Talk:Shark (American TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shark (American TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A plot summary needs to be added to this television show article, or the current one needs to be expanded.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Cutthroat whatever and gaping holes in reality

The "cutthroat manifesto" was mentioned in one episode. Is this really worthy of its own section? Also, could it possibly be noted that the crime-solving/DA Detective rigamarole on this show is not only completely unrelated to the work of actual district attorneys, but doesn't even vaguely approximate how criminal procedure actually functions in American jurisprudence? Maybe link to how the plot of every show seems to turn on some surprise, in complete violation of discovery (wiki: Discovery (law))...

It has been brought up in more than one episode.

Second season?

Any information on a possible second season?

Does the second to last episode of S1 mean that we won't be seeing Jeri Ryan again in the next season?

No official word yet (I believe the Fall schedules for most networks will be announced in the next few weeks), but with an average 13-million viewers per episode and solid ratings, Shark seems to be a shoe-in for renewal. As for Jeri Ryan's character, based on the Season 1 finale, it appears she might still be around for Season 2, but now as a member of Stark's team. Michael24 12:40, 11 May 2007

Summary

I changed the summary section as it was slightly incorrect. The criminal he defends kills his own wife, not Stark's girlfriend.

song at the end of dr feelfood

i am trying to find the song that played at the end of shark's 3rd episode(i think it was third) dr feekgood. i can't find it anywhere in the credits. Can someone help?

More episodes need to be added

Come on theres only one epside listed, there are more.

2007?

According to a graphic, the last episode took place in July 2007. An error, or is the show deliberately set in the future? —wwoods 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to episode list

How does it count as a "fix" to mask the link to the page listing the episodes — instead of using the parameter in the template intended for that purpose? What is gained by doing so?
—wwoods 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is still there and you gain some space. I for one don't see the need to have a specific link next to the number. Many shows don't use that template line anymore. It simply has no added value when the link can be incorporated into the episode number.--Fogeltje 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is there if you know where to look for it, or if you happen to mouse over it. The added value is that the link is explicit. I don't see any gain in space; both the number and the "(List of episodes)" link fit on one line in my browser. The link was only added to the template last September, so I think it's more correct to say, 'Many shows don't use that template line yet.'

—wwoods 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it looks sloppy and seems redundant to have the episodes section and to have a link in the template. Anyone disagree on removing the "See list of Shark episodes" section of the page? ...adam... 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The other link is small and easily missed, especially by partially sighted/diabled users. It is important to have several chances to see the episodes page. Also, the link is present on the article for "House MD". Philipdavidwright 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cast picture

the cast picture is missing the black detective, might it be good to take a pic from FOX website? --Andersmusician $ 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who knows the name of the song from the intro theme and who play it?

please help !!!!

open water by suicide celebrity, dont know any more about the group though 172.202.201.111 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Releases

Should there be a section on the DVD Release? Region One release here on Amazon.com
Anybody know about the Region Two (UK) Release dates?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.234.9 (talk) 15:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Season One of Shark has just recently been released over here in the UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan333 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasters

I removed this section but was reverted. This falls under WP:NOT a TV guide. See also Scrubs (TV series) and House (TV series) articles where it also has been removed. Garion96 (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing through the discussion there, I think deletion is warranted. However, don't just delete sections referring to a precedent, if you had included the link to the discussion, I'm sure it would have not have been reverted. As far as I'm concerned it should go (same for other tv series pages). --Fogeltje 12:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. I suppose the article is better off without that section. Sakkura 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have linked to similar discussions. On the other hand, if agreed that the article is better off without, why revert it? Either way, I removed it again, with a reference to the talk page this time. Garion96 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shark - EP02 0001.jpg

Image:Shark - EP02 0001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest stars ??

Does the cast list really need to list single-episode guest stars ?

That's not normal, is it ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right. Single episode guest stars are normally not listed, neither should they in my opinion. I'm going to remove every character with less than three appeareances.--Fogeltje (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be they survived! and dive a little under....--Danaide (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Tv Series

This was 1 of the most entertaning shows on TV ---I would really like to see it come back.

James Woods is a great actor who can be dead serious & funny all at the same time !!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.32.223 (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

60 degree angle !

Do you think it#s a question of the studio's rights, which is unclear? To me the episodes lead to the missing human right standarts globaly. Judges acting on oligarchic values are real and the strategies of the main figure is realated to the first part of the bible. Human standarts are sold out and pschychopathic mirrowing is in. For action! Tensefull and human in suffering under this condition. Where are the laywers? Some corpses diving in Hudson River. Or acting backoffice? Hot spots inflation, 110 degree angle!--Danaide (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CANCELLED

Why was it cancelled? I don't understand... o_O 88.16.170.187 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am boycotting CBS forever because of Shark's cancellation. In-Correct (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visual In-References

Is this section truly notable? I will delete it or move it to the talk page in a week if there are no objections. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cutthroat Manifesto

The list of rules for the Cutthroat Manifesto should be restored. 174.22.8.140 (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merging the List of Shark episodes-article into this Shark (U.S. TV series)-article. Looking at the Shark (U.S. TV series)-article's edit history (at the time of this writing), said article is 12,423 bytes. And looking at the List of Shark episodes-article's edit history (at the time of this writing), said article is 22,066 bytes. Combined, this would be 34,489 bytes. I can think of articles for television series larger than the combined size of these two articles that include the list of episodes within the article for the television series. For example, at the time of this writing, the Limitless (TV series)-article has its episodes within the series' article and going by said series' article's edit history (at the time of this writing), said article is 49,658 bytes. Similarly, at the time of this writing, the S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series)-article has its episodes within the series' article and going by said series' article's edit history (at the time of this writing), said article is 82,463 bytes. I think the List of Shark episodes-article can be merged into this Shark (U.S. TV series)-article without causing problems regarding article size. Heart of Destruction (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, at the time of this writing, the "Size guideline"-section of the Wikipedia:Article size-page lists a "What to do" for a < 40 kB readable prose size as "Length alone does not justify division". Heart of Destruction (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is a balance of probabilities. If the TV show has stopped production, then the "list article" is not likely going to "keep growing". On the other hand, if the TV show is still "alive" (does not matter how slow the growth is, what matters is whether the demand/ viewership is at critical level (based on publicly-available information)), then keep the two articles separate for long-term benefit. As an example, List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign are kept separate (At the moment, there is no sign that the "Bernie bros" are disappearing soon). If you disagree with me, you might want to merge those two Bernie articles altogether. Tony85poon (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Signs of production stopping indefinitely include 1. Actor dies; 2. Actor retires due to old-age; 3. Actors decide to do something else e.g. Friends; 4. Actor goes to prison; 5. Production company goes into liquidation; 6. Court order that says "this TV show has a real legal problem". Tony85poon (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support – this is probably a borderline case for merging the LoE back, as the show ran two seasons. But merging the LoE back doesn't look like it would "unbalance" this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]