Talk:Law & Order: Criminal Intent

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

Personality disorder?[edit]

Vincent D'Onofrio's character, Det. Robert Goren has a very strong and unusual personality. Is he emulating something real or made up just for the show? It almost seems like the character has High-functioning autism like Asperger's. Am I going out on a limb with this?71.74.96.157 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not really. I was wondering if I were the only one who had noticed this. Yes, he almost seems autistic but I think that's just the way he functions. Almost like Monk, a bit strange but at the same time, brilliant. I think he just making himself like that, but their have been rumors that he's like that in real life, resulting in that season break he took. Who knows? Unforgotten 20:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The show has never specifically stated that Goren has any sort of mental affliction. D'Onofrio has stated that he purposely made Goren a bit weird because of Goren's unusually high level of intelligence. D'Onofrio is not like that in real life. He does not display Goren mannerisms or behaviors in interviews.

The character actually has some of the opposite characteristics of Aspergers. Two of Aspies biggest problems is the difficulty in reading body language and figuring out someone else's motivation!69.48.48.146 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) BTW - i was very impressed how well in the episode "Probability" that Aspergers was written and acted. I knew the minute Wally walked in the room what his condition was going to be. Beware the extreme geek![reply]

Could part of Goren's unusual personality (and ability to recall information others cannot) be due to Eidetic memory? Kat (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I removed the comment that was in this space, because it seemed both incomprehensible to me and entirely unrelated to anything else in this section.]

Having watched the show from its inception, my impression is that Goren has no personality disorder whatsoever. Rather, he is occasionally thought to be strange because of his tremendous intelligence -- about which he has great humility. This includes his commanding officer, Danny Ross, and to some extent his partner Eames -- who sometimes find Goren strange because they cannot fully comprehend Goren's brilliance.

Goren's "mannerisms and behaviors" -- such as the way he may get in someone's face and tilt his head while questioning them -- strike me as all deliberate behaviors designed to disconcert the person being questioned. (Note that Goren does not disply such behaviors at other times.)

Except for both Monk and Goren being brilliant detectives, Goren is nothing at all like Monk.Daqu (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newest additions[edit]

Nona Gaye is in; Courtney Vance is out. http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/bio_detail.nbc/lawordercriminalintent-6-nona-gaye.html

I believe Julianne Nicholson is replace Annabella, but I can't find anything yet.

Gaye is out: Theresa Randle is her replacement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060731/tv_nm/law_dc_2 MagentaThompson 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a discussion page, so why does someone always erase my comment just seconds after i post it. Im not defacing the original article so i would appreciate it if my insights were discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.226.170 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sophisticated?[edit]

"Criminal Intent plots and characterization are notably more complex and subtle than the original Law & Order, indicating that the series is aimed at a more sophisticated audience."

Anyone actually believe this? Yes, there are more levels of emotion and plot twists, but I would question any level of sophistication. Complexity does not mean sophistication; the plot twists feel forced and stale. While in the field, Eames and Goren seem to know anything and everything, making the show feel more like CHiPS than a L&O spinoff. Goren's monologues are blatant, longwinded and pull conclusions from nowhere. Law & Order works because it's stripped down; criminal investigation and prosecution with minimal BS. The sophistication comes from its simplicity.

So, any Rhode scholars or Nobel laureates who see something in the show I'm missing? --Marco Passarani 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more accurate to say that CI's cultural references and narrative style are noticeably more sophisticated than Law & Order and certainly SVU. I agree that it could be argued that CI is as formulaic as the other two series. I don't agree that CI aims for stripped-down simplicity in the way that the original L&O does (successfully) or the tabloidish way that SVU does (unsuccessfully,, making for a terrible show, IMHO). Bwithh 01:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps that CI has a more dramatic feel than Law & Order and SVU, and it's this dramatic feel that makes it more sophisticated? --209.182.101.246 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't buy that. Because of scheduling, I don't watch a lot of the original show, so I have no opinion about relative sophistication. Hypothetically, I can accept that it may be valid to say that CI is a more sophisticated show in some ways. To draw inferences about the target audience of one show being more sophisticated than the other is another matter, and at best unproven. In many cases, I'm sure the people probably like both shows, and many of them are prettty smart. Cocodeath (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

69.121.101.18[edit]

69.121.101.18 has made unhelpful edits to the cast page four times now. This user changes text from Sherlock Holmes to various other personalities. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five times Bwithh 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goren and Eames are not in love..[edit]

...whoever posted that...not funny.

...Benson and Stabler however are another story...*vomit* enough already...SVU hasn't jumped the sharked, it's orbiting one!

That's quite illogical. Goren and Eames are NOT in love, their only partners. But I agree, Benson and Stabler probably are, in my opinion. Unforgotten 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benson and Stabler have an intense working relationship and are arguably equal partners. In contrast, although there is some degree of comeradery and loyalty between Goren and Eames, he's really the whole show. She's just there to provide filler commentary and so he won't be a lone "Wolf" (hah!) like Columbo. Wahkeenah 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2[edit]

Anyone know why season 2 hasn't been released on DVD in region 1 yet?

Season 2 DVDs were released in December 2006.

Montage[edit]

A signature feature of each Criminal Intent episode (not present in the original Law & Order series) is that the teaser introduction before the title sequence always involves a montage; the rapid cut-scenes show events from the suspects' and victims' lives, leading up to the crime. Clues to the crime's eventual solution can often be found in this teaser sequence.

I'm an avid fan of the show, but I've never seen such a montage. Am I missing something? --BDD 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably. The other L&Os very seldom show the crime in progress; CIs almost always do. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what this is referring to is the events that are shown before the credits roll. It's a bit of a misnomer to call it a "montage" and "rapid cut-scenes" and that bit should be re-worded to clean it up a little. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think whoever posted that had it mixed up with ABC's short-lived drama "The Evidence". That show DID have a montage that showed all the evidence, then throughout the episode, each piece would be shown with its significance. Kassy88 8 October, 2006

Theresa Randle[edit]

Theresa Randle has also been recently tapped as a series regular but is not yet considered part of the official cast. This is due to the fact that the character she will be playing, the ADA, will have a reduced role starting from season six because of the new captain's (Eric Bogosian) increased role.

Can anyone provide a reference to show that this is actually the reason that Theresa Randle is not a part of the cast yet? It seems almost as likely that it is due to the fact she was cast so late, since Nonya Gaye quite before taping even began. -- Redfarmer 16:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited it since no one provided any sources of this information. 69.64.2.133 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has yet to be any sources indicating that Randle is a series regular. All the articles surrounding her addition to the show (most of which, unfortunately, do not seem readily available) spoke about her being tapped for three guest appearances. She still doesn't appear in the opening credits, and the few times she has appeared she has been clearly designated as a 'Special Guest Star'. D'Amico 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical information[edit]

I took out the part about CI being the first show shot in HD. It looks like some one cut and pasted that part from the original's wiki entry. How could CI being 3 years old be the first show shot in HD? --Marvuglia 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off topic but maybe there should be some sort of mention that all 3 L&O's are now shot and broadcast in widescreen. I don't recall a mention anywhere.

Fran Drescher[edit]

This chick from the Nanny was on tonight. She was good until they showed the dead body. It was more funny than shocking. She can not act.70.185.125.101 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Noth... not a lead actor![edit]

What happened to Vincent and Kathyrn?? C.I. was my favorite show of the whole series...Cris Noth may be a nice guy, but a lead actor, he is not! Anybody know what happened? Sam


I RECENTLY READ IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT NBC IS THINKING ABOUT CANCELING THIS SHOW. I CAN NOT BELEIVE IT, IT IS A GREAT SHOW. NBC IS ALWAYS GETTING RID OF GOOD SHOWS. THEY DONT HAVE MANY GOOD SHOWS TO BEGIN WITH BUT THEY WANT TO CANCEL THE GOOD ONES. GET RID OF SOME OF THOSE REALITY SHOWS INSTEAD. ALSO KEEP JORDAN.


Wish this message was dated so I could tell if the crisis had passed. Chris Noth took over half the show when Vince had health problems (see wikipedia for more details). He may not be D'onofrio, but I think he's a much better actor than pissed-off D'onofrio fans give him credit for, and some of his episodes are very strong in a more conventional way.

Cocodeath (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

number of episodes[edit]

The number of episodes is listed as 129 but in the 'Criticism' section it mentiones episode 137

Howcatchem format[edit]

There's a suggestion on the page called howcatchem that Law & Order: Criminal Intent is in the howcatchem, or inverted detective story, format that was popularized by Columbo -- such that the criminal is revealed at the outset and the story is about how the detectives catch the criminal. I'm not familiar with this particular program (but I doubt that this is the format, judging by comments) If someone cares to work on this and either change the reference on the howcatchem page or annotate it, that would improve the page. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's about right, although some episodes make use of this format more than others do. --MegaKN 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, very few if any episods does this. They show you what you might think is the events, but there is always a twist. //Zarkow 124.120.71.52 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gives clear hints as to the eventual outcome, though. It just doesn't actually clearly give away who did it like Columbo did. -MegaKN 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: from the article: "Howcatchem is a term coined by TV Guide for a murder mystery fiction structure in which the audience is made aware right away of the killer's identity, and the mystery becomes how they will eventually be caught." the article's claim seems to be backwards. in most cases lo:ci is a whodunit, even though you'll see the commission of the crime and the events leading up to it, rarely will you see the perps identities. the original l&o is closer to a "howcatchem" in the legal sense. you pretty much know who the bad guys are by the middle and the 2nd half is about how they (don't) get put away

By no means is this a "howcatchthem", the culpitt is not reavealed until the very last minutes, there are always twists along the way, and as with any "whodunnit" a lot of red herrings and blind alleys. It's a whodunnit in every sense of the word, but it's also a "whydunnit" if there is such a term. There's always of course the element in any detective drama of how to have the culpitt either confess, or have enough evidence against them etc. but that is not the central issue. More than anything I would say the central issue is motivation for the crime here, hence the the "intent" in the title. 84.254.52.142 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can point to CI episodes where the killer is revealed in the very beginning. (e.g., the one from season 2 about the crematorium.) And I think I can point to other episodes where the detectives know who the killer is about halfway through, but can't prove it to the end. The rules are more flexible than for Columbo, but there's a certain I've often thought that CI owes a debt to Columbo, though the earlier show lacked the shocking realism and the dark psychology of CI. The characters of Goren and Columbo are definitely part of the same tradition. If you're a CI fan and you've never seen Columbo, it's worth a look. I recently put some Columbo disks in my Netflix que. Cocodeath (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Nicole Wallace[edit]

She totally rocks, but uhh .. how come we didn't actually get to see her kill Bernard in Slither? She should have killed Hillary too. Hated her.

Hmm good point. I also can't find the alternate ending to "Great Barrier" online anywhere. All I know about it is that Bobby shoots her

I've seen three of the four episodes in which Nicole Wallace appears, and I've seen two of them on DVD several times. I have a theory that it's part of Nicole's character that she is never shown actually killing anyone. The violence is submerged, reconstructed and imagined, we only see the seduction and manipulation. I think that's very deliberate, and I'd be interested if anyone could prove me wrong.

That's usually how Criminal Intent goes. In many episodes you do not see the actual murder or the violence but still at the end of the episode, the killer is revealed. If you are saying Nicole is entirely innocent, that would defeat the purpose of her being Goren's nemesis, and defeat every other episode where the murders are not shown on screen. It would also defeat Nicole's murderous backstory,not to mention her entire purpose of creation and appearance on Criminal Intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect that the alternate ending is on the DVD.

Cocodeath (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lociseason02.jpg[edit]

Image:Lociseason02.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 02:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast table[edit]

Shouldn't Det. Alexandra Eames (Kathyrn Erbe) be "Detective One" in the table? She is the senior partner, after all (pretty sure Logan is the senior partner for the each of the "B team" combinations). I'll swap in a little while if no one horribly objects. I presume it's the way it is right now because Vincent D'Onofrio is seen as the star of the show, but that's an arguable point. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Samantha Buck be listed as cast in the infobox? I understand she was Eames' temporary replacement for a while, but she was never included in the introductions. SigKauffman (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CI game.jpg[edit]

Image:CI game.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:CIopening.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re "The Robert Goren character is very reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes; he notices tiny—yet important—details ignored by others, and possesses broad encyclopedic knowledge"[edit]

Sherlock Holmes' knowledge was described by the author as being vast in the areas of criminology, psychology etc - anything which could be of use in his chosen field. To describe his knowledge in general as being "broad" or "encyclopedic" would be faulty. Just saying, is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.162.175 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen the statement is if anything inadequate. This guy can reach under a bed in one quick motion and pull out the broken-off tip of a pen that was hidden from sight. He can instantly identify a five hundred dollar perfume from a whiff of a personal item and go straight to the store that sells it. He can take one quick look at someone and identify the bizarre medical condition that they've kept hidden from their family members for the past five years. Basically, he's the guy God goes to to get help on difficult questions. 24.115.70.59 (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs much work[edit]

The article has more sentences that need work than almost any other article I've seen. Many clauses are misplaced, or commas missing, in such a way that the intended meaning is significantly changed.Daqu (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Goldblum[edit]

Logan back to Staten Island?

"Jeff Goldblum is set to replace Chris Noth next season on "Law & Order: Criminal Intent."

Like Noth, Goldblum will be seen in half of the series' episodes; discussions are ongoing with Vincent D'Onofrio to continue headlining the other half."

Added to article? —DeviantSolution (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serena southerlyn as ADA confirmation?[edit]

Someone put her in the diagram, yet this is not confirmed through any citation or reference in her character bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.232.196 (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goren's Junior Status[edit]

For the record, I posted this message to a user's talk page, since they keep asking for "proof" that Goren is the junior detective (he's never been otherwise; people just assume):

Goren has always been the junior partner since episode one. A recent episode (I believe it was season six's Brother's Keeper) confirmed this is still the case when the murder suspect taunts Goren at a critical moment in Goren's personal life, calling him a loser and saying Goren is just upset because others are better than him and he will never even make "senior partner." That is the evidence: actual dialogue in an episode. Now, if you have dialogue from season seven which contradicts this, please present it. Otherwise, you are just being inaccurate.

Unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, Goren should be left at junior partner. Doing otherwise is just being inaccurate at best and engaging in original research at worst. Redfarmer (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is junior partner. I can't cite episode and verse, but I've watched the show since its inception and that's a fact that has once in a while been mentioned on the show.Daqu (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kent[edit]

  • I added Patricia Kent to the main characters chart. Even though she was only in 2 episodes i believe that she is stil a main character for being in the credits sequence.
  • But... she wasn't in the credits sequence. JuJube (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird. How did I miss this? I remember expecting her to show up in the credits but she never did. x_x JuJube (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are fan made. Not official credits. Redfarmer (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Nichols not Zach Nichols[edit]

According to the Criminal Intent website, ci.usanetwork.com, Jeff Goldblum's character is named Zack. The main article has his name spelled with an H at the end. Jcsavestheday (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)jcsavestheday[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters[edit]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to refer to a specific time or date than use the word "currently"[edit]

One passage in the article reads as follows:

"Hollywood Reporter reported that the USA Network is currently finalizing a deal for the ninth season of Law & Order: Criminal Intent.[5] Later, it was reported that D'Onofrio, Erbe and Bogosian would be leaving the series.[6]"

Using the word "currently" to describe a time frame in a Wikipedia article is a very bad idea, since people are likely to read the article a good while afterwards without knowing what "currently" means -- as is the case here. Whoever used the word "currently" didn't even bother to mention when currently was. (I recognize that researching the reference(s) might determine when "currently" was, but that is entirely beside the point.)

In fact, having one sentence use "currently" to describe its time frame, and the next sentence start with "Later", is downright ludicrous.

ALSO: That part of the article describes deliberations over the fate of the program, but never completes the chronology (at least not up to the present: Jan. 3, 2010). We only find out later in the article -- by reading the table of various phases in the show's history -- that the show in fact *is* at this point scheduled to begin its next season of new episodes in March of this year. This is disjointed writing.Daqu (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related Shows Section in Infobox[edit]

I've started a thread about the related shows section of the infobox on this page and what defines a related show here. All are invited to participate in the discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible sentence[edit]

In a discussion of the season scheduled to begin March 30, 2010, one sentence reads:

"The series was renewed for a ninth season to be aired in March 2010 when D'Onofrio and Erbe will cast at the end of the two-hour season premiere."

Can someone explain what the phrase "will cast" means here? Better yet, can someone who knows what meaning is intended please rewrite the sentence so that it is comprehensible? Thanks.Daqu (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theme[edit]

Hi

In the article it states "For its move to the USA Network, the "heavier" sounding version of the Law & Order: CI theme ..."

I am not sure how the "heavier" got in there - or if it should stay. If anything it's more like it went from a fairly god modern style to a 90's sound lol :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I'd dispute the neutrality of that sentence without a citation. I'll go ahead and add a citation-needed tag. Traveliter (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible paragraph in History section[edit]

Someone posted the following:

"On July 4, 2010; The Edmonton Journal describes the history of Law & Order: CI from its style and cast members along with comparing the NBC years to the show's current state on the USA Network. Saying things like, "Ratings for both programs eroded over time, though (Law & Order). NBC shuffled Law & Order: CI off to its USA Network two years ago, where it had to compete for attention with the likes of lightweight clinkers such as Monk, Burn Notice and Royal Pains. It was decided that D'Onofrio and Erbe weren't hip enough for the U.S. cable network's audience, which likes its crime shows light as a feather and slightly on the goofy side." and "Goldblum has a unique way about him, and this is a very different show with him playing detective. Whether it's better is up to you [the viewer] to decide."[1]"

at the very bottom of the History section. I've tried to figure out why this was placed here, and to be honest I don't think this paragraph belongs in the article at all. I'd like to flag this for deletion, please. Traveliter (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/movie-guide/reinvents+itself/3233924/story.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_%26_Order:_Criminal_Intent&oldid=1203512577"