Talk:Blue Bloods

Untitled

Fridays at 9? I wondered what was going to replace NUMB3RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.96.99.177 (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Same Plot as the movie "Pride and Glory".--97.100.60.45 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol

Was looking at this for an overall idea of series before watching it & was surprised by the unreferenced mention of alcohol (wine, beers &c...) is this integral to the Plot & where's the reference?? This part was added by 67.246.226.112 & is the only edit noted by this IP address. 86.63.26.124 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pilot versus other stories

Sami Gayle is listed as as Nicole "Nicky" Reagan-Boyle, Erin's daughter. Was there another actress playing her in the Pilot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.184.62 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Malevsky's suicide

The current article says he shot himself with "his own service pistol". I don't recall the storyline being that specific. I'm tempted to change it to "with his own gun". I'll hold for a bit... wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Danny's uniformed status?

The Wiki article states that "... [Danny] is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and is a rookie officer on the police force after graduating from the police academy."

Given it's a couple of seasons now, he should have passed his probation and no longer be a "rookie". And related to that, perhaps it's time to remove the refence to Sgt. Rizzoli being his training officer. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Renzulli

Does Nicholas Turturro actually have "Also Starring" status? Every time I see him in the credits, he's a guest star. 108.201.221.204 (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Jamie's undercover alias

i have never seen Intelligence (Canadian TV series), but apparently one of the two main characters is named Jimmy Reardon. Wasn't that Jamie's alias when he went undercover? Was that a deliberate reference to the other show? Also, the 4th cast member listed is Ronnie Delmonico, which i also feel like i remember as a Blue Bloods character name. --72.85.61.32 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Season 5 Changes

Updated cast to include Amy Carlson and Sami Gayle as main cast members and relabeled Nick Turturro as a recurring guest star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1E00:F4C:E035:A13B:766D:BF05 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Korea

If Grandpa/Tom's older brother was in the Korean war, how did he join the NYPD in 1952? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:0:DA40:D095:D039:1036:8AD (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Users Violating Wiki Policy: Moderators, Enforce The Rules

Unless I've missed something, it's clearly a violation of Wikipedia rules to post entries to episodes that haven't even aired yet. Wikipedia's policy states that users must use their own descriptions when posting episode descriptions. Since some Blue Bloods Season 6 episodes haven't even iared or broadcasted yet, just how in the world is anyone seeing these episodes to write these descriptions?

Warn these users to STOP VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA RULES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:98:572:DC0F:92E2:EBD1 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

References + external links

Why are there duplicate references and external links sections, and why can't I edit one of them out? Faunas (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Faunas (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Family Dinner

In the section about the family dinner, it is stated that "the rule is that no one can take a first bite before every last family member is present and seated ..." That is wrong! Very often, we see the dinner already under way and someone - usually Danny - comes in, apologizes for being late, and then sits down and joins dinner. This happens from the very first season on. So I think this part should be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.201.7 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sibling Order

Throughout the show (even in more recent episodes), Danny refers to Erin as his "kid sister". Erin celebrated her 40th birthday in the season six episode "The Bullitt Mustang" (this episode aired in November 2015, making her birth year 1975 on the show). In the season 1 finale, we see Joe's birthdate on his gravestone as June 6, 1977. This makes him younger than Erin, and thus, younger than Danny. Later episodes that refer to Joe as the oldest mistakenly do so. 173.79.201.217 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Yet someone edited the article based on the erroneous later corresondence. Joe is younger than Danny and Erin, and older than Jamie. 50.232.92.83 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• Blue Bloods (TV series) → Blue Bloods
• Blue Bloods → Blue Bloods (disambiguation)Blue Bloods (disambiguation)

– This show looks like a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Far greater hits than Blue Bloods (novel series) and The Blue Bloods. Also, since it's been on for 10 years, the other two can't beat it in long-time significance. --Quiz shows 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - its hardly fair to compare pageviews for a TV show which is actively airing. I find these kinds of requests tend to be initiated and attended disproportionately by fans of these shows. Also, the disambig page should really be merged with Blue Blood disambiguation page (and redirect there) as singular and plural could add to reader confusion, and so this title difference is too little to grant it PRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 22:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would merge Blue Bloods with Blue Blood, as the latter disambiguation page already lists all the plural uses. The phrase "blue bloods" primarily refers to nobility, from which the other uses on this page are derived. BD2412 T 17:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Production section

Season 9 and 10 renewals have sources where it says "Blue Bloods got renewed for a fifth season, and has since been renewed for seasons 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11" (the 11th season I just added to the section with a source). Since season 11 proves seasons 9 and 10 exist, basically, is there a need for the season 9 and 10 sources to stay in the article? Asking because I don't just want to get rid of them willy-nilly. Kind of weird how I'm putting it, sorry for that. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should keep the previous sources. - Brojam (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, no prob! 96.231.250.80 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Cast billing order needs to be reconfigured in the Infobox

While it's technically true that Tom Selleck is mentioned later than the other main players in the opening credits, it's presented in such a way it's obvious that he's actually one of the two lead characters in the series, similarly to the way the cast of Gunsmoke was presented in its last few years. James Arness (Matt Dillon) was presented after Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis and Amanda Blake, but when Arness comes up it's obvious that he's the actual series lead, in Gunsmoke's case with a much larger picture and dramatically swelling music. In the case of Blue Bloods, this is done by giving Selleck more clips than any of the other cast members with the possible exception of Wahlberg: this is to manifest parity between the two lead actors. To leave the cast list the way it is in the Infobox, with Selleck billed below all the other main cast members, is to be misleadingly literal-minded. Someone needs to rectify this. It's technically right but functionally wrong and lessens the article's utility. A lot of people quickly glancing at the Infobox will assume that they have the wrong series because they didn't look down far enough and puzzle it out. Racing Forward (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Old TP post by a blocked user. However, it should be addressed. We have an established process for determining cast list order: MOS:TVCAST. Comparing to another series doesn't change that. Gunsmoke actually follows our MOS. In s1e1, it is introduced as "Gunsmoke starring James Arness". He's the first cast member mentioned. We don't change that based on later seasons, as noted in TVCAST. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Polish Americans as villans

I used to watch this, and there was this craven pączki seller, who helped to frame Danny Reagan, then a racist (played by an actor affecting a farcical Russian accent) father of a girl who wanted to marry a Syrian. Most American series don't get a single Polish character of any kind (which isn't surprising, of course), and here there are two repulsive characters within two seasons. Might be a coincidence, but it does stand out. 31.61.232.195 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 18:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Blue Bloods (TV series) → Blue Bloods – Blue Bloods is currently a redirect to the disambiguation page Blue Blood, but is one of the only titles on the page that is natively both capitalized and in the plural, and I would assert is the clear primary topic for that title with that stylization. Circumstances have evolved since the discussion five years ago, with the show having continued and then wrapped, and now having spawned a spin off. BD2412 T 22:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

There is also a completely different book novel series: Blue Bloods (novel series) (which also might become a TV series though presumably with a different title if it ever actually happens....https://ew.com/another-blue-bloods-in-the-works-vampires-not-cops-8679033) newsjunkie (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of the vampire novel series, I believe the cop show is vastly primary over that. It continues to get over 44 times as many page views. BD2412 T 23:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree personally but I'm not really sure how it's weighed in the broader context or by others. I'm not objecting, just have my own experience getting results from the book series while looking up the TV series. newsjunkie (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support, the TV series receives several thousand views a day, the novels, 49. Per nom, and since the title includes the uppercased 's' this seems an easy choice for primary (probably add the novel series in a hatnote) Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Given the number of books and films, Blue Bloods should remain a redirect to the wp:DAB page Blue Blood. Keep this article title and perhaps change the Blue Bloods redirect to a DAB when other such titled articles are created. 21:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adakiko (talk • contribs)

Note: WikiProject Television/American television task force, WikiProject Television, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Law Enforcement have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SMALLDETAILS. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Randy Kryn and Rreagan007. The number of views for the TV series is overwhelmingly greater than for any other uses of this title. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content cleanup needed (per recent tags)

There are some significant issues with this article as of late, which can be summarized as follows:

• Does not follow MOS:TV for the "Premise" (synopsis) section. This should not drift off into topics for other sections such as background and production.
• Significant WP:OVERCITE all over the article, but as an example, it does not take six citations to verify why Wahlberg said an interview that he was drawn to the Blue Bloods, or four sources to verify that the dinner scene was the first scene filmed as part of the pilot episode. There's not a "hard-and-fast" rule on number of appropriate cites because some situations warrant a number of sources, but common sense should lead here, and the objective of citations is simply verification - not a dumping ground for external links.
• Excessive intricate detail - the Premise section falls into this as noted above, but also 2100 words on cancellation? That's excessive by any assessment.
• Production section is loaded with fancrufty detail that does not belong.

ButlerBlog (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There, should be mainly cleaned up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe such a major deletion of cited content should have had more discussion first. newsjunkie (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Already explained here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strike 2 (Blue Bloods) NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@NacreousPuma855: ANI is not the place for addressing content disputes. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Just didn’t want to repeat the same answer on two separate pages. Probably we can continue here on the talk page from that one message on ANI. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you have removed several valid sources and some pertinent information. I encourage you to restore the old version until there has been further discussion by more editors about specific parts of the article. newsjunkie (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The old version contains too many WP:REFCLUTTER and WP:OVERCITE problems. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am NOT saying that can't be addressed, but it can be addressed one step at time for individual cases with more input to find compromise. There is no rush or deadline. Tagging the article as has been done is a first step to initiate discussion especially when it affects such large chunks of material. newsjunkie (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

(Was waiting for ANI discussion to close before addressing outside concerns.) @NacreousPuma855 I think you kind of took a chainsaw to some (emphasis on some) sections where a scalpel might have been adequate. However, in stating that, I am not supportive of restoring in full and then reworking backwards. If there's anything worth salvaging in the ante version then (IMO) it would be better to retrieve and add back what makes sense to add (because I'm not sure it's really all that much). Here are my thoughts and opinions on what needs addressing:

• The lead still has a lot of citations and some of those sources are used only in the lead. Is that information included in the body? The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. If it's not addressed somewhere in the article, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. Likewise, you generally don't need to also cite the lead if it's covered in the article. So unless something is contentious in the lead (and I don't see anything that fits that description), there shouldn't be anything cited using a source that isn't already used where that information is covered in the article. And better yet (my personal preference), let that body description carry the verifiability (MOS:LEADCITE).
• Premise needs to address the remaining seasons. However, the ante version was not what a premise section is supposed to be. Rule of thumb: 100 words per season as a max (that shouldn't be read as "it should be 100 words per season - it's that is a rule of thumb maximum). See MOS:TVPLOT.
• Production section - first part of this section lacks any sources. And there might have been some info from the ante version that would be useful here - but judiciously.

The objective should always be B-class or higher assessment. Refer to WP:ASSESS and specifically note assessment criteria (and expand the criteria sections by clicking "show"). This could eventually be a GA article. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ll take a closer look at what got removed, and will figure it out. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope it's possible in reviewing the deleted material to keep an open mind and not necessarily dismiss content out of hand, but really examine each statement individually and in the context of the references for how they could be valuable to readers, what section they might fit in and what it conveys about the show and its perception broadly and having a mix of different kinds of sources (trade outlets and more general entertainment). Obviously secondary sources are preferred, but that does not necessarily mean primary sources/official releases/interviews are inherently unreliable to verify certain relevant facts/quotes even if they are in video form or social media if it's authenticated as belonging to an official account, for example, and in some specific cases are attributed. Also for example there wasn't really a separate background/development section before, so maybe one could add that separate from ongoing production and put in some content from the bottom of the original premise section and maybe some from the production section also with MOS:TV in mind. Or some things could fit in Reception for example. newsjunkie (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, please, please, we're begging you. Drop the stick on this topic. wound theology◈ 06:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is some agreement that too much was deleted, there has actually been very little substantive discussion with only a handful of of editors here about any individual points here. You mentioned consensus and this is exactly where those content discussions should take place to find a compromise rather than some all or nothing solution for those who wish to engage. newsjunkie (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't include me in the agreement that too much was deleted if that means bringing back in WP:OVERCITE from WP:PRIMARY and pushing the article back to 225k in size. At this point, you should have a better understanding of what is appropriate and what is not (although your comments above seem to indicate otherwise). Expecting substantive discussion on things that don't have a snowball's chance is a waste of editor time.

Again, please review what has been pointed out to you in previous discussions and make sure you understand them. If you feel you must edit, you could start off on the right foot by focusing only on WP:SECONDARY sources, applying no more than one to any given statement. And if you come up against objection, look strongly at why it was objected to and expect less in the discussion area - no one is going to engage in 4000-word discussions over a whether a single item is objectionable. They're simply going to refer you to the appropriate guideline and expect you to understand it. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As is clear I haven't even edited anything at all so far. What I was,mainly referring to was to consider whether the substance of individual statements is appropriate for inclusion in terms of the insight it gives on the production (and also ratings), pretty much at all of which did have at least one secondary source or were associated with respected outside organizations. Many relevant details about the productions or approaches to characters are going to have to come from people associated with the show themselves, whether they are quoted as saying it in a news article or an interview directly, often where they are providing insight, reflection analysis on their own participation, which is the kind of approach more associated with secondary sources. None of the sources were directly DVD commentary for example, but some of the statements are equivalent to that sort of information which I believe is an appropriate source for any filmed project. And some statements were very straightforward, and at least a few are a little more complicated because they are about tensions behind the scenes or more sensitive approaches to political topics and probably do benefit from more than one source. That is the kind of context I hope can be considered. And as I was saying some sections don't have to go back in this article at all, but still might be appropriate for one of the others where material was deleted. newsjunkie (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, in terms of due weight, going beyond verifiability, isn't how often something comes up in different reliable sources or is mentioned by people associated with the production at least partly a determining factor of how important something is to mention? While this isn't about majority/minority or fringe views exactly, if the guideline is "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" how else can one illustrate that if not with some multiple sourcing? Or the balance guideline "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." and an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Doesn't that also mean prominence across multiple sources (rather than only how prominent something is treated within a particular article) Assuming that one can apply the use of "viewpoint" to how broader types of information are treated in articles that are less directly about controversial issues. newsjunkie (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is clear you learned nothing from the ANI discussion. You literally began the 4000 word discussio[n] that Butlerblog (talk · contribs) said no one wants to engage in. wound theology◈ 03:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I am working on a draft/sandbox version to try to showing at least one possible approach without changing anything right away which is probably easier than talking about these concepts in the abstract anyway. Then at least it's easier to say which specific content is objected to based on what policy. newsjunkie (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is one draft version restoring removed information and rearranging things with some new sections. User:Newsjunkie/sandbox Among other things moved some content out of the lead entirely, moved partially duplicate broadcast information out of Production to a broadcasting section, restored the citations that were missing in the production section. If it's not an extensive discussion, that's fine, but at least it would be helpful if it can be identified if there are any sections/statements that are inherently not encyclopedic based on substance or otherwise problematic. Tried to keep citations at least somewhat minimal with a few exceptions. newsjunkie (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Or if it's easier you can just delete elements from the draft yourself if you are technically able to. newsjunkie (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Also some things from original Cancellation section could go back into the Season 14 page, where one could go into more detail than on this page, and some things from there could also go back into into the spin-off Boston Blue page development section. newsjunkie (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Restoring content discussion

I restored some content and rearranged it as a basis to attempt to restore some content and address some of the issues raised here previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&oldid=1299231757 It is based (with some tweaks) off this draft that I posted here previously: User:Newsjunkie/sandbox though I had not yet included everything from every section. If anyone can has any particular concerns about any paragraphs/points that should not be included please raise them here. We can start with the Casting section which is new to break down the older long production section, unless anyone has other suggestions. I think the casting section is fairly straightforward in terms of covering the background of the main roles as per MOS:TVPRODUCTION. newsjunkie (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I know @Butlerblog pointed out some issues, but there are some overcited segments, possibly some irrelevant and excessive content, as @Wound theology and @EducatedRedneck along with @MilesVorkosigan (sorry for all the pings, just trying to get opinions) pointed out before about similar content in the past. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this version, my initial concerns would be the following:

• Seemingly unnecessary overcites - In situations where there are 3 or 4 sources for a single statement, how necessary are these? How similar are the sources?
• Sections: I'd like to see it follow MOS:TV more closely. Casting, background, and production are generally subsections. See MOS:TVPRODUCTION.

Premise section could also use work (MOS:TVPLOT). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the overarching section supposed to be production? Or can there also be a subsection production of the production section? There are things in the suggested production section that don't really belong in filming and I'm not sure it's enough for a writing section, but it's more about the ongoing production than would belong in a background section that is more about the outset. That's been the confusion point for me.

Other than the one paragraph at the end I added and maybe noting that Jamie becomes sergeant and then field intelligence officer, I don't have any particular Premise section suggestions at the moment, open to any input for that.There aren't that many major developments in the final seasons, and the only ones that are are mostly in the finale and only sort of hinted at (possibly yet to be followed up in the spin-off.) newsjunkie (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Or can a Development section also be for ongoing production? The guidelines make it sound like it should be for what is leading up to a series, but in other articles it also seems to be used for ongoing developments. One could also add some of the casting changes from the Production Section to the Casting section, though to me it makes some sense to separate the initial casting from the subsequent changes. newsjunkie (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel MOS:TVPRODUCTION is clear on the prescribed hierarchy of sections. L2 heading should be "Background and Production", with items such as Development, Casting, Filming, etc. as L3 headings within it. A close reading of that guideline should answer all the organizational questions you asked. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at other TV articles, including good article ones, pretty much every article does it a different way or rearranges or combines sections or even sometimes users headers not mentioned. So that is why one of my questions is about the development section and whether it is supposed to be about what led up to a show or also about things that happened during its run, as it seems to be done in practice in a lot of cases, to figure out for example whether the production section should be renamed development as a subsection. newsjunkie (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

In part inspired by the example of the Fringe (TV series) article from looking at some Good Article examples in the sandbox version I changed the overarching section title to Development and made everything else including production a subcategory of that, though there could still be other ways to rearrange things. Other than the parts I didn't include the sandbox version should otherwise now correspond to my suggested edit in terms of the small tweaks/spacing issues. newsjunkie (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the "Mythology" section in Fringe (TV series), that article's sections appear to correspond with MOS:TV's standard sections. As to renaming sections and varying sections that are used/not used/added/etc, MOS:TV does give some guidance on that, and there are elements that are flexible; but rather than kicking against the goads, you'll likely get more buy-in from other editors if you show that you're attempting to follow the MOS more closely. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I was struggling with what alternative subsection title to use otherwise since a lot of pages use Production as the top category but the other subsection options didn't seem to fit quite right, but also to what extent "Development" as defined can refer to events after a series launches wherever it's used, and in practice in seems to be used often for a series' entire run, whereas I initially would have thought it as mainly pre-series. newsjunkie (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think I'll participate in any further content discussions with newsjunkie. I genuinely find it very difficult to parse walls of text and multi-threaded replies. It just isn't worth it for me. wound theology◈ 13:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Examining only the Casting section as suggested, I find that almost all of it is WP:UNDUE. Sentence 1 of Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of Paragraph 3, and the content of Sentence 2 of Paragraph 4 would be useful in the article. The remainder isn't about the show, it's about the actors talking about the show. We want to hear what WP:RS say about the show, not what WP:RS say actors say about the show. If there were an article on the cast's thoughts on the show, the remainder of the material could go there, but per WP:VNOT, just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's relevant to include. If the rest of the sandbox draft is similar, I would not support adding any of it without extensive trimming. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There is information about a production that is only going to come from the actors or other crew though, and I don't think the TV (or movie) guidelines really differentiate between "about the show" and what "actors (or crew) say about a show," and there is information from them that should be relevant as "significant viewpoints" on the topic from reliable sources. The TV guidelines emphasize the importance of including "context," the film guidelines for example provide some more detailed guidelines that I think would also be relevant to TV.MOS:FILMCAST for examples notes the example of "real-world context for actors and their roles varies by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast, or what preparations were necessary for filming."

And MOS:FILMPRODUCTION notes that "thoughts from the cast and crew can be included but should be substantive and avoid a promotional tone, especially during the marketing campaign." Similar to how MOS:TVCAST puts it at the bottom "focus on real-world information about the characters and actors (such as, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character using production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb." I know some TV and Film articles, including good articles, also incorporate information from DVD commentaries or extras for example, and I think some of the information is equivalent to that. newsjunkie (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There is information about a production that is only going to come from the actors or other crew Then it's information that shouldn't be in the article. I understand you disagree with me on what constitutes an appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, and I won't attempt to convince you. I ask that you not make any long posts attempting to convince me; it'll only clutter the discussion. Let's see what other editors believe is a WP:DUE level of detail. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you mean then by what "reliable sources say about a show" at it relates to production? Because people involved with the production are the only source for their information too, other than reviews or analysis, which are different sections. So many good articles for TV and Film include extensive information from the cast & crew. For example The Blacklist, The Americans or The Fabelmans (I've tried focusing on recently promoted ones) newsjunkie (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I will not. If another editor has questions for me, I will happily answer them, but similar to WoundTheology, I find engaging with you to be exhausting, and have better uses for my energy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I would keep in mind that in this case, it's a top-level article for a 14 season series that has individual season articles as well as a cast/character list article and episode list article. That means you don't need too much detail. It's a place to tie things together and drive readers to the other articles. It seems clear from this discussion that you're going to need to trim down some of your proposed content. I suggest starting small and being patient. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the current version now has a large unsourced production section and some random international broadcast information that's duplicative and had previously been deleted/fixed, I would just like to get to try to get some agreement on a revised basic structure to fix those things, which is a little hard to do one piece at a time. More seasons also does mean more content though compared to some other shows, though a lot of shows even with fewer seasons do go quite indepth. And there should be at least some more substantive information that goes beyond just what one gets on IMDB or the cast/season table overview. I was also thinking about whether one could maybe shrink/adjust/or possibly move the ratings table at the bottom. Maybe remove the ratings for the individual premiere/finale episodes and just have the season average, since the episode list has all the episodes ratings? (a lot of the references in the bottom half are the individual episode ratings) newsjunkie (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I would definitely support trimming the ratings table. With individual season articles, there isn't a need in a top-level article to include each premier and finale. As you noted, that information is in the episode list as well and doesn't need to be repeated here. Also, the average viewership number is the same as what is already in the transcluded episode summary table. I'm not sure if you can re-use a citation from a transclusion somewhere else on the page (I don't think you can), in which case, the reference can probably be removed since it is already cited in a previous table on the page. (I'll look into whether a transcluded ref can be repeated if it's a named ref, which these are not, and if that's the case, I'll work on resolving that - it would trim down unnecessary duplication of references.) ButlerBlog (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So, yes, you can use a named ref from a transclusion. I have updated the list article refs for the series overview table to be named refs and used those for the season viewership number in the ratings table. This merges 13 unnecessarily duplicated refs. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I see now that the change also affected the table at the bottom. It took me a moment to understand what the change actually was. Still think one could move the existing table as it is to the top of the List page, and then remove the episodes from the one on the main page, unless that would break something with the transclusion. newsjunkie (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That is the table at the top, right?

One could move the existing table at the bottom of the main page to replace the one now at the top of the List page, but one would just have to go through it to then fix any duplicate references for the individual episodes again, I think.

Most of the main articles I saw do appear to have that table at the bottom, often with episode ratings, but a lot of them have shorter runs. newsjunkie (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ed Poor Please feel free to participate in the discussion here. The Production section was originally referenced and had more content. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&oldid=1292396732 I offered an initial suggestion to restore content in a sandbox version and I'm hoping to revise it again the coming days, but feel free to offer your own feedback User:Newsjunkie/sandbox newsjunkie (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)