Talk:Elementary (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pilot Leak (03/09/2012)

Would information regarding the online leak of the pilot on the 3rd of September 2012 from a DVD handed out at a Grubwithus Elementary event be notable enough to be included? --Wæng (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be, just as long as you can find a reliable online publication to reference. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how this is done, or if this is the correct place, but there is an error in NY state law in S01E03. The father of the obducted girl aledgedy buys a bottle of wine at a "bodega". I would expect a bodega to be a small grocery store, and in NY you can't buy wine in a grocery store, only beer and wine coolers, and the bottle was not that of a wine cooler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDinNY (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate "Episode List" Page

The series has already been picked for a full season. Shouldn't there be a separate "Episode List" for the show?--Babar Suhail (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's preferable to wait and see if the show will get picked up for a second season. There wouldn't be very much to put on an episode list page at this point. All the ratings information is already there, there's no news of DVD or Blu-ray releases and the summaries are really short. If the show is picked up for another season that will easily bring the total episode count into the 30's and probably into the 40's, which would be justification enough. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Why does the introductory paragraph list the number of episodes as 24 but the box on the right as 17? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.75.227 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

24 episodes were ordered by CBS, and that will be the number of episodes aired at the end of the season. 17 episodes have aired so far.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Locations?

Do we have any information about the actual locations where the shows are filmed? Streets, buildings, etc? Monado (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is this article: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/rebuilding_holmes_soIIlQGTsN74VG2WonlqWO#ixzz20nfJ67XE Which says that: "The pilot was filmed in New York, with a street in Harlem subbing for the block where Holmes lives in his father’s Brooklyn brownstone. The show will film interiors at the Silvercup East studios in Long Island City." The website for Silvercup also mentions Elementary as filming there: http://www.silvercupstudios.com/. I'm sure I've seen an article somewhere that says that the rooftop scene at the end of the series was filmed on a roof top in new York, but not sure if it mentioned a particular address. I'll see if I can find it. --Bluebellanon (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The rooftop info I was remembering was actually a Tweet from the writers: https://twitter.com/ELEMENTARYStaff/status/274590224250699776 and they also mention the scene featuring Joan and Moriarty: https://twitter.com/ELEMENTARYStaff/status/335219827922857984. --Bluebellanon (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

'Should the BBC's 'Sherlock' also be included in the 'See also' section?

In the edit page for 'See also', a note is left saying: "Please DO NOT add the BBC series Sherlock here. It is already mentioned in the article's body.", but I have seen numerous articles mention something in the body and then also in the 'See also' section so would it be appropriate to include it at the bottom? That, and 'See also' is also just a good summary for reading further. Thoughts? groovygower (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock and Elementary have nothing in common except that they are both television adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. There have been many of those over the years and we can't add every single one to the "see also" section so what makes Sherlock different? If you think the initial controversy about the production of the show matters, well that is why there is a whole section about that fact with links to Sherlock right there. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your first statement, they aren't just both television adaptations of Holmes, they're both specifically set in modern times, and they're both current. In my opinion, that connects them far more closely than any of the other various versions. In fact, I think that the very need for a comparison and contrast in the article's body shows that the connection is strong enough to justify including the "see also" link. - 207.230.248.106 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. OF COURSE Sherlock should be there. That it's already mentioned in narrative doesn't matter, and you make a good case for the rest. --Drmargi (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a bit old, but thirded as for adding Sherlock. I think the similarities are stronger than for most Holmes adaptations.67.42.39.129 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas or Tobias

There's been a slow edit-war in the making over Gregson's first name. In the early PR, he was listed as Tobias Gregson, which Futon Critic, etc. picked up. However, the name plate on his desk, dialogue, and episodic press releases all identify him as Thomas. It's likely Tobias Gregson was a unique name and didn't make clearances, so they went with a similar, but more modern name which would not have one unique owner in NYC. Unfortunately, at least some media haven't made corrections to reflect the name change (which isn't all that unusual) and the belief remains that his name is Tobias. The show is the most reliable source, and it uses Thomas/Tommy, as do the individual episode press releases and the show desciption at CBS Press Express. --Drmargi (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted another change of Gregson's name, which is not Tobias. The most recent press release for the show, describing the May 9 episode, clearly identifies him as Thomas "Tommy" Gregson, as do all the (routinely updated) press materials for the show. The CBS main site is for viewer entertainment purposes; the CBS media site is for dissemination of information about the show, and will always be more accurate and up-to-date. --Drmargi (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fun Fact... Press releases count as primary sources, hence, they are actually less reliable than the About page, and in fact, Wikipedia says NOT to use them as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Non-independent_sources

Press releases are not reliable when it comes to establishing notability. They can be used judiciously to establish certain matters of fact. A press release containing the name of a character that is released by the company producing the show is most certainly a reliable source for supporting that claim. SQGibbon (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not according to the consensus at the Reliable Source noticeboard. And the fact that a bunch of secondary sources, which are considered more reliable, say otherwise. But whatever.Kude90 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of articles I'm going to link to in a second all say Toby or Tobias, and they go from the beginning of the show to February. Recent enough for you? I doubt they changed the name of the Character halfway through the first season, don't you? http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/11/07/aidan-quinn-gets-help-from-holmes-on-elementary/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10867945 http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/tv-radio/tuned-in-vegas-elementary-different-odds-for-two-new-cbs-offerings-654590/ http://tv.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/arts/television/elementary-starring-jonny-lee-miller-and-lucy-liu.html?_r=0 http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/tv/aidan-quinn-says-sherlock-is-relatable-3 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/entertainment/la-et-st-elementary-review20120927

So, I wouldn't mind calling some sort of vote to reach a consensus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus seems to have been reached on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_disagreeing_on_the_name_of_a_character That talk, and it's even everywehre else. So, until you get more support, it will be changed to Tobius "toby."Kude90 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The name plate on his desk says "T. Gregson", at least it did in the latest episode. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. I posted a link to a picture of his desk on my talk page while I was arguing with someone. [1]. But, that was earlier on.Kude90 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the issue

I have cut down the number of sources for Toby (given the pointy nature of the article owner's edit), restored the dubious template and removed the erroneous hidden note that all evidence his name is Thomas is OR; there is considerable media material from CBS, along with tweets from the show's writers (which Wikipedia does treat as reliable) identifying the character as Thomas. Moreover, the sources cited are all badly dated, whereas all current media content identifies him as Thomas. This needs fuller discussion here, where no consensus as to his name was ever reached. The template should not be removed until such time as consensus is reached, given the number of recent editors challenging the name. The article owner's dependence on discussion on another noticeboard is not sufficient for consensus, nor is consensus ever permanent. --Drmargi (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You've deleted sources which disagree with you, and because of those missing sources, you've re-added the dubious tag, regardless of the number of NEUTRAL people who weighed in against you on the RS talk page? Remove it again without good reason, and I'm going to the administrators.Kude90 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I've pruned the number of sources, removing the non-American ones (three from the American media are more than adequate), removed the erroneous original research hidden note, and restored the tag, which should not have been removed without some additional discussion. Meanwhile, you need to review WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL. --Drmargi (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We have. Months ago. You've presented no new information. There's no reason to re-open the discussion. You are removing citations with no real good reason. The consensus is against you. But you know, keep warring. Kude90 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not permanent, and can be challenged at any time. You should never have removed the dubious template; it challenged consensus and discussion was in order then. You've had two IP's challenge that name, both of whom were treated with a complete lack of civility and clear-cut ownership of the article on your part. You've now threatened me as well, another violation of WP:CIVIL. --Drmargi (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not watch the show, but based on the evidence presented here and at the RS board it seems pretty clear that his name is now Thomas. The problem is that readers have to be able to verify claims that we make in articles and when there is a contradiction from what is essentially the same reliable primary source we're stuck. The best way out is to mention both names in the article with a brief note about the contradiction. SQGibbon (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely Thomas. There were a couple errors made when Thomas was removed: a) the Tweet from the writers was ignored, despite the established consensus that tweets from show producers, editors, writers, etc. are reliable and; b) the policy on treatment of press releases was misinterpreted. CBS routinely releases press releases identifying the character as Thomas. Moreover, the article owner declare consensus based on discussion elsewhere rather than using it as a basis for his own arguments, thus allowing consensus to be reached here. I stepped away then realizing that WP:OWN was happening, and the article owner was determined to aggressively force the edit (see the pointy number of dated sources and several highly un-civil edit summaries when two editors challenged the edit. The dubious template was also removed without addressing the issue, which should not have been done in a further act of ownership. It's time to reclaim the article for the community and to accurately name the character. --Drmargi (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And just to try to make things clear for anyone else who comes along here are the facts of the discussion. There is only one reliable source for the name of the character and that is the producers of the show, CBS, which is also a primary source and the only primary source relevant to this debate. Unfortunately the official website at CBS.com states one thing (Tobias) whereas the press releases from CBS (the same CBS) state something different (Thomas). Apparently someone associates with the show has tweeted that the latter name is correct. Until such time as CBS makes a definitive statement one way or the other admitting that one name was used mistakenly, I see no other course of action but to mention both names with a footnote explaining the confusion. Do I personally think that one set of primary sources is better than the other? Yes, but without knowing the exact nature of the relationships between all the sources, and which source is the actual one that makes these decisions in an official capacity (since CBS is made up of many, many divisions), I think the best we can do is include both names. SQGibbon (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the current consensus is. I'd like to remind you of WP:CONLIMITED, which says that you need to get more than people to support you than the amount of people that supported Tobias last time. Kude90 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What current consensus? The RS board did not achieve a consensus -- there was one person who agreed with you and they were clearly mistaken. Also, WP:CONLIMITED in no way applies here (not to mention that your explanation of what it does state is wrong) as nothing is being proposed with respect to contradicting any Wikipedia policy or guideline. But even if a consensus had been achieved in the past, consensus can change. So other than what you think the rules of Wikipedia are, what is your response to my specific proposal? SQGibbon (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And therein lies the issue. Kude has unilaterally declared the discussion of reliability of sources as consensus for the name. They're not, and never were the same thing. CBS posted the first name Tobias (based on the pilot press release) in mid-summer 2012. They've never changed the site, which generally refers to the character simply as Gregson. The CBS media site is more current (the main page with the character/cast names is dated January 2013) and was the accepted reliable source until recently; it lists the character's name as Thomas "Tommy" Gregson, as does every article press release for the first season where he's listed. Here's where things really fell apart, and why with the new season coming I felt it was time to press the issue: the argument made was that we cannot use primary sources, which is incorrect. They simply have different attribution than secondary sources. Then, in an entertaining bit of pretzel logic, the decision was made that the CBS media site was a primary source that couldn't be used but the CBS entertainment site, which is not regularly updates, was reliable. Go figure. The CBS media site has current information on the show, episodes, and cast, and is the definitive reliable source. What's more the writers have tweeted (a reliable source) regarding the character's name as well: Elementary Writers (@ELEMENTARYStaff) April 14, 2013 --Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one way to spin this. Or, one press release got the name wrong. Several sources say that that's what happened. But you know, whatever. And what do you mean WP Own? I own nothing. What happened was that you thought I was gone, and you could WP:GAME the system. [2] ONE PERSON? That is misinformation at best. DR, this little game of yours is getting tiresome. Kude90 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So, like I suggested folks, since both claims are basically using the same primary reliable source let's compromise and get on to more productive editing. SQGibbon (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Without the writers' tweet, I'd be inclined to agree, despite the errors made interpreting policy on the RS noticeboard. With it, along with the consistent, and more current press releases (20+ of them), we have definitive confirmation of the name. --Drmargi (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is to be a compromise solution then three possibilities suggest themselves to me:

1) Aidan Quinn as Detective Gregson (first name variously given as Tobias or Thomas).* [With a footnote that explains that the official website, owned by CBS, lists his first name as Tobias but that subsequent press releases from CBS and a writer for the show has the name as Thomas, all with citations.]

2) Aidan Quinn as Detective Tobias Gregson.* [With the same footnote.]

3) Aidan Quinn as Detective Thomas Gregson.* [With the same footnote.]

I'm inclined to go with option #1 with #3 as my next choice since it seems pretty clear now that Thomas is the actual name of the character. #1 does acknowledge the confusion/contradiction in a way that's easy for readers to grasp. SQGibbon (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

#2 is unacceptable. #1 is too Solomon-like when we have this much evidence pointing to a reasonable conclusion. I'd agree to #3 for now for the sake of peace, but the writers (an extremely reliable source given they named him to begin with) have confirmed the character's name is Thomas, so I'm not sure why we even need it. Adding the note would be more a device designed to prevent future reverts, although no one other than Kude has insisted on it being Tobias for some time, and a number of editors have attempted to restore Thomas. I'm going to add it now and bring this to a close. --Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, CBS just updated the media page (now dated July 2013), and the name Thomas remains. It is also on the character's bio as well. --Drmargi (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Your changes are not going to fly. You have fewer sources, and no concensus. I'm removing all mention of his first name. Kude90 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You certainly don't have consensus for the change you made, given it was not discussed. Number of sources doesn't matter (I can produce 20+ more). Reliability and currency of sources do; the best you can produce are dated sources from September 2012. One of my primary sources was updated in the last 48 hours, but more important: I have provided a source where the writers have confirmed the name. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED. For the last time. You and the other guy do not override the consensus reached last time. Get more people. Kude90 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are misapplying that policy, as noted earlier. CONLIMITED basically states that local (article-level) consensus cannot over-ride Wikipedia-wide consensus. It doesn't come close to addressing how many people you need. Moreover, consensus is never a vote, something you don't understand. Also, please learn the correct format for indentation during a discussion and remain civil. --Drmargi (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of peace then, let's go with #3. The text will say Thomas and the footnote will mention Tobias. The most recent reliable sources indicate that the character's name is Thomas. That Tobias was ever associated with the character is worthy of a historical footnote in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I need to reformat the footnote at some point, but that will keep. --Drmargi (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would look and read better to put all the citations into the note (i.e., remove them from the main body), but otherwise it looks good. SQGibbon (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I won't make the change now given Kude's jumping the gun and going to the noticeboard. Let's let the dust settle, then fix things up. --Drmargi (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you need another person jumping into this, but I've got to agree with Drmargi. His name is Thomas. But I agree with keeping the info about the name change in a footnote - it's an interesting piece of the shows history. --Bluebellanon (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome to join the discussion. It's open to any editor who feels he has something to contribute. --Drmargi (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, we've now gone with option #3 above which puts "Thomas" in the main body and "Tobias" in a note explaining the discrepancy. I've also moved all the citations to the note so that it doesn't clutter up the main text. I think it looks good and deals with everything in an appropriate manner. Nice work, all. SQGibbon (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this, and for reformatting the note. I made a tiny tweak to clarify that it was the CBS media site confirming the name along with the writers. Hopefully, this will be an end to it, and folks will realize that its the media site that provides the information passed on by the various secondary media sources that are supposed to be so darned reliable. Things change, and the CBS media site is always the place for the most current information. --Drmargi (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation on screen

Although Kude90 seems to have picked up his toys and left Wikipedia following our earlier discussion, I do want to document the on-camera use of Gregson's full name in episode 201 (the second season premiere.) In the scene where he reunited with Lestrade, Holmes tells him that he is now working with "Captain Thomas Lestrade" of the NYPD. So that settles that. --Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

Since Moriarty/Adler has appeared in three episodes (Risk Management, The Woman, Heroine) wouldn't she count as a recurring character? --79.68.121.246 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC) This was me. Seems my kindle doesn't want me to log in to wikipedia. --Bluebellanon (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

From my talk page, since this should be discussed here:

Moriarty a recurring character?

Hello. Natalie Dormer appears in Risk Management, The Woman and Heroine - doesn't three episodes count as being a recurring character? (I've also previously started a discussion for this on the talk page - not sure where the best place to discuss it would be). --Bluebellanon (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Just realised I forgot to say that Ato Essandoh also only appears in three episodes and he's mentioned. So I assumed the same would apply. --Bluebellanon (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ato Essandoh makes periodic appearances as Sherlock's sponsor and can be expected to appear again given it's an open-ended role; that's a recurring character. Natalie Dormer appeared very briefly in Risk Management, then in the season finale in a story arc. That's not a recurring role. Recurring characters appear periodically over time, not in a story arc. Numbers of appearances alone don't determine whether a character is recurring. Any further should be discussed on the show's talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The writers revealed that Moriarty will, in fact, be back at some point during Season 2...so I think it's safe to say that Moriarty will be a recurring character on the show.-RomeW (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the writers said (not everything is a revelation) that they are trying to find a way to bring Moriarty back. Big difference. Also, an appearance in a single multiple episode story arc, does not make a character recurring. She probably will recur in time, and we can add her when she does. --Drmargi (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Dormer will definitely be a reoccurring character according to the writers, but they've indicated publically that her reappearance in season two will occur late in the season and there will be a bit of a twist in that she may not be a villain, at least not initially. So I agree that we don't need to post spoilers about this in the main article.Brumleygap (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

She's definitely recurring. Ms. Dormer has appeared three episodes and has had a significant presence in many more, and if the writers have confirmed that the character will eventually return, then it was more than just that one story arc.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

She appeared substantively in two, then briefly in a third in a single arc. That's not recurring. Once she returns and it's clear she'll make appearances intermittently, then she's a recurring character, but not yet. We can easily add her when she does recur. --Drmargi (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, once again, a recurring character is someone who appears more than once. She's been in three. Plus she plays a rather important character in the Sherlock Holmes universe. Why is this stubbornness necessary? Rusted AutoParts 08:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think you have the final word and can dictate what a recurring character is. The MOS is silent on the matter, but the industry considers it to be a character who appears periodically in a series, not a character who does more than one episode. Were that the case, these TV articles would be flooded with characters who appeared a couple times. She did two episodes of any substance, back-to-back. That's all. That's not recurring. Moreover, how important the character may be is irrelevant in the Holmes universe, particularly given she is a corruption of two characters, and far removed from canon. (Oh, and I resent being told I'm stubbon because I disagree with you and decline to fall in line with your dictates.) --Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought...couldn't she be considered a guest character for a 3-episode arc? DonQuixote (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what she is, a guest character with a two-episode (plus a teaser appearance) arc. Her appearance in the third episode was roughly 30 seconds. --Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"You seem to think you have the final word and can dictate what a recurring character is". That's quite rich coming from you. I have a compromise in mind. Give me a minute. Rusted AutoParts 20:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to see what you have in mind. Lay it out here, and let's see if it will work. --Drmargi (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did "lay it out" on the article, but you removed it. It's a good compromise, plus it compares the series to its source material and see how many characters appear from it. I don't understand the purpose of deleting it without letting others see it. Right now, this is an unfair battle against one person who feels their way is correct. There are at least three other editors above who agree with me: she's recurring. But since you were strongly against that, I set up a compromise, which you've seemingly rejected. Rusted AutoParts 02:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on RAP, you know how this works; you're far too experienced an editor no to. You propose the change here, on the talk page, discuss and then if you have consensus, make the change. You don't find a way to force an edit by trying to wiggle around the established headings used in these articles, particularly when an edit is already (a) controversial and (b) under discussion, then expect it to stand; the article stays at the stable version and the burden is on you to gain consensus for a controversial change. So let's hear it: what are you proposing we do, and why? --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's simple as you've already seen it: since you refuse to include recurring characters in the recurring characters section, we create another subsection where characters from the source material (Sherlock Holmes) can be added in the event they aren't recurring. Characters like Irene Adler, Moriarty, Mycroft, Blackwood, Lestrade, etc. I revert back to my edit do others can see it, rather than happeningly stumbling across this and waiting weeks, maybe months for a consensus. It's called being flexible. And it's annoying when I'm trying to find ways where it's fair when you won't be flexible. Rusted AutoParts 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get you to do, and I don't know why you're making it so hard on yourself, is to describe/discuss the edit you want here, then allow other editors to discuss as well. Making this about me will get you nowhere. So, what do you want to do in the article? Just tell us and let's talk. --Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't taken the wrong way, but it is up in my prior note: create another subsection where characters from the source material (Sherlock Holmes) can be added in the event they aren't recurring. Characters like Irene Adler, Moriarty, Mycroft, Blackwood, Lestrade, etc. The Sherlock Holmes lore has many characters in it and should one appear and not recur, the subsection can be used to note their appearance. Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that's an interesting idea, particularly given how the show is working within canon and outside canon at the same time. Why constrain the narrative with the traditional labels when the article really needs something more? We've basically got one original recurring character, Sherlock's sponsor, and that's it. Mrs. Hudson, Mycroft, Lestrade, Hopkins, Gregson, and more (whether main cast, recurring or guest cast) are all from canon, but have been modernized/adjusted in some way. That's both interesting and important to understanding the show. There's no reason we can't step outside the usual if it will help readers better understand the show. I'd suggest we start with a narrative discussion of how Holmes, Watson and Gregson have been changed, then note additional characters from canon include, and follow with a bulleted list, naming character and actor, briefly describing how each appears in canon, then briefly describing how the show has portrayed them. --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler

the reveal of Natalie Dormer as Moriarty is a major plot point and to have this figure quite predominantly on the page the explanation also reveals a rather large amount of information that would not necessarily be beneficial for a reader to know prior to having viewed the series especially with the episode only being aired around 2 days ago. [i have never made such a comment or post before so if i am out of place then i am sorry for bothering people and please delete as appropriate] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.23.63 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This blurb is about a the character played by Natalie Dormer. Natalie Dormer plays Moriarty (AKA Irene Adler). hence, I think that information is necessary. (You're not out of place at all. It's better to make a comment here than to start an Edit War. WP:BEBOLD might help you out.) Kude90 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with the first poster. Wanting to know where I recognised Dormer from while watching the episode, I pulled up the Elementary page mid-episode and had the reveal spoiled in the first section of the article. Considering Irene was presumed dead by audiences until the final moments of episode 22, it seems a bit much to even include Dormer in the cast list. Stating it clearly in the cast or description of the episode's own page - if it had one - would be understandable - I know you'll find the twists of many movies/tv shows clearly featured in their wiki pages - but the prominence of the Irene alive/Moriarty twist feels too much and unnecessary, at least in the main page's cast section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.11.124 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC) The exact same thing happened to me as the previous poster, major plot point spoiled by this wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.55.172 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't up to date on your show, then reading ANY information may contain spoilers. As one editor did, I direct you all to WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Kude90 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd still argue that Dormer, listed in the episode as 'Special Guest Star', doesn't warrant an entry on the show's main wiki page, especially not in the 'Cast and Characters' section so prominently featured next to the series regulars. Maybe it does belong, but I can't recall ever having something spoiled for me on wikipedia in the past. It tends to be pretty easy to know where to expect a spoiler and where not to, and an instance like this is definitely unexpected and could be removed from the section without any harm. There's no entry for Ato Essandoh's Alfredo or Vinnie Jones' Sebastian Moran, but we need Dormer's Moriarty/Adler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.11.124 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

She played a pretty major role in shaping the series thusfar. Adler/Moriarty's literally the entire reason that Holmes ended up using drugs, leaving Britain, coming to New York, pretty much what made the entire series. So, I think it is kinda important. And stuff has been spoiled for me plenty of times. Small stuff, like "died." Look at [3] that. Plenty of things are spoiled in those character bios. "Reddick also performs the role of the parallel universe Colonel Broyles, who finds sympathy for Olivia and sacrifices himself during season 3 to allow her to escape the parallel universe. In season 4, in the alternate timeline, Colonel Broyles remains alive." That's the conclusion to a three or four episode conflict. That sorta spoiled plenty. This is an encyclopedia. You have to expect information to be in an encyclopedia. Odds are, it's information that you don't know. You have to come here expecting that. (By the way, can you perhaps get a ref or two proving that Dormer's a "special guest star?" Without one, your claim holds no water.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kude90 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

True, this is an encyclopaedia and will contain information a reader might not know, but I expect the information to be presented in a certain way and it usually conforms to that. The Fringe example does spoil events on the show, but I still manage to avoid spoiling myself with things like that. If - as with Dormer - I wanted to know the name of an actor on a show and not find anything out about the character, I can easily scan the cast/characters section for for the character name, the actor and be done without reading the description and thus not spoiling anything. That's not the case with the Adler/Moriarty entry. I can concede that, as an encyclopaedia, listing Dormer as Adler and Moriarty makes sense, but the inclusion of her at all in the section doesn't feel right. The spoiling is an unfortunate byproduct of an unnecessary piece of information and could be avoided relatively harmlessly. It's fair to say she has played a major role, I can't argue the significance of Adler/Moriarty's actions but I still think the character's limited presence and the 'Special Guest Star' billing justify not having it in the particular 'Cast and Characters' section it's in. (Regarding her credit, I'm not sure where I'd find suitable reference. I saw the credit in the episodes, it's visible at the 11 minute mark of episode 23 streaming on CBS' site. I can't find an official episode synopsis anywhere, but AV Club make reference to her credit in their review of episode 22 [4]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.11.124 (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we seriously having this discussion again!? People, if you don't want to get spoilered, don't read through the Wikipedia article before watching your show's most current episode. This is an encyclopedia, it presents all available information in condensed form, and who a character actually is is a very relevant information. If the name hadn't been right at the beginning of the Natalie Dormer paragraph, Moriarty would have been boldened later in the paragraph, giving the information away anyway. Natalie Dormer's article also lists her as playing Moriarty. It's like with all these dumbasses who followed "How I Met Your Mother" on facebook and now bitch and moan about being spoilered half a year before the episode airs in their country. This is not the early 2000s any more, anyone who still hasn't realized that they should stay out of internet sources relating to their shows if they don't want spoilers really can't be helped.

And whoever keeps inserting spoiler warnings into the article, please stop, we don't use those. -- Imladros (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, whoever knows how to change it, shout warn the reader of this biggest spoiler. I know that it is possible to hide in Wikipedia such information behind a spoiler button. Please do it. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.57.105 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're all missing the point with this discussion of "spoilers". Dormer is not a member of the regular cast, and she does not belong in the cast and characters section any more than any other actor in a recurring role does. If you include her, you must include every actor in a recurring role. Your claim that she is somehow more important to the show is your personal judgment, and that's original research. Unless you are adding a material discussion of every episode or every season-long story arc, the detailed information about Moriarty does not belong in the article at all. The issue isn't "spoilers", the issue is "fancruft". It's detail that does not have a place in the article in its current form. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Reopen

To reopen this debate on a slightly different note, I see no reason that the information that Moriarty and Adler are one and the same is relevant to the series description in the opening two paragraphs. I just had the big twist of the first season ruined for me because I came to look up a particular actress and that information was right at the top of the page. I accept that Wikipedia will contain spoilers, and I take no issue with the article laying out that they are the same person in the cast section, or in the longer plot synopsis (I don't know what is there, I haven't read further to avoid more spoilers). My proposal is simply to remove the "a.k.a. Irene Adler" from the line "The series also features Holmes' ongoing conflict with his nemesis Jamie Moriarty, a.k.a. Irene Adler (Natalie Dormer)". It's not a detail that's relevant in the broad description of the series, and its prominent placement at the top of the article makes it impossible to avoid if you so much as glance at the page. 188.220.107.190 (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no debate. Wikipedia standing policy on spoilers covers this issue. According to WP:SPOILER, do not remove content on the basis that it is a spoiler. Second, once the episode has been broadcast in the U.S., the content is no longer a spoiler. Viewers from other countries need to exercise some personal responsibility and avoid the article if they're afraid of what they might read. This is not a fan site, and fan site justifications for removing content simply do not hold water. You can twist and turn the Irene Adler detail any way you wish, but it's an encyclopedic, (i.e. notable) detail and should remain in. --Drmargi (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Should remain in article - yes. Should remain in article's lead - no, it's an unnecessary detail. The show is not known nor notable for this detail. It does not meet criteria for inclusion in lead (see WP:LEAD). Spoilers must still meet all guidelines for inclusion, so if you think it's important enough for lead then justification needs to be provided. Kirin13 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not a spoiler. It's a detail from a year-old episode. Second, it's been in the lead unquestioned for some time. When we consider Moriarty is a major character in the Holmes universe and in this Holmes life (particularly the Moriarty/Adler infamy), its lack of notability per WP:LEAD is not a given, but is questionable. Consequently, for both reasons the burden is on the editor removing the content to build consensus to remove it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

1) Considering you've reverted two people in the last eight days, your definition of spoiler is different than others. But whether the material is spoiler or not is irrelevant. 2) The 'spoiler or not' was added less than three months ago. (A non-spoiler version of the sentence was added a couple weeks before that.) Three months is not a long time. Regardless of how long it's been there, that's not criteria for it to remain there. Saying "it's been there for a while" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. 3) The series is not known for Moriarty/Adler. It's known as a contemporary Sherlock Holmes set in NYC with a female Watson. Adler is a minor re-occurring character, barely mentioned in the second season. Also, considering that it's unexplained who Adler is, there is no reason for the name to be there. Furthermore, it's hasn't been deemed important enough to even be included in the plot section. Thus including it in the lead is giving it undue weight. 4) Currently you are the only editor arguing for it to be there, so you don't have the consensus. If it's so notable, then it should be easy for you to prove. If you don't think it's so notable, then I don't know what you're arguing. (e.g. Game of Thrones article doesn't deem the Red Wedding notable enough to mention in lead though many non-viewers have heard of it.) Kirin13 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This. I'm not arguing that it should be taken out of the article, I said that quite clearly. But if it indeed is not mentioned in the Plot section at all, what earthly justification is there for including it in the lead? If you want to edit it in to the Plot section, feel free, but the overarching description of the series in the lead is not the place for a plot detail like that. 188.220.105.222 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that it doesn't belong at the top. This is more a character section placement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So does that qualify as consensus? Can I take it out? 188.220.105.222 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You need to allow time for regular contributors to the article to comment, and consensus is not a vote. There's not hurry. --Drmargi (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

At this time, it seems everyone (except maybe Drmargi - her opinion wasn't clear) agrees that it's okay to remove. A bold edit is perfectly allowable. If anyone objects, they can actually come to talk page and give reason for their objection. There is no need to wait for indefinite time for editors who may or may not come. Kirin13 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Kitty: Shouldn't she be a Main Character?

Like it says, I think Kitty should be moved from the "Recurring Characters" section to the "Main Characters" section. She has appeared in every episode since her introduction, and is always involved in the episode's main plot line. Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But she's billed as guest cast, and we have to list her accordingly. --Drmargi (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)