Talk:Hill Street Blues/Archives/2015

analysis of text and context

Would this be appropriate to link to ? http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/tv/hillstbl.htm Viralmeme (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark Frost

Wasn't Mark Frost (of Twin Peaks fame) heavily involved in this show in some way (i.e. the creator)? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff schiller (talk • contribs)

According to his wikipedia page, Mark Frost co-wrote a couple of Hill Street Blues episodes, and directed one. Steven Bochco was credited as one of the co-creators of Hill Street Blues - can't remember the others.

Please sign your comments. TheMadBaron 16:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Phillies

Removed the line "Further indication of this included the quote in one of the episodes that "the Phillies are in town". as an indication of where the series took place. The Phillies played in the National league, which had teams in San Fran, LA, San Diego...etc. They could have been playing anywhere in the US. 172.131.226.84 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, and a very good point. The Phillies being "in town" is, in and of itself, no indication of where said town happens to be. Good edit. ---Charles 06:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Altered the "in town" comment. Stating that a team is "in town" doesn't mean that they aren't at home. --Badger151 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes?

When I count the number of episodes listed on the imdb site, I come up with 144. So, I'd like to know, specifically, where the figure of 91 episodes comes from, and I would like to see some discussion here on the talk page before the article is changed again. ---Charles 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Season Blues

I've heard "HSB" was the lowest-rated show ever renewed. True? Worth including? Captain Andy Renko 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Conrad

The article says he died in the fourth season, but the Wikipedia article for Michael Conrad states he died in the third season. Which was it? 68.80.215.67 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Fred

The third season info comes from Conrad's IMDB bio, but its not correct, he died during the 4th season, episode 10 being his last credit.[1] feydey 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the setting contradict

The intro and the Setting heading go to some length to assert that the series cannot be located but later under Setting it is correctly reported that

1. Hunter's 'tank' was dumped in the East River,

2. LaRue left a wedding ring at home in The Lower East Side.

While these don't locate the series in any specific place they seem to locate it near New York. Could these two descriptions apply to any other US location?

Ablonus (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ablonus (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) In possibly another clue to the setting in episode Some Like It Hot Wired LaRue says, of a car stripping operation, "Looks like they ran half of Detroit through here." Unless there is a local reason to refer to Detroit - famous for the automobile parts trade etc - this concurs with the general theme of East USA setting Ablonus (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritz-Carlton_Denver claims the series was filmed in Denver, and the Cast stayed at that hotel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.36.132 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One episode has.. someone, maybe veronica hamel? maybe she and Furillo had an argument? ... being upset, and mentioning taking " a drive down by the bay" .. or the.... ? I'll have to rent the Cds again. :-). Anyhow, a distinctive geographical feature is referenced in a conversation about an upset person taking long drive to think. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The setting is deliberately obscured. While the East River and Lower East Side point to NYC, there are clues that point to other cities, too. I suspect that if we assembled all of the clues, no single city would match. All we get is a sizeable Snow Belt US city. --Badger151 (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What clues point to other cities? Details needed to substantiate Badger151's comments. Else they are just suspicions. Ablonus (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro shows a very large building with the sign "Fulton Market Cold Storage" which is located at 1000 West Fulton Street in Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.98.8 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The cast-- sortable table? New organization?

• the presentation of the cast could be improved, in my opinion. Would anyone be opposed to having a sortable table? Maybe columns for "number of episodes appeared" maybe even "Emmy noms" and "Emmy wins"? If so, please offer a good reason... otherwise, I'll get on it as time permits. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 01:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Personally I'm happy with it as it is - but I've no objection at all to you trying something different. I would only say this: I don't like revisions which leave the reader with less information than he had previously; and I love revisions which leave the reader with more information than he had previously. --Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it... IMDB cuts off all cast members' appearances at 100, going so far as to actually delete all regulars from the cast list of a number of individual episodes (e.g., Season 4, Episode 21, Lucky Ducks). I need to fix this, but it's not as simple as it may seem. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your attitude Timothy Titus- the more better info the better -see the debate at page end re. inclusions in the cast list. IMDB have a two part cast list set up -the principals and then ALL the rest of the cast in a drop down click option, but that does not need to be the WP model .Ling Nut -I like your idea too -what do you think of including a time marker for very brief appearances ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WTF is "EAT"?

The acronym "EAT" is used several times in this article without being defined. 98.217.178.73 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's apparently "Emergency Action Team". I've added a couple of connectors which I hope explain it adequately without being too disruptive to the flow. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DVD

'Season 3 can be viewed as streaming video on commercial sites' Would it break any rules to give the specific url on YouTube where all episodes are now available [[2]]. I can see them in the UK, I'm assuming they are available in the US too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.11.200 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad assumption, I'm afraid. In fact, most people would see: "This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." In general, Wikipedia doesn't include links to video content like that, esp. on the basis that it's available elsewhere on the Internet. Music article do sometimes point to the official video posted at the label's official YT page, but I think aiming at all the episodes would be unappreciated on WP. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm glad I asked. Thanks for coming back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyHassett (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One off appearances by those who went on to fame and fortune

I believe it is important to include as of historical interest actors who appeared briefly and fresh faced and later went on to great things and NOT just every Tom,Dick, and Mary.With this in mind i am undoing the deletions of the likes of Don Cheadle etc.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd already reverted those last additions before seeing this just now. I understand your interest in mentioning actors getting early jobs on the show, but the list where they'd go isn't about the actors, it's about the show's characters. One-time bit parts aren't really important enough to list here, as mentioning them doesn't tell the reader about the subject series, just that a lot of people were on it from time to time.

Also, go look at the performers lists for shows like Wagon Train, NYPD Blue, or the CSIs and Law & Orders. Every actor who was active then appeared on those shows, and many became stars. We can't reasonably list them all for HSB, but then again we don't need to, because we're explaining about the in-world characters. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree but am not sure about how to avoid silly revert tennis-AND I just spotted two more great ones - Ally Sheedy and Ron Silver. I think your notion that the early if brief appearances of stars is not of interest to readers is mistaken, particularly if the listing includes the episode and time mark of the appearance and also as most episodes are now on youtube courtesy of Channel 4. I am going to put them back and seek guidance.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we should not mention every one-time appearance. Special guest roles by famous actors (if there were any) should be mentioned in a separate list. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who see this as excessive. The more major actors in minor roles we add, the more trivial they become. And really, how notable are any of their appearances? Drmargi (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think getting hung up on "notable" is misguided,and also the usage of the term is in error. I believe it is of interest to many who read wikipedia in a lighthearted way AND for more serious study.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't simply brush notability aside that easily; it's one of the critical criteria for inclusion of content. On the other hand, "of interest" is not a criterion for inclusion -- this is not a fan website. Moreover, adding this huge list of now-well known actors in small, often inconsequential roles simply fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The point that's worth making was that many young actors who made careers for themselves appeared on HIll Street Blues. But the same can be said of any TV show as it gets older, as was pointed out above. Worse, and I made this argument when an editor was adding a similar laundry list of actors on another article, you dilute what are notable performances by up-and-coming actors, such as the ones by a young Alfre Woodard, but burying them in a list of blink-and-you'll-miss-them appearances. Finally, I haven't seen any discussion of your criteria for inclusion. For example, I don't see Dean Devlin's appearances as a gang kid included. Why? He's a major producer and now a director these days. It all seems terribly arbitrary, and the reflection of one editor's judgment rather than the reflection of any meaningful standard for inclusion. Drmargi (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the last editor. Notability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and I really feel we do not need any of those one off appearances, even if the actor became "famous" later. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You could opt to read the notability article lads instead of just citing it-as it clearly states "notability has NOTHING to do with article CONTENT. While you are at it take a gander at the due weight article. If you want to add the redoubtable "diluted" Dean or Alfre Whomever to what is becoming a very interesting and useful list then feel free. i love wikipedia. Notability is NOT one of the five pillars of WP. Lads-read what you are referring to BEFORE you scribble.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice just once in a while if the members of the misogynist society didn't automatically assume we're all men. That said, you've conveniently sidestepping the larger issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Moreover, I think you'll find that, in practice, WP:NOTABLE is applied to elements of content all the time. You've created the poorly formatted, endless list of "other" characters that runs from Faye Furillo (a major main cast character) to unnamed gang members and other uber-minor characters. What a mess. You couldn't study that list and learn anything meaningful because it's just a laundry list of uncategorized, disorganized, partially unformatted and otherwise meaningless names. You've also side-stepped the arbitrary nature of your list additions. Fame and fortune? What the heck kind of a criterion for inclusion is that? And why does it matter? Drmargi (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We could always ask for outside input at, say, Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Drmargi (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Or you could have said -Damn ! you are right on Notability and the Pillars -good call -hands up ! Why do YOU assume that I am a man? In this part of the world"Lads" is not gender specific in the plural but carries a mild group reproof as in "Ah now lads" Having silently conceded defeat on your two principal citations, the third one "Indiscriminate" moves centre stage. It really does not apply either; I agree the list is sloppy(I did not create it as you attest) and has way too much red-I am sure one of us will find the time to tidy it up. Should it be subdivided into several categories ? Scroll up this chat page a bit and look at the previous discussion about this section. Getting help seems like a good idea.I think there are other elements missing from the article,like a sociological analysis of its huge impact/influence or the plots. I always wondered why the fragile glass partitions between the offices were never replaced with something more durable or why Belker was never charged over his many bites. Something on the portrayal of the practice of law or even of medicine(did it ignore AIDS completely ?) or welfare or class distinctions in the series would be interesting too.Criterion ? When i want to check a detail Wikipedia is often my first port of call: I would be delighted to find as comprehensive an "other" cast list ( about 40 names-the same as the detective list) as Wikivolunteers could muster on any page. Why does it matter ? You can find as many answers to that question as there are hits on the page or any page.

Happy editing Dr Margi and Nurse Echo.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, no one is assuming you're a man, but in the part of the world where I live, use of lads both connotes and denotes the person to whom you are referring is male. It might be different in Ireland, but not everyone here is Irish. Similarly, no one is suggesting the list en masse is your doing, just that what you added worsens the laundry-list nature of the list, and adds precious little in the way of meaningful content.

Second, WP:INDISCRIMINATE was part of my initial argument. I didn't fall back on it, you side stepped it, presumably because you had no argument against it, in order to attempt to spank us for not applying WP:NOTABLE rigidly. I find that ironic, given the statement on your user page, but never mind. This discussion is about consensus, not about who wins and who loses, something an increasing number of Wikipedians don't seem to understand.

Third, you might want to review WP:CIVIL. Drmargi (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the comments above that signal a withdrawal by Tumadoireacht, the "fame and fortune" laundry list has been removed, and the cast/command structure reorganized so that main characters are no longer lost in a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of minor characters, and other WP:FANCRUFT. The cast list and command structure need further editing and organizing so that the reader is able to access main cast data and Hill Street personnel easily. Drmargi (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rigid? Spanking? Withdrawal? Open a window please. The Librarian is overheating. Applying notability criteria to content rather than subject was your error as well as also being unfamiliar with the messages of due weight, indiscriminate,civil, and the pillars. I am glad to see that ye tidied the list somewhat-I would also have excised the double square brackets which create the links to non existent "red" pages-what do you think ? Per your consensus minded suggestion, I have listed the discussion on the Notability talk page and added back the hotly contested "one off" notables list of 11 characters to aid scrutiny.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's customary to post a link to the discussion here, and on the talk pages of any involved parties. Drmargi (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you managed to find it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard (for Depresser and JohnfromPinckey) I have posted some links you may find useful reading on your home talk page.Happy Hunting.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it wasn't my obligation to have to hunt for it. The established practice is that the editor opening a discussion notifies all involved parties and leaves a notice on the relevant article's talk page. For someone who sees him/herself as having the level of Wikipedia expertise that you do, that, along with WP:CIVIL seem to elude you. Please refrain from leaving further back-handed insults on my talk page or I will take further action.

Your reverts and further addition of more meaningless names are clearly edit warring on your part. I would encourage you to refrain from any further such action, and allow the article to stablize until such time as consensus is reached. At present, you have no such consensus for inclusion of the names you persist in including. Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For someone with a Phd, especially one in education of all things, your shoehorning of words to fit meanings you desire reminds me of Orwell,Carroll, Huxley and Burgess at their most amusing . "Stable" is a great example. Stable translates from Drmargionian as silent compliance with your wishes. "Meaningless" is another one; meaningless indeed. I suspect that the speed with which you removed my advice reflects some shame on your part. In your last revert sweep of my contributions you removed someone from the recurrring list too -am i to take it that you object to additions there now also ? from anyone or just from me? rationale ?........--Tumadoireacht (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's clear you have no intention of discussing in WP:GF, respecting WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL or in any way working toward resolution. I'm weary of your diversionary insults and your failure to address the issue at hand. When you're ready to stop playing games and ready to discuss with an eye toward resolution rather than simply manipulating the process as a means to have your own way, I'm happy to be part of the process. Drmargi (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy there now-you might do yourself an injury in the scrabble for the moral high ground. Insults you say-do you remember using these words"excessive trivial inconsequential failure dilution burial arbitrary meaningless indiscriminate a mess disorganized lost fancruft" ? Did you ever come across old Sigmund or subtext ?

I have praised your tidy up, and offered advice, and suggestions, one of which you acted upon. I sought your opinion and rationale repeatedly and again recently to no answer or avail.

Were you a primary school teacher by any chance? Oh and just one wee pet hate- futile gravitas grasping redundant use of the conditional ("encourage" versus "would encourage") Maybe some senior bod will leap from the woodwork and give us a Solomon wise solution to this impasse. I get the strong impression,particularly when you reverted only my edit from the"recurring" bit that you otherwise like, that your editing has moved more obviously into the personal--how about a clear answer on that one alone ? --Tumadoireacht (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please direct your comments to the issue at hand; I will respond to that and that alone. In the meantime I will monitor the article and discussion page for comments relevant to the dispute at hand, and weigh in as necessary, in the hope the issue at hand can be resolved amicably. Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you cut Ally Sheedy from the recurring characters list ? Was it an error ? If not an error then why the inconsistency/partiality ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot get more direct than that -any chance you might"weigh in" Drmargi and amicably answer at least that one simple question ? Failing hearing from you.I will presume that in your haste to excise the notable early stars list you scooped her up in error and will amend your mistake. I will not be playing revert tennis with you on the ten names on the young actors list again until tomorrow. I do wonder whether attempting to provoke a three revert is an amicable or a devious act.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to ask a question without some sort of negative subtext or over accusation? It was not an error, but rather part of a revert designed to return the page to Debresser's edit that followed your withdrawal from the discussion. At that point, consensus was for no inclusion of minor characters. You also need to recognize that not everyone edits according to your time line or lives in the same time zone as you do. Adding an insulting post, the latest of many, will not hasten an editor's response nor get you the answer you seek. Drmargi (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for you be objective at all at this stage and examine your own actions and statements ? Let me be clear once again- I have not withdrawn at all from this discussion and have no understanding of why you continue to describe me as having done so. Your hounding of my edits in hitherto undisputed areas of the article is particularly childish as is the weasel and peacock and unsourced description.i simply paraphrased and tidied grammar in what was already there and it is just as unsourced in your spite edit as it was before I went near it to tidy it. The repeated Ally Sheedy revert defies all logic even your own. A list that includes the names of the actors playing the parts as well as the part names is NOT a list of police officers alone-it is a cast list and should be labeled as such-why you cannot see or permit that either is beyond me. It appears to me that your opposition to my contributions has moved way beyond the pale. I have never argued for the inclusion of all minor characters but for the 10 so far that are culturally significant and of wider interest.10 names out of 112 is not excessive and makes the article more informative and more enjoyable,Please reconsider your reversions; they are counterproductive.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please let's stay civil here. I see no real difference between the last versions. Perhaps all should refrain from making edits for 24 hours, just to stay calm. The discussion about adding minor characters to the article is still in progress on the noticeboard, so none should be added in the mean time. Together we'll work this out. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

scholarly analysis and print media reception and viewing figures

I feel the article is weaker for not having much or really any of the above three. I remember reading that the switch from the Phil Esterhaze "Let's be careful out there" to the Jablonsky "Let's do it to them before they do it to us" coincided with an American sea change -a change to a more aggressive foreign military policy,a change of president and a consequent domestic change in social policy and fiscal rectitude.Does anyone else remember reading a scholarly or Sunday newspaper article along those lines ? A cursory google trawl reveals little of interest--Tumadoireacht (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Guns section

I find it difficult to understand why one editor is reverting any edit I make on this site as a matter of form and calling it policy. The gun site link is superb and a real find-it is bursting with both gun and more general HSB information and photos. It is in a wikipedia style and is many things this page could be but is not for many reasons " Adds nothing of substance. Lots of guns on a cop show is hardly news" as a label on an instant revert is an inappropriate action and comment, particularly from a senior editor.I suggest that the editor concerned take a look at the link and try to separate the personal from the wikipedian--Tumadoireacht (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. All your edits do is tell the reader there are lots of guns (on a cop show, that's hardly news), then refer the reader to another site. It's a pointless section with no substance.it is possible that an editor, particularly one you find the need to insult at every turn, can evaluate an edit and make a reasonable judgment about the appropriateness of content with no other motive but to improve the article. Drmargi (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In my country police operate without guns; try to think beyond a merely north american readership-to some people guns are always news and they are also very much in the news in your country at present after yet another looney went postal with one. Have you a useful suggestion to how better incorporate the link-have you even looked at the other site ? --Tumadoireacht (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

None as long as your agenda is to include the link. The site is little more than a collection of pictures culled from the first couple seasons, and questionably reliable. The point of Wikipedia is not to add a section to the article expressly to showcase a link, which is what you want to do (see WP:NOT). At best, the site might be a source for some discussion of a firearm of interest, if a case could be made for such a discussion. BTW, North America is a proper noun, and it's reasonable to assume that readers interested in an American police show would know American police are armed given their high visibility in the world media and the proliferation of American "cop" shows worldwide. Perhaps I have a bit more faith in the knowledge of the average reader. Drmargi (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"questiionably reliable" ?- are the 143 high quality still shots of HSB scenes faked by look-a -like stand ins? unreliable how exactly ? Have they mentioned the wrong guns ? They do seem remarkably thorough in their cataloguing but if you have better information please share it.IMDb sites and clones tend to be pretty solid. An encyclopedia is by our and other's definition a compendium. The existence of this section on the site is partly recognition that props take on a life of their own in a tv drama and sometimes a central one. I can do without the catty grammar correction on north america thanks Your faith in readers is heartening but our task is not to assume but to inform. With that in mind may I suggest that you transfer your ongoing debate about page re-edits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser to this page so that all may be aware of your proposals to alter the page and a wider consensus on how to move forward be arrived at. Public comments such as:"The other editor seems to have picked up his/her toys and left in a huff, so there's an opportunity to make some major fixes" are counterproductive-please stop such incivility. Public threats of ANI mentioning my name are in the same boat. Both are bullying, and a no-no especially for a senior editor. --Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, I'll tell you why I'm removing it: it doesn't contribute to the article about the show. Saying that guns were used on a U.S.-made cop show set in the U.S. is about as helpful to the reader as saying that a Western movie had a variety of cowboy hats on the men. (We could probably link to some site showing photos of all the hats, too, but we wouldn't want to use that site as a reference if it's, say, a public wiki.) And I know people in your country probably operate without cowboy hats, too, but I expect they're experienced enough to expect the hats on Western characters just as they will expect guns in a Yank cop show.

In any case, it doesn't deserve its own subsection (it's only one sentence), and I don't think it fits under "Setting". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If an unusual cowboy movie featured several hundred types of hats John do you consider that that might be something that a wiki article might refer to or just ignore  ? If the donning and doffing of those hats took up a great deal of the interaction of those out amongst the sagebrush would it be "notable" ? The site referenced is a wonderful adjunct to our wiki article which only has two very fuzzy photos of the cast. The IMfdb site has 143 cast photos. How do you suggest referencing it for the ease and enjoyment of out readers ? Maybe I should email the NRA ! You guys really crack me up.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Did the hat analogy fall off its perch ? Overwrought metaphors can do that. i would still love to see a decent reason for the revert other than huffy ones. In the last version of the gun sub section there were 3 other references besides the excellent gun and cast photo site (http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Hill_Street_Blues), and a statistical comparison of cop deaths in the show and in real life. Did you have time to read the edit before you reverted it --Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

moving on up the road

It has gone awful quiet in here. Is this the earnest" consensus seeking discussion" that we should await the outcome of ? It could be a long wait at this rate. I have asked repeatedly for suggestions about what form for including the three scraps of information I propose (Ally Sheedy/Guns/ and the nine star appearances) would be acceptable. One opposing reverter suggested a separate listing away from the cast list but I get the impression from it being reverted again that others are opposed to that idea-??? The Guns idea -? what form would pass muster  ? Ally Bloody Sheedy is one cast member with 3 episodes to her credit -there are people on the current unreverted uncontested page cast list listed with fewer appearances which makes continually reverting her listing look really silly --it should not be this hard to get a tiny reasonable edit such as that accepted. Some response would be nice......--Tumadoireacht (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok- Apparently dispute resolution is next- per Sarek. any takers ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In the loud absence of input from John,Margi, and Deb I will apply for a mediator in dispute resolution unless I hear proposals on how we might solve this ourselves.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, good idea. Perhaps User:SarekOfVulcan would be willing to mediate, as an uninvolved admin. BTW, who is "Deb"? Debresser (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably better just to file a MedCab request and get someone who hasn't been around at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait to hear from the other 4 editors involved -one should be bold but not naughty (What is a MedCab-is it a sort of Ambulance/taxi to whisk away the combatants after a scrap ?)--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"No" is always a good idea for refuseniks and accountants. Maybe we should wait to hear from the other 4 editors involved before doing anything precipitate. After all consensus is king don't'cha know. I know so many Debs; one was a friendly lanky gal from Dallas-could you be more specific ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the conversation in a positive spirit; in my experience, calling your fellow editors epithets is rarely helpful. As a general advice after reading the above discussion, if you're unable to persuade several other editors that your viewpoint is correct even after successive attempts to do so, at some point you'll have to accept that consensus wasn't on your side today. C'est la vie. I've had plenty of great ideas that I've been unable to persuade other people the greatness of (for example, deleting WP:U). Better to move on and focus on other things. henrik•talk 16:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I would have to say also that the bad spirit on this talk page can't be attributed solely to you. The other editors here could have done a better job of explaining their viewpoints in less heated language. Even if provoked, real or perceived, keeping the heat down is up to each and every user. Responding to a heated comment in the same fashion is likely to just invite more of the same, until you stop listening entirely. henrik•talk 16:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sound advice Henrik. It has been apparent for some time that this horse carcass will not be galloping off into the sunset{{essay|WP:STICK|WP:HORSEMEAT|WP:DEADHORSE|WP:LETGO}} . As to labels they can be a way of providing a précis of the drift of a lot of verbiage without doing a Tolstoy at the Hague all over again.Maybe it is a transatlantic lost in translation thang. I just read about one RR editors -a nice standard to aspire to. What is it about the Username policy that gets your goat ? what name would yo choose if unresricted ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not as much a lost in transatlantic as lost in text. When you try to communicate using text alone, as opposed to the full spectrum of face to face interaction much is lost. What was intended as a light-hearted comment can come across as an insult when transmitted using text alone. (As for why I dislike the username policy, very much off-topic as it is: My opinion is that it's mainly bureaucratic red tape which scares away a lot of potential contributors before they've had a chance to learn) henrik•talk 17:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair point-pixels do squash nuance. It may be something to do with coming from an oral tradition where academia or even speaking our own language was illegal. Ireland has a strong tradition called 'slagging' distinct in meaning from the word else where. A WASP might call it affectionate joshing with a purpose, a Jew might call it Schtoch, and a US Black might call it playing the dozens, but a label as shorthand to summarize a perceived stance is, apparently, foreign to the wiki culture so far. I will do my best to couch indignation in more soothing and conciliatory terms in future for the benefit of non-Gaelgoirí in future edit discussions. To any who felt denigrated I apologize and and assure you I meant you no harm; the parcel bombs are all still at the sorting office and I am almost certain I can get them back in the morning before the first delivery.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

exhaustive police rank list really vital ? etc.

I wonder whether listing every blessed cop is central to this article. The huge police hierarchical list in the middle unbalances the article. I doubt for instance whether Hunter's several assistants listed had 5 lines in the entire series between them. Does going "Hut Hut Hut" in unison in the backround in double quick step count as a line ? Would that be a line for each "Hutter" ? Anybody have an opinion ?

It might make sense to rejig this entire section entirely and work up fuller bios for the 13 central ensemble members that the producers referred to(see critical review section) I think user Drmargi was contemplating something along those lines in the side- debate located here ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser. If no one else is interested i might make a start on that shortly.

On an unrelated matter I tidied up and expanded the Gang section and added some references to try and relate it to the real world.

I still feel the article is big on detail and small on any sort of meta-analysis. Like polishing the binnacle on the Titanic. Looking at the other police procedural pages on WP they are mostly sadly in the same boat. i thought Cagney and Lacey which spanned the same years as HSB might have had something on feminism,depiction of women, lesbian icons or so on.

I wonder would this article be improved by a distinct section on HSB depictions of masculinity, gays,transgender, AIDS (none!), women,divorce,domestic life,grieving,fatherhood,addiction, or recidivism. I am reminded of the Samuel Johnson quote “Only a fool writes except for money" I am beginning to feel foolish but here I suppose I am amongst fellow sufferers. Perhaps i am becoming a http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wikiholic Does anyone know of a good 12 step programme ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the article is listed on the

For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago.

Chicago articles needing photos page. There is a certain site that is bursting with photos-if other editors still feel strongly that having a guns section is something they could not live with then as the Guns site is a Creative Commons wiki type site maybe we could lift some of their non gun ones  ? Any objections? If I hear no further on that one i might get started on importing a few photos--Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that an exhaustive list of policemen is not needed. For the same reasons I oppose the inclusion of one-off appearances, by the way. I must say I find your points of view to be on odds with one another. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dovid -I am reluctant to see any effort wasted. Is there a way of listing the giant cop map in an appendix ?. That way the exhaustive work of Dmargi and others would not be buried in a reverted footnote. The blues in the HSB title refers to uniforms as well as depression after all. I am reminded of the visit of an Irish peasant tourist to the Sistine Chapel who, looking up at the superb ceiling remarked" Begob they went to an awful lot of trouble all the same" Comparing the several dozen peripheral cops listed to a separate listing of the 9 one off notable early career appearances by stars which include substantial speaking parts does not really work. I liked the additional rationale supplied by Borntocycle here [[3]] Did you get a chance to consider it  ? I think the chief weakness of the article as presently cobbled together is that it is more concerned with description than analysis.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be reluctant. If something is superfluous according to Wikipedia's standards, we cut it, and that's all. It's the problem of whoever wrote it and shouldn't have. Debresser (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Parking lot and "chop shop" for perusal of guns section and of notable stars section

Guns

HSB, like many North American television police procedurals featured guns and gun battles prominently, in sharp contrast to British police procedurals(The Sweeney) being a debatable exception.

While in reality police in the USA rarely have cause to deholster a weapon during their entire careers, partly because each such deholstering requires a written report, television fiction has no such restraints.In reality pizza delivery is a more dangerous occupation than police officer.

The following guns were props in the show 1 Smith & Wesson Model 10- 2 Smith & Wesson Model 19-3 Beretta M1934-4 Mossberg 500- 5 Colt Mk IV Series -6 Bryco pocket pistol- 7 Colt Detective Special (1st Generation)-8 Remington 870-9 M16A-10 Colt Python-11 Smith & Wesson Model 2-12 Smith & Wesson Model 15-13 Colt Detective Special (3rd Generation)-14 Ithaca 37-15 double-barreled shotgun-16 M9 Bazooka-17 Federal M201-Z Grenade Launcher- 18 Winchester Model 70-19 M1911A1-20 Lupara-21 Smith & Wesson Model 36-22 Walther PPK-23 "Cyclops II grenade launcher"-24 unidentified revolver-25 Star Model B -26 Colt Junior-27 Colt Official Police-28 Smith & Wesson Model 276 Gas Gun-29 Heckler & Koch 93-30 Heckler & Koch P7 PSP-31 SIG-Sauer P220-32 Remington Model 31- 33 Smith & Wesson Model 629-34 Smith & Wesson Model 66 Snub Nose-35 Smith & Wesson Model 59-36 Browning Hi-Power-37 Colt Trooper Mk III-38 Heckler & Koch HK4.

The Smith and Wesson Model 10 was the most popular officer hand gun.

Police officer firearm suicides in North America (300 per annum), are, again unlike TV portrayal, double the number killed in the line of duty and two and a half times the average in the general population.

HSB plots include both, but line of duty deaths depicted greatly exceeded suicide ones. Debate about whether gun violence in TV shows such as HSB render an audience violent is sharply polarized.

---

One episode early career speaking part with more than five lines appearances by since prominent actors including the name of the episode in which each appeared :

• Ambulance driver Louis- Bruno Kirby The Russians are Coming episode 1983
• Psychiatric patient-Don Cheadle Days of Swine and Roses episode.
• Gang Member- Cuba Gooding Jr. Days of Swine and Roses episode.
• Lawyer Sam Weiser- Ron Silver Eugene's Comedy Empire Strikes Back episode
• Jesse John Hudson- Danny Glover The Second Oldest Profession episode
• Robber Eddie Sims- Jonathan Frakes Of Mouse and Man episode
• Activist Joe Bustamonte- Edward James Olmos Of Mouse and Man episode
• Gangster- Chazz Palminteri Bald Ambition episode
• Bear Handling Cop-James Cromwell Grin and Bear It episode
• Sleazy Film Director-Brent Spiner The Life and Times of Domenic Florio Jr. episode [[4]]Season 5 ep 19
• Junior Public Defender -Frances McDormand The Life and Times of Domenic Florio Jr. episode [[5]]
• Floyd Green -Forest Whittaker Blues for Mr Green[[6]]
• Cop Chris Noth Slum enchanted evening episode[[7]]

Anybody got any ideas on how to rejig these two article subsections to make them acceptable to editors who abhor them ? Naturally i think they are almost perfect --Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't "rejig" this second paragraph, I'd throw it out, quickly and decisively. As we did the other one-off appearances. Debresser (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it you or JohnfromPinckey who proposed putting it in, but elsewhere away from the cast list ?

In any case it is here as a handy resource and reference point now and if we ever change our minds about what we think we might do or a new we crowd arrives or a mediator manages to convince a majority ??? of the 6 editors involved of its stupenduous merits.

Do we still hate the gun entry too or are we thinking about it ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not me. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for the clean up on the review section-I am still a tyro on the technical stuff-what did you think of it ? --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is precisely the reason I made three small edits with detailed edit summaries, so that you might learn from them by example. I obviously had no problem with the content of your edit, although my "policy" is not to make undo or changes other people's edits even if I disagree with them, as long as I don't think they are really wrong. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cindy Spooner (Esterhaus's fiancee) — Lisa Lindgren

i just removed Cindy from the recurring characters list as she only appeared in one episode. However she is mentioned in several episodes -does this mean her character is recurring even if her face is not -should I put her back ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

stalemate ?

moved from my talkpage : Mediation

I agree with you that posting on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Hill_Street_Blues-.22Notability.22_of_cast_list did not have the desired effect, read input. Perhaps we should ask somebody to mediate. We could approach any uninvolved editor, preferably admin, or post on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Or we could post on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and hope to draw some more input there. But you should keep your posts short. Long posts deter people from reading and commenting. Please let me know on my talkpage what you think we should do. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be a stalemate at present on the Guns and early careers listings. 3 editors pro inclusion and 3 editors against. I do not know whether Dmargi's "wide berth" position means she is no longer on board which would be a pity as she has a lot of energy and some good notions -concentrating on the core ensemble and the "five line" watershed for example (triple aquatic metaphor) but if it does then there is already a majority consensus for inclusion--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Splattering the discussion over several personal talkpages is counterproductive in my opinion so I switched to here--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just don't forget that "consensus" is not just a matter of counting votes on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, to get an idea of who and how to establish consensus. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Counting heads only seems to get mentioned at any one time in this or other debates by the side which has most heads....... Also JohnfromPinkney may be a wobbler on the notable stars list which,ahem, would make it four to two and no further word from Dmargi 4 to 1 - but who is counting ?.......--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I see things very differently. Which is why I added the word "who" in "See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, to get an idea of who and how to establish consensus". Discussion like these, including the Notability noticeboard, should be closed by uninvolved editors. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your erudition does you proud. These 2 additions surely come under " articles and information verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." the central argument from the citation you just referenced. I thought we might have heard at least a peep from the others by now.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be that the relevant policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information rather than Wikipedia:Notability. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Which bit ?--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about listing one-off appearances. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No-I mean which bit of that long policy page are you suggesting might apply? Also -are you going to Wikimania in Haifa? we might have a beer and a laugh at human folly and frailty--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not. :) I didn't mean any part of that (not at all long) section in specific. Just read the words: Wikipedia _ is _ not _ an _ indiscriminate _ collection _ of _ information ! Debresser (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It lists 7 conditions -none of the seven apply .--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are seven examples. They come to illustrate the point. The point is that we should not add every scrap of available information to a subject, only that, which has encyclopedic value. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not examples. They form the definition. I have listed at length, as have others, why this addition has value--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong about guest stars -later seasons had guest stars like Yaphet Khotto. No reason not to have a list for them too as someone suggested--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting? Chicago?

I think it is never acctually stated in the series, in what city the Hill Street station is situated. Still, it belongs to the Category:Television shows set in Chicago. Wouldn't Category:Television shows set in the United States be more appropriate, even if many panorama views where shot in Chicago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Command structure

I recommend removing all of this command structure information, which all looks to be original research, and have a regular cast section, listing the officers first, by rank, and then a subsection with recurring characters, but only those who are notable. Essentially, it would mean merging the List of Hill Street Blues characters into this article, which is an unnecessary article if we have a straight cast list here. Once that is done, I suggest having a link in the infobox to the cast section, rather than the long list of cast members. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

In keeping with the above suggestion, I am now making a formal suggestion that List of Hill Street Blues characters be merged into this article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Having received no response to my suggestion above nor to my formal request for merger, I have performed said merger. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a sign that we are all 100% behind you. In fact, Jimbo just called to congratulate you on the good work. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And here I went and left my cell phone at home... ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The following read like a high school essay. It also sounds like one persons opinion.

This- The program's focus on failure and those at the bottom of the social scale is pronounced (very much in contrast to Bochco's later project, L.A. Law). Inspired by police procedural detective novels such as Ed McBain's 1956 Cop Hater, it has been described as Barney Miller out of doors; the focus on the bitter realities of 1980s urban living was revolutionary for its time. Later seasons were accused of becoming formulaic (a shift that some believe to have begun after the death of Michael Conrad midway through season four, which led to the replacement of the beloved Sergeant Esterhaus by Sergeant Stan Jablonski, played by Robert Prosky); thus, the series that broke the established rules of television ultimately failed to break its own rules. Nonetheless it is a landmark piece of television programming, the influence of which was seen in such series as NYPD Blue and ER. In 1982, St. Elsewhere was hyped as Hill Street Blues in a hospital. The quality work done by MTM led to the appointment of Grant Tinker as NBC chairman in 1982.

That sounds like a high school essay and it also has no sources. The Nonetheless bit sounds really corny, and it also sounds like it was written in first person,like someone's opinion. I am going to remove because it sounds like original research and it has no sources.--98.87.53.27 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Off Duty hangout

Anyone know the name of the club where the off duty Hill Street cops would hang out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.74.33 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)