of Leroy Jethro Gibbs has notability. Going against those assumptions and it is sure you are not objective, and that no one can prove to you the notability of any character of any show and as Kurt Weber said, "notability" becomes a nebulous and subjective criterion.
The main point of Wikipedia is collaborative work. Deleting articles because they are not good enough makes it impossible for people work on then. Not having ~50 lines characters biography and getting a 4 liners instead is ridiculous. The "shorter is better" argument is a joke. Why should be writting so many character biography? Why not replace Jean Valjean biography by "Ex convict, turn mayor, back on the run from the Police, adopts a girl named Cosette and dies after her marriage in Paris", that's enough. There are not a lot of real-world information about Jean Valjean to establish his notability on that page, maybe we should delete it? Cause, you know, the notability of the novel Les Misérables does not assure the notability of its MAIN character.
I propose to get those articles back on and get a three month period to have them reworked and we see in three months from now if a merger is needed. By that time you can work on the "List of Characters", maybe in three months this page will be enough for everyone. Unless of a real concensus you should not have merged those pages, and in doing so you could have reworked the "List of Characters" to make it acceptable by everyone. Simon.huet (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McWomble, the problem with your argument is that at Wikipedia, we're about making an encyclopedia; we're not here to engage in bureaucratic masturbation. All the so-called "policies" are most certainly non-binding; all that matters is what makes the most sense in any given situation, and if that contradicts the so-called "policies" then the so-called "policies" lose. Remember, after all, that all these so-called "policies" are are just descriptions of what has typically happened in the past, written up after the fact—they are by no means rules that have been created up front that we are expected to follow. Instead of worrying about a bunch of so-called rules, we need instead to worry about what actually makes the most sense to do here.
I should also point out that not only are these so-called rules non-binding in the abstract, they absolutely never trump a consensus that has emerged in a specific situation to the contrary. The above discussion is inconclusive, if not actually demonstrating a clear consensus against the merger—which supersedes whatever "policy" may say otherwise. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting : I will stand by Kurt Weber on this. McWomble, you're playing policy advocate, in other words, you're gaming the system, citing many policies seems like you are policy shopping. The notability policy and the current notability (fiction) policy proposal clearly states that notabily should not be evaluated on the article itself but on the subject as a whole : When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. An article is not a final draft, and a subject can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists.
    There are quite a few articles discussing the show, describing the characters and there is a community of fan writing fiction on FanFiction.net using those characters. This is a top ten TV show so the notability is unquestionable. Thereof the lack of notability was not conclusive, the merger premature. Simon.huet (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of the series is not in question. The significance of the characters to the series is not in question either. It is the third criterion of notability (fiction), the real world significance of the characters independent of the series, which has not been established. A belief that adequate evidence of real world notability notability of the character exists was asserted in the AfD but none was subsequently presented. But..... here is a compromise to try with the Gibbs article. Forget the previous article as it consisted entirely of in-universe plot summary and trivia with no real world relevance. Write a new article in a user space or other non-main space, establish the real world notability of the character using reliable sources independent of the series and adhere to the real world as the primary frame of reference such as character creation, development, reception and cultural impact. In other words, no plot summary and do not use the series itself as a source. FanFiction.net is not a reliable source as fan fiction is, by definition, self-published. If the real world notability and significance is clearly established (not just believed or asserted) it can be moved into the main space once the protection is removed. For the right way to write an articles about fictional character, see for example Homer Simpson and James Bond. McWomble (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, sorry to cut in, but we need seperate articles for main characters! The page can stay and be used for recurring and guest characters, but we need serperate pages for mains! 

            thanx!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.123.17 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. Real-world coverage must exist on the character's development and reception beyond what is revealed in the plot for a separate article to be created. McWomble (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree At this point we now have a situation where the lead character no longer has his own page, but most of the rest of the characters have separate pages with closed AfD "Keep" or "no consensus" discussions. One doesn't wasn't even listed as AfD. This is a huge inconsistency given the proliferation of character articles with respect to other series. Since it would seem that the other character articles are to stay within this series (and others) the inconsistency of having only some of the main characters with separate pages. Since it would seem that it is unlikely that the rest of the character pages will be deleted/merged, it only makes sense to restore the two main characters that have been deleted. This would allow people to correct any deficiencies in those articles. Jjnishiyama (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Gibbs[edit]

I was searching for some information on the character LJ Gibbs, but found nothing than the few lines in this article. Surprisingly the wikilink in his name redirects to the same paragraph in the same article. This seems kind of useless, unless there is an extended article about LJ Gibbs, similar to those about the other linked main characters. Does something like an extended article exist? Unfortunately I did not find anything but redirects to this page. 91.48.105.128 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link was re-added only recently.[1] It shouldn't have been and nobody picked it up. For reasons that I'm not completely aware of, Leroy Jethro Gibbs was converted to a redirect on 5 December 2008.[2] Fortnately the old article still exists here, although it does have some issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Site: List of NCIS characters => 2.1 Leroy Jethro Gibbs => fifth paragraph - Gibbs and Fornell: Diane Sterling is Gibbs' first ex-wife. (Rebecca Chase (Jeri Ryan) is the second ex-wife of Leroy Jethro Gibbs.)

La Grenouille's Death[edit]

I do not believe Gibbs proved that Jenny Shepard killed La Grenouille. At best it's circumstantial evidence. What he discovered was that Jenny's gun killed him. The gun was last seen in Jenny's possession very close to the man's time of death, it has now vanished, all of these are telling indicators. Nevertheless, an attourney could make a good case that she didn't do it, so it can't genuinely be said to be proven. It may be likely, but that's not the same thing.75.6.132.48 (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ziva David Bio[edit]

In the beginning of the third season, Ziva says she speaks five languages, yet later we learn that she speaks the languages listed in the bio. Also, it is mentioned that she keeps Kosher in the bio, but she ate the pepperoni pizza that Gibbs gave Tony when he was tailing her in the first episode of the third season. I just want to make sure that we know which is true, so this bio can be as accurate as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.48.12 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, she definitely doesn't eat kosher. let's say she keeps "kosher-style". that is the nam used for products that look kosher, jewish products, but in fact aren't kosher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.220.80 (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Bios and Ducky's Corgis[edit]

First off, I've been working on the flow of the individual bios, and I apologize for all the edit updates, as I've been editing each one individually to make them easier to work with. If you have more to add, or if I've left (or created) any run-on sentences, edit away!

Second, can anyone confirm the number of corgis Ducky's mother kept? I seem to remember there were five of them, in the episode when Ducky was abducted.TheBigFish (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he has at least two corgis, that much I know from that episode where he wanted to quit and it explained some of Ducky's backstory--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was 5, but what we believe it was doesn't matter. If that info is proper for the page (I believe they were his mothers corgis anyways) you should find a source outside of Wiki. 69.207.50.47 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have a definitive answer, I'm going to edit the page to simply state that he kept corgis, without specifying a number. I'm not sure the number of them is particularly important, anyway.TheBigFish (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast members[edit]

An anonymous editor with a dynamic IP address in the range 99.14x.x.x is persistently moving Jimmy Palmer from recurring to main cast,[3][4][5] despite edit summaries of reversions of this indicating Jimmy Palmer is not part of the main cast.[6][7][8] As the IP address of this editor changes each time he or she edits there is little point leaving a note on the editor's talk page. For this reason I've left a note in the article directing him or her here. Even the addition of a hidden note has had no effect. The IP simply deleted it.[9]

The main cast are listed in the opening credits. Jimmy Palmer is not listed in the opening credits so he is not a member of the main cast. It's as simple as that. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiNozzo background citation[edit]

"his mother was over-protective, and she "dressed him like a sailor until he was ten."[citation needed]"


The citation is episode 11 from season 2, Black Water. In which he explains how he grew up rich and his parents wanted him to earn his own money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R0k0v (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about M. Alison Hart?[edit]

Could/should someone please add info about a Season 7 recurring character, M. Alison Hart? --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I have been thinking of putting her in, she has be in 4? episodes this season, and is in next Tuesday's as well. I just haven't had the time to put her in yet. If you could do it, I think it would be great, here's the IMDB link to the actress: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0812133/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) "Vengful against the man who had sent him to prison, Bell sent Hart to Washington to defend any accused who were involved in his investigations." This is in the artical now, but I do not remember this ever actually mentioned. Although it is a safe assumption, it is still an asumption none the less and not confirmed as (TV fiction) a fact. Please give refrence to the episode that this is directly mentioned or remove this statement please. Peacekeeper 1234 —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

My name is Nobody[edit]

Two things. It appears a rule for Ducky to address others formally by full names, but I'm not positive it's absolute; it isn't if the reference is second-hand, rather than a direc address, & I do seem to recall he's not called Abby "Abigail" every single time (even tho it's ususal). Also, in ref Palmer, given Jimmy's a colleague, it may be there's a UK tradition in play: a surgeon & colleague (both of which arguably apply to Palmer) is always called "Mister", as I understand it, so Ducky is effictively elevating Palmer to the status of a peer. How much of this is just the writers wanting to keep noobs from getting lost is an open question. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:05 & 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corporal Damon Werth[edit]

Marine Corporal Damon Werth has appeared in three episodes now, across two seasons.

'Corporal Punishment', 'Outlaws and In-Laws' and 'Jack Knife' all feature the character in pivotal roles. If Holly Snow gets a mention, I think the dismissed Marine Corporal should have his own section in the main article.

On a semi-related note, what's the difference between 'Recurring characters' and 'Other characters' in this article? Some of the distinctions are not at all clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.189.150 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, the distinctions between recurring and other characters are unclear. They shouldn't be. Recurring characters are exactly that, while other characters should be significant characters who aren't recurring. At the moment, a number of formerly recurring characters are in the "Other characters" section and vice versa. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Sign Language[edit]

I do not remember Abby or Gibbs ever using sign language. Elryacko (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have in at least two episodes, I cannot remember which at the moment. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one but it's not a reliable source. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the entire internet isn't a reliable source. Well, I'll probably rent the first season on DVD, or hope that a re-run is shown. Elryacko (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief view of Gibbs "doing something" with his hands in the following clip from UTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nihdp7YJJo0 from the 1:40 mark that certainly looks like one of the many forms of sign language. However it would actually take someone who signs to view the clip and verify if Gibbs is actually signing or just making random hand movements that to a non signer would fool them into thinking he is signing. The same is the case with Abby's brief signed "reply" to Gibbs, seen after. Seeing as the wiki's own article on Sign language states:- "Hundreds of sign languages are in use around the world" Hence, it is quite possible that they both sign (but not necessarily in the same language) in a language that no one who cares to contribute to the NCIS page reads. I also recall seeing one (or both) sign (or pretend to) on other occasions, but I do not have the DVD's (I rented) to go check. Regards, BD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernieDog (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Director Shepard's Assistant[edit]

I have been looking for the name of the actress that plays "Cynthia"?? (or similar), Director Shepard's assistant. I was hoping that I would find it here, and are quite surprised that she wasnt listed, since that she has appeared, although in a minor role, in many episodes. Any help would be appreciated. 60.228.232.109 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked IMDB? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 19, Deadman Talking[edit]

Does anyone know who played Commander Voss and who played his alter ego Amanda? Please add this to the episode description if you do. I can not find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmikesmi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

      The actress Jamie Luner played Amanda Reed, the alternate to Lt. Comm. Voss.  L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The huge guy[edit]

Sorry I can't be more specific, but there was a team of NCIS agents that worked with Gibbs and his team. One of them was a huge guy, I think his name might have been Cade--he was good friends with Abby, yet he is not mentioned in this list or on Abby's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.141.151 (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the team that came in mid-Season 8 led by Special Agent Barett, with Cade and Levin, I find it suprsing there is little to mention of them on this article anyway, and Cade did have a relationship with Abby (friendly, not romantic, of course) so that would be worth mentioning. Jpech95 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Article?[edit]

Considering all the major articles of NCIS have their own page (even Kate Todd, and she was only there for 2 seasons), why not Vance? He has 3 paragraphs in this article, why not just start an article all to his own, he's an important character in the series and a lot can be said about him. Jpech95 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Cruz[edit]

Isn't it about time C-I-Ray, as DiNozzo calls him, got a section here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.184.10 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky is not gone.[edit]

Before the credits started rolling somebody put in a spoiler describing Ducky's current problem, gee wiki has turned into TMZ, well not yet, the episode has yet to air in all markets. Mainly Hawaii, armed forces networks. Relax, David McCallum has signed on for two more years with NCIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.152 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Det. Sportelli[edit]

Where is Metro Danny Detective Sportelli? He was featured in two episodes in 2009 and 2011. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go edit and see if they accept.Phd8511 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Character Status of Thomas Morrow[edit]

In light of Thomas Morrow (Director of NCIS seasons 1 and 2, employee at the Department of Homeland Security) being brought back up in at least one episode in late season 10, I have changed his character status to Current. Feel free to discuss. 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk)

Possible addition to list[edit]

While he's only been mentioned in passing, never actually seen on-screen, I think there is enough information that it might be worth adding a section in the 'other/minor' category for Dr. Hubbard, the city ME and one of the members of Ducky's bridge group. I wouldn't know where to get such information, so I merely mentioned it here, rather than actually doing it myself. 10:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk)

Isn't Bishop[edit]

suppose to be a main character? Phd8511 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is only credited as a guest star. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your source?Phd8511 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://tvline.com/2013/11/04/ncis-season-11-ziva-replacement-emily-wickersham-series-regular/ Series Regular. Unless you produce a source saying she's only a guest star (by definition guest star means starring in one episode).Phd8511 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is every episode she has been in so far. She is only credited as a guest star. The source that you've provided says she has been promoted to "series regular", which does not automatically mean "starring". Per MOS:TV and wide consensus, she doesn't get listed as a main character until she's credited in a starring role. "Guest star" does not mean she's main cast. If it did, the main cast list would be endless. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense.Phd8511 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not nonsense. At the point in time this conversation happened Bishop was only a guest in all episode she had appeared in. She wasn't classed as a series regular until the first episode back after the winter hiatus.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY over knowledge. Phd8511 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with monopolies. Ditto51 is correct. This has been established by consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not give up[edit]

It seems only people here know what is a series regular.Phd8511 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarise yourself with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. No one can force peoplePhd8511 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have rules that we expect everyone, including you, to follow. Editing against wide consensus may result in a block so, in short, yes, people can be forced to toe the line. It happens every day. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Gibbs (recurring) → Jackson Gibbs (deceased)[edit]

Has anyone given any thought of moving Jackson Gibbs from the section of recurring characters to the section of deceased characters? Since the actor (Ralph Waite) has died, it is not like they're going to bring the actor back for flashbacks (i.e. Mike Franks). Bob305 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the character list with current and former. once there are enough citations, former cast can have their own page as some TV shows do like General Hospital. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FICTENSE, fiction is always treated in the present tense so no fictional character is ever really dead. Even they are treated as if they are still alive. See MOS:TENSE and WP:WAF for guidance on how to write about fictional characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empty spaces[edit]

The very long contents box creates a lot of whitespace. Additionally, the infoboxes for Ellie, Quinn, Nick and Clayton are longer than their bios, creating more whitespace. Not sure what can be done about that. PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NCIS 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:

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) 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NCIS 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:

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) 12:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Shepard's father[edit]

Was the issue about whether or not her father was alive ever solved?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Shepard[edit]

Jenny's father.

Was it ever cleared up whether or not Jasper was alive?

According to Jenny, Jasper committed suicide about ten years previous which she blames on "The Frog." Yet, in an episode where Jenny goes to Russia to see a Russian general on his deathbed who claims that her father had recently visited in the past couple of weeks.

Just curious. 2600:8800:C89:EA00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy???[edit]

There are a lot of references to a certain "Chrissy", in multiple entries of this page (I counted 43, as of August 24, 2021) that are at best somewhat awkwardly introduced. They do not add any meaningful infos, and there does not appear that this character have its own entry, so I can't seem to place her in the context of the show. Can somebody more competent in Wikipedia then I verify this? If this has been addressed before, please disregard. Thank youBoris Crépeau (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DiNozzo, Sr.[edit]

The character description section is rather bare. No specific episode(s) information; especially like what episode was his first appearance, etc.

How 'bout filling it in? 2600:8800:204:C400:9FC:1022:34E0:752A (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_NCIS_characters&oldid=1208272668"