Talk:NCIS: Sydney

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television regarding which countries should be included for airdates and viewers in NCIS: Sydney. The thread is NCIS: Sydney: Countries for dates and viewers. Thank you. Happily888 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So, I clicked on Olivia Swann's name expecting to be taken to an article about her, instead, it takes you to the page you're already on. Based on that, I disabled the link, TWICE, and both times, you people restored it. What sense does it make to create a link to an article you're already reading? 2600:4809:7270:F800:ED7E:1976:91C0:C883 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

how can s2e10 have come out April 25 when it was up on Paramount from April 11? 2405:6E00:225:C6FD:19A1:6777:DE61:FE90 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I gather this was discussed once before prior to airing, but since this seems to be a regular part of the CBS schedule now, and treated the same way as other CBS broadcast programs and getting comparable ratings to their other shows, shouldn't the U.S. airings and ratings also be included? And also maybe clarify in the table somehow that the original airdate is Paramount Plus Australia? It's confusing otherwise for someone only familiar with the U.S. air dates. For the average American CBS viewer unfamiliar with the international airings, the "original air date" would be the CBS airings. newsjunkie (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Happily888 I started the discussion here over a month ago and there was no objection, the previous discussion took place before it ever aired regularly in the U.S and got comparable ratings there to all the other U.S. shows it's being aired alongside. It's not a Crystalball issue anymore. It's airing regularly on U.S. primetime now basically the same time and has demonstrably gotten comparable U.S. ratings. newsjunkie (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The wasn't any objection but there also wasn't any replies at all which does not show consensus and can't overturn the previous discussion. Happily888 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I also started a new conversation at the TV project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#U.S airdates for NCIS:Sydney, but my understanding if you make a bold edit and then others start making other edits that don't revert it and refine it as occurred here up until today, then that is automatically the new consensus. I saw that you were in favor originally. What are your main points of objection now? A lot of the main objection previously was the "Crystal Ball" aspect, but that's not really relevant anymore now that it's aired. newsjunkie (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for adding US airdates and ratings to an article on an Australian show. I'm also not convinced there's any reason to have the Network 10 airdates listed either. These are effectively repeat broadcasts. Barry Wom (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually not convinced about the Network 10 airdates either, especially since it doesn't seem to have aired there so far since the first season. On the other hand the U.S. airdates aren't really repeats anymore, since the second season and the upcoming third season the premiere has been the same date as in the U.S. with some different scheduling through the season because of holidays/sports. Because it's being treated/promoted as a first-run CBS show along with all the other primetime CBS shows, it seems strange not to include all the standard information we would include with any the other first-run CBS primetime shows. The CBS executive has cited its ratings success as a reason for it to continue airing on the CBS pirmetime schedule even though that wasn't initially planned. Its third season U.S. premiere in October was announced back in July with the all other CBS premiere dates before the Australian date was announced yesterday. I'd also argue a U.S. linear primetime airing is a wider audience than a streaming airing only in Australia. newsjunkie (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Why does it matter if the ratings are higher in the US than they are in Australia? To repeat, this is an Australian show. The US broadcast details are irrelevant. Barry Wom (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It speaks to notability and prominence. Just like even within the same country, it makes a difference if something airs on a channel with large audience or a smaller channel/streaming service with a small audience. Because it's being promoted as a CBS primetime show, it also gets more U.S. media coverage than it would otherwise, possibly even more than in Australia itself. newsjunkie (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Just like even within the same country, it makes a difference if something airs on a channel with large audience or a smaller channel/streaming service with a small audience.

...and if, within the same country, a channel with a larger audience repeats a show from a channel with a smaller audience, we still wouldn't include the broadcast details for the channel showing the repeats. Barry Wom (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If something premieres the same day and date, is it still a repeat? Or a premiere on the same day in two countries ? newsjunkie (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Barry Wom (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between something premiering the same day and date in two countries and something airing several months later. And to your other point, the most recent season of Law and Order: Organized Crime premiered on a streaming service, but will now also be airing on the linear NBC channel in primetime, so presumably those ratings will be included on its page even though it's technically a "repeat" airing because that is a notable audience. (different than if it was just rerunning on a cable channel) newsjunkie (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Something can premiere in any number of countries on the same day. But only the premiere date in the country of origin is relevant. Barry Wom (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The main guidance doesn't quite put it that way or doesn't proscribe one way to present it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Release It only states that "Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced. These can include: broadcasts in primarily English-speaking nations such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; special cases such as an American series airing its finale first in France; or a mass international distribution deal, such as Netflix acquiring the international rights for Riverdale and Designated Survivor." newsjunkie (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you be okay with a separate table under foreign broadcasts for the CBS airings? But that just seems to make the article unnecessarily longer when it's the same date in so many case. newsjunkie (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the guidance merely states that international broadcasts can be mentioned, not that entire tables of broadcast dates and ratings can be included. Barry Wom (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The original discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_38#NCIS:_Sydney:_Countries_for_dates_and_viewers decided against it in part because the series hadn't aired yet and there was no information on how notable the U.S. airing would be, so now that we do have that data, it doesn't seem like ratings/notability should be completely irrelevant. And as that discussion noted, the guidelines for ratings state "Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced. Similarly, ratings should only be included for the first run of a program unless reliable sources show that the ratings for a subsequent release are particularly noteworthy." So noteworthiness is the key issue. newsjunkie (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I came here to post about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#U.S airdates for NCIS:Sydney, then came across this discussion. I feel like there's a pretty clear agreement to not include American data within the episode table; see my above replies to the link discussion, and why I have made the recent edits and suggestions in my last edit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm okay with the edit you made for now since at least it also makes the U.S. air dates visible in table form and so that the ratings can be added as is standard for all CBS primetime shows. I can add the air dates later, but someone else will probably have to add all the individual ratings. newsjunkie (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I do think it would be helpful to clarify that the airdates in the episode table refer to Paramount Plus Australia, since the dates do end up diverging a bit, and you can see from the comment in a separate topic above that it can lead to confusion from both editors and readers in both countries. newsjunkie (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

By all means, add it in prose and it'll clear up any confusion, as long as they aren't in the original episode tables. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the lead supposed to follow the body, which does mention the U.S. airing? It's really a pretty unusual situation. I don't have all the exact data, but I believe it's the first time an Australian show is airing on one of the major broadcast networks. Some years ago the British show Merlin aired on NBC in primetime (during the summer) and that was the first time in about 30 years that a British show had aired on such a network, so historically that kind of thing just hasn't happened that often. newsjunkie (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article of an Australian series. It does not need to summarize and detail everything in the article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Not everything, but it is supposed to highlight what is notable about this particular series. Airing on a U.S. broadcaster in primetime is something that is a distinguishing factor from other Australian series that do not or that only air in Australia. That does not take away from it being an Australian series, rather it is something is more notable particularly because it is an Australian series, as the Sydney Morning Herald confirmed "it is the first Australian TV show to premiere on US primetime." newsjunkie (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Then note it in the appropriate section. Highlighting it in detail in the lead is undue weight. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The TV:MOS guidelines on lead paragraphs say "The lead should also summarize the major points of the rest of the article: premise, basic production information (e.g. where the show is filmed), principal cast, critical reception, influences, place in popular culture, major awards, and anything else that made it unique....A rule of thumb is to write at least one sentence on each section of the article." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television newsjunkie (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I did not put in the Infobox information, but as currently listed, at least one of the production companies, CBS Studios, is based in America, and it lists both countries as the country of origin. The official wording on the Paramount pages is "NCIS: SYDNEY is produced for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia by Endemol Shine Australia and distributed outside Australia by Paramount Global Content Distribution." (And parent company Paramount is of course also American) newsjunkie (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Only Endemol Shine Australia should be listed as a production company per infobox and the incorrect country origin of US should not have been added, the text you cite states that the show was "produced for" Paramount Australia and CBS Studios, meaning that those two were distributors and not involved as the production. As the studio which produced the show is Australian, and it also just wouldn't and doesn't matter if there is a parent company which is from international when the subsidary company isn't. Happily888 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to call CBS Studios a distributor. As its own entry says "CBS Studios, Inc. is an American television production company which is a subsidiary of the CBS Entertainment Group unit of Paramount Skydance Corporation." Maybe it's not involved in the day-to-day production and is overseeing it/commissioned it, but it's not the distributor either. Outside the U.S. the distribution company is Paramount Content Global Distribution. Inside Australia it is Paramount Plus Australia. In this article for example, they talk to David Stapf as the (American) head of CBS Studios about how the show was developed, and he is cited in several other places in connection with the show. https://deadline.com/2024/03/ncis-universe-renewals-crossovers-tony-ziva-spinoff-origins-sydney-1235860633/ The very first press release about it has CBS Studios as the primary entity involved in making it happen, doesn't mention Endemol at all: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2022/02/15/cbs-studios-expands-ncis-and-seal-team-franchises-for-paramountplus-775511/20220215cbs05/ My sense from the sources is that while Endemol is in charge of on the ground logistics, CBS Studios is also involved as a top-level producing entity in terms of conception/writing. When you watch the show, the opening says "Paramount+ and CBS Studios present." And in September 2023, Deadline called it a "local international co-production for CBS Studios" https://deadline.com/2023/09/ncis-sydney-trailer-cbs-series-1235537953/(newsjunkie (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

These are all American sources you've used, Australian sources (see here) and the official wording you linked above state that it is "produced for" CBS Studios and Paramount Australia, rather than being "produced by" which is Endemol Shine Australia and which is the production credit and is what should be used. The sources you've linked don't show CBS Studios were involved in production, instead they really show they're involved in distribution. The 2022 press release source was written before production started and doesn't state CBS Studios is the production company for the series, it also includes inaccurate information about Shane Brennan showrunning which did not occur. The opening "Paramount+ and CBS Studios present" shows that CBS Studios is a distributor, not involved in production, as Paramount+ isn't a production company but is a distributor. Also, a production company can still be involved in some series as a distributor and only in distribution. Happily888 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

CBS Studios is only a production company. It does not act as a distributor for anything anywhere even in the U.S.. It is not the same thing as CBS the TV channel. There are Australian sources that say the same thing. Here is one from 2022 from the Australian government film support initiative that mentions both companies: "Produced by CBS Studios in association with Endemol Shine Australia, NCIS: SYDNEY marks the first iteration of the hit NCIS series based outside of the United States. https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2022/09-26-ncis-script-program" The Australian government also advertised an embed program for young scriptwriters "in collaboration with Paramount Australia & New Zealand (ANZ), CBS Studios and Endemol Shine Australia (a Banijay company), it offered early-to-mid career screenwriters the opportunity to be embedded in the script department for NCIS: SYDNEY." https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/communications-and-the-arts/screen-australia/screen-australia-annual-report-2022-23/highlights-of-2022%2F23/opportunities The winners were announced "by Screen Australia, in collaboration with Paramount Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), CBS Studios and Endemol Shine Australia (a Banijay Company." https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2022/12-15-screenwriters-selected-for-nsic-sydney

In 2023 the Australian Daily Telegraph quoted "CBS Studios head of international co-productions Lindsay Martin" in connection with the show. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/ncis-sydney-cast-revealed-former-home-and-away-actor-leads-the-charge/news-story/9d3f70881c459916a0642395e27e97bc

Or from Screenhub Australia about the second season: "https://www.screenhub.com.au/news/news/ncis-sydney-flies-to-darwin-for-season-2-2648323/

"Two special episodes of NCIS: Sydney, produced by Endemol Shine Australia, CBS Studios, Paramount Australia, and Screen Territory, are set to film in Darwin.

The special two-part, one-hour episodes of NCIS: Sydney will be distributed internationally by Paramount Global Content Distribution."

Paramount Global Content Distribution is the distributor internationally as stated and is not the same thing at all as CBS Studios. It is is an international co-production and CBS Studios is also still involved in a production capacity. Deadline Hollywood may be an American source, but it is reliable source and refers to it as a "local international co-production for CBS Studios." The phrasing produced for CBS Studios is just another way of describing it as a co-production. newsjunkie (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Or in this Media Week Australia article the original executive producer described how he "pitched a very ambitious vision of the show to the folks at Paramount+ AU and CBS Studios, and they told me to swing for the fences. So that’s what we did." A writer doesn't pitch to a company only handling distribution, they pitch to a production company. https://www.mediaweek.com.au/ncis-sydney-the-goal-wasnt-to-recreate-the-show-in-australia/ The Sydney Morning Herald also described how "Morgan O’Neill, who was approached by production company Endemol Shine to come up with a local version to pitch to the show’s US owner CBS Studios." CBS Studios had to give the green light, and that gives them a production role beyond just distribution. newsjunkie (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No, a show can be given the "green light" by a distributor, this would not make the distributor the production company. The show is produced "for CBS Studios" because that is the distributor, they own the NCIS franchise and format but they are not involved in the production of this series so are not a production company. If a show is pitched to CBS and it is green lit by them, CBS is not automatically made a production company for that show even if they are providing some funding for the production. Happily888 (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you anywhere identify or locate a source that explicitly identifies CBS Studios as the distributor? (for this show or any other show for that matter) The only entity explicitly identified anywhere as the distributor is "Paramount Global Content Distribution." which is not the same as CBS Studios. I also identified several Australian sources that explicitly refer to CBS Studios as the producer. "Produced by CBS Studios in association with Endemol Shine Australia, NCIS: SYDNEY marks the first iteration of the hit NCIS series based outside of the United States." https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2022/09-26-ncis-script-program "Two special episodes of NCIS: Sydney, produced by Endemol Shine Australia, CBS Studios, Paramount Australia, and Screen Territory, are set to film in Darwin." https://www.screenhub.com.au/news/news/ncis-sydney-flies-to-darwin-for-season-2-2648323/ The ONLY references to "distributed by CBS Studios" on the Internet anywhere refer to CBS Studios International, an entity that no longer exists because it is now called Paramount Global Content Distribution. newsjunkie (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

At least based on the Wikipedia definition of Greenlight it is all about the production process, not the distributor "In the context of the film and television industries, to greenlight is to give permission to proceed with a project. It specifically refers to formally approving its production finance and committing to this financing, thereby allowing the project to proceed from the development phase to pre-production and principal photography. The power to greenlight a project is generally reserved to those in a project or financial management role within an organization." And the Infobox template descriptions says "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production." newsjunkie (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a distribution division called "CBS Studios International" until 2019 but that is what is now known as "Paramount Global Content Distribution." Those are the only old references that can be found in a Google Search for "distributed by CBS Studios." CBS Studios now is really just a production company and owner of the intellectual property. see entry on: Paramount Global Content Distribution "The division handles the distribution of television content from the libraries of Paramount Media Networks, Paramount Television Studios, CBS Studios, CBS Media Ventures, Showtime Networks and Paramount+." newsjunkie (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Should the Infobox for NCIS Sydney include CBS Studios and Paramount Australia as production companies as in this version ? If so, does that mean the United States should be added to countries of origin in the Infobox and/or the lead per MOS:TVCOUNTRY? And within that context, should the show's airing on CBS be touched on in the lead paragraph? newsjunkie (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Until recently it listed Endemol Shine Australia Paramount Plus and CBS Studios as the production companies for this show. It has now been suggested that CBS Studios is a distributor of the series and that only Endemol Shine should be listed as a production company. On the official Paramount press site it says "PRODUCED BY: NCIS: SYDNEY is produced for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia by Endemol Shine Australia and distributed outside Australia by Paramount Global Content Distribution." There is no explicit reference anywhere to CBS Studios being a distributor, only Paramount Global Content Distribution which is currently correctly identified as the distributor within the article. The opening titles of the show say "Presented by Paramount Plus and CBS Studios." There are explicit references from Australian sources calling CBS Studios a producer. The Australian government film support program stated that "Produced by CBS Studios in association with Endemol Shine Australia, NCIS: SYDNEY marks the first iteration of the hit NCIS series based outside of the United States." Screenhub Australia stated "Two special episodes of NCIS: Sydney, produced by Endemol Shine Australia, CBS Studios, Paramount Australia, and Screen Territory, are set to film in Darwin." Deadline has called it a "A local international co-production for CBS Studios" and CBS Studios was the main entity cited in the very first press release about the project. One of the main writers has also described being asked by Endemol Shine to make a pitch to CBS Studios: "I pitched a very ambitious vision of the show to the folks at Paramount+ AU and CBS Studios, and they told me to swing for the fences. So that’s what we did."

There are no current references on Google to anything at all being "distributed by CBS Studios." There was previously an entity called "CBS Studios International" until 2019, but that is what is now known as Paramount Global Content Distribution, and is not the same thing as CBS Studios. newsjunkie (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, CBS Studios is listed as a production company for every other NCIS spin-off and there's nothing in the sources so far that points to this one being any different. newsjunkie (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• It sort of sounds to me that nobody agreed with you in the earlier discussion so I'm a little confused why you started a RFC. Isn't this the reason you were brought to ANI four times? I would suggest closing this RFC before you get indeffed. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  There were different but related issues being discussed. The first was about the episode dates which has sort of been addressed now by agreeing to add the U.S. ratings separately. But in the process of that discussion I noticed something that seemed contradictory about the production companies and countries of origin in the Infobox (which I had not added/or edited at all originally) and then they were removed even though I added additional sources and relevant quotes (from both Australia and the U.S.), and so far only one other person has weighed in on that specific question, so was just trying to do things the right way and get some uninvolved additional input on the substance and the interpretation of what the sources actually say. newsjunkie (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I complete agree here. A compromise was made concerning the dates and ratings, then it's devolved into another "massive" issue. Nobody agreed concerning your issues with the production, therefore you started an RFC that nobody responded to in over a week, due to your massive wall of text. Editors can also see that you are partially blocked from an article related to CBS, so they're likely very hesitant to discuss anything CBS-related with you. I'd also recommend closing this RFC and stop beating a dead horse. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  The text was only "massive" because I was responding to the argument that I hadn't provided any Australian sources earlier, so I provided at least two Australian sources with the explicit quotes. Is there any issue with the accuracy/reliability of the Australian sources only on the question of identifying CBS Studios as a producer/production company? The article already for a long time correctly identifies the distributor as Paramount Global Content Distribution, not CBS Studios as is claimed by the other editor. No other distributor is identified in a source anywhere else. newsjunkie (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:DEADHORSE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not an expert on TV credits, but when it says "produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios", I understand that to mean the former is actually producing the show and the latter is just getting the end product (CBS Studios has to be involved in some capacity since it's their IP, but it doesn't seem like they're running the show, at least from that wording.). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  The original objection called CBS Studios a "distributor," yet the only entity identified as such specifically is Paramount Global Content Distribution as correctly stated in the article. They can certainly have a different production capacity role than Endemol Shine, with the latter more focused on the day-to-day on the ground and the former more about funding, feedback on the original pitch as a commissioner of the series or creative control of the brand, but they can still be an involved production company in some capacity. There are American (Deadline/FutonCritic) and Australian news and government sources above that refer to the company as being involved in a production capacity or as a co-production. The infobox definition just says "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production." And the only references online to "distributed by CBS Studios" is the pre-2019 CBS Studios International, which became Paramount Global Content Distribution. If anything, interpreting "produced for" to mean they are a distributor when they aren't explicitly identified that way anywhere I think would be something like original research. newsjunkie (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying they're a distributor or a production company. They seem to occupy some nebulous third role for this show, at least based on the wording provided directly by the company (as opposed to secondary sources, which won't always use terms consistently). As an analogy: If a plane is manufactured by Airbus for Delta Air Lines, calling Delta the manufacturer would be wrong. Similarly, when the show is produced by Endemol for CBS Studios, that implies the latter is not the production company. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  Aren't secondary sources in most cases normally preferred though in general? Here it was how it was put from another Australian outlet (paywalled, but I was able to access it using a Google search tool) "The plot lines of the Darwin episodes are subject to the strictest secrecy so as not to ruin the fun for viewers but producers Endemol Shine Australia, CBS Studios, Paramount Australia and Screen Territory have dropped a few hints." https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/aussie-version-of-smash-hit-us-series-ncis-sydney-to-film-twopart-special-in-darwin-in-2024/news-story/54c405aae37b95618a28c19cd5b69458 It's the only term that is used in the secondary sources to refer to their role when specified (assuming the term producer can be treated as the same thing in reference to a company). And the infobox definition itself seems pretty loose. The point below about the oversight from the executive in charge of "international coproduction" is also from the company itself. To me it's more like Airbus contracting out the actual building of a particular or smaller plane based on a design from Airbus to another smaller plane manufacturer (if there were such a thing) in an other country. newsjunkie (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  The official bio for "Senior Vice President, International Co-Productions and Development, CBS Studios

  Lindsey Martin" says she "oversees the Studios’ global slate of diverse, premium scripted series, including the first-ever international series to come out of the NCIS franchise, NCIS: SYDNEY." https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-studios/executives/?view=lindsey-martin newsjunkie (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Without changing the country of origin, would there be objection to changing the Production Companies to the cited exact same wording as used in all the official press releases including from Endemol and many news articles: "Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia." (Like this Sandbox version: User:Newsjunkie/sandbox/infobox, where I also added Australia as a production location.)

CBS Studios and Paramount Australia are indisputably in the opening credits of the series, and CBS Studios is currently not included in the article at all.

Also wanted to note: This show is still currently included in the Category:Television series by CBS Studios like all the other NCIS shows.

VAHire, an Australian film equipment company that has worked on the series and includes very specific details on production crew and what kinds of cameras the series has been filmed on, lists as production companies: "CBS Studios, Endemol Shine Australia, Network Ten, Paramount Australia Productions." https://www.vahire.com/ncis-sydney-s3-2

The Endemol Shine press release explicitly quotes "Head of International Co-Productions and Development at CBS Studios, Lindsay Martin."

newsjunkie (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This was already discussed ad nauseum in the section above. The last post was less than a day ago. The consensus there, unanimous except for you, was "refer only to Endemol as the production company." Asking the same question over and over, and refusing to accept the answer, is textbook tenditious editing. If you feel that strongly about which production companies are listed, I suggest you try again in not less than six months. (Consensus is unlikely to change until at least that much time has passed.) An article can be the M:WRONGVERSION for a while; the world won't end because someone is wrong on the internet. EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This was a different proposal using the original exact language from the source that I'm not questioning, plus an additional new source, rather than listing them all equally as was the original state, which I don't have a particular preference for and and trying to set aside the sensitive country issue for now. Most of the above discussion was actually about display of the ratings/airdates that has been addressed and I agreed to and not this specific point at all. The main counter-argument on this very specific point was to criticize one source for being American and some very limited discussion further down about whether primary or secondary sources are more accurate. So instead of trying to self-interpret/or tend towards original research probably on both sides about what the language actually means and/or how other sources interpret it, one option would seem to be to just adopt the primary source language the same way a lot of the news articles do. (with a citation), and leave any interpretation up to the reader and other/future editors. newsjunkie (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This proposal is not meaningfully different from the above one, despite your claims. You continue to cherry pick sources with your preferred wording. How many people do you require to disagree with you in order to accept that consensus is against your idea? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to use the exact same full wording as is being cited in opposition, just the full sentence, not part of it from the same original primary source all on its own as in the sandbox. (Currently with no citation.) The same way all the news organizations do. I'm not disputing that language at all and not cherrypicking at all. The issue is the interpretation of that wording which I think is leading to differing self-interpretation by everyone. The second new (primary) source is extra and optional for context, but I don't see it as contradicting the first source at all. newsjunkie (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hard to believe you're still expending time and energy on this. As suggested above, time to give it a rest for at least six months. I've removed the tag from the infobox, since it's clear that it's unlikely you'll gain consensus for any changes in the near future. Barry Wom (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that against WP:WNTRMT that such tags shouldn't be moved while a discussion is active, whether that takes six days or six months? newsjunkie (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not; there is consensus, and it is that Endemol is the producer. Just because you disagree doesn't mean the matter isn't settled. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. There is clear disagreement with this, which is why you're already partial-banned from CBS-related topics, and why nobody will participate with the third opinions, the wall of text, and the cherry picked sources. This is now becoming disruptive. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think any of the sources cited by anyone in this discussion would be eligible for citation on their own, including the primary source cited by Happily888 in the first response. Deadline Hollywood is seen as a reliable source for everything else move/TV related. None of the American and Australian sources provided have been called unreliable, usergenerated, fringe or questionable/self-published or else they are associated with the production/the corporation in the exact same way the source cited in the first counterargument is, which I completely accept as a reliable source.

The original dispute on the *one* CBS page in substance was not a disagreement over any factual information or reliable sources, but rather how to display existing information. newsjunkie (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, WP:DROPTHESTICK doesn't mean WP:KEEPARGUING the same points. Also FYI, pings don't work unless you sign them in the same edit you make the ping. Courtesy ping of @Happily888 now. (Or if the intent was not to ping, then doing so because they were mentioned.) We've already heard from three editors, and four editors with the same opinion, at variance with newsjunkie, would be a firm consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a clear WP:CONSENSUS here. Remember: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity"; I apologize you are not part of that unanimity, but your proposals, sources and suggestions have been constantly disagreed with. WP:DEADHORSE continues to apply, and continuation may move towards a further WP:TBAN. Be careful. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that discussion got heated previously in connection with the discussions around this article, but I happened to see an article today about international series, co-productions and U.S. Primetime Emmy Award eligibility that I think is relevant context to this article. NCIS Sydney was already submitted for both its seasons and on the U.S. Emmy nominations ballot for Outstanding Drama Series in 2024 and 2025.

The Variety article this week notes that Canadian series Heated Rivalry won't be eligible for the U.S. Emmys in either its current or future season because it is fully funded by the Canadian production company and HBO is only acting as a distributor based on the Emmy rules that "foreign television production is ineligible unless it is the result of a co-production (both financially and creatively) between U.S. and foreign partners, which precedes the start of production, and with a purpose to be shown on U.S. television."

@RunningTiger123 I know you have edited a lot of Emmy related articles. Would you say this supports the statement that this program is a co-production? Some additional background on this issue in an article from 2019 as it relates to Schitt's Creek and from 2021 as it relates to Squid Game.

(for clarification, a lot of eligible shows get submitted on the ballots as a formality even when there is very little chance they will actually win.) newsjunkie (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither article mentions NCIS. Attempting to infer co-production status from this would be WP:SYNTH. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree it would be synthesis to try to interpret the rules. Note how the rules also say a foreign series must have "a purpose to be shown on U.S. television" (a quote directly from the rules); the series was originally commissioned specifically for Australia (source) and yet it's listed as eligible, which would seem to contradict the rule, so trying to infer things based on what the rules say isn't worth it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There are secondary news articles confirming that the series was one of the many "Officially submitted and on the Emmy nominations ballot" (not just "listed as eligible"), that fact is not synthesis. If there are no articles questioning its inclusion for two years in a row, isn't it synth for us to question its inclusion and how they interpret or enforce their own rules, rather than accepting it as an authoritative source? A separate article only listed 6 notable times that a nomination was rescinded for various reasons, and notes that "Sometimes things fall through the cracks, but they're usually rectified before nominations are announced." This show has never been a prominent contender but the example of Heated Rivalry shows that even with shows that could be a contender and would benefit them, prominent studios/platforms don't seem to be trying to sneak them in somehow when there could be serious doubts. newsjunkie (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that it's not listed is not synthesis. But concluding something about co-production from that is. isn't it synth for us to question its inclusion We're not questioning its inclusions. We're taking no stance at all about it. Please read WP:SYNTH again. It's very clear. Unless a source says, "We know NCIS Sydney is co-produced by CBS (or whoever) because it was submitted for an Emmy", we can't make that conclusion either. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Per my point below, filing paperwork to officially list it on the ballot doesn't inherently mean its eligibility has been checked. The fact that there have been multiple nominations revoked within the last decade is, in my opinion, just further proof; if they're not checking 5-8 nominees carefully, why should we be confident they are checking 100+ entries? But regardless, what you're suggesting is still synthesis. The ballot is indeed an authoritative source, but only for confirming which shows were listed on the ballot; it conveys zero information about which companies produce the show. (In other words, using just the ballot and no other outside info, can you tell me which production companies made the show? No, because the ballot doesn't mention that.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't list specific companies for any show U.S. or foreign. But if one takes their word that anything listed does conform to the stated rules governing those ballots, then any foreign show listed there would be seen under their understanding at least as "the result of a co-production (both financially and creatively) between U.S. and foreign partners." I think the examples show they take clarifying eligibility very seriously and it's actually a low percentage given all the awards that have been given out. (and all the relevant companies are already listed in the credits (primary source?) without specifying their role) newsjunkie (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Technically yes, you could be right, but as myself and EducatedRedneck have pointed out, it's synthesis. It isn't enough to be right; it has to be verifiable (WP:VNT). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

To simplify, per WP:V, A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (emphasis added). If it's not explicitly present in the source, then it's not verifiable. Period. End of story. ButlerBlog (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, while I can't prove it, it wouldn't shock me if the TV Academy only checks series eligibility for the nominees instead of every submission. For instance, the rules state that producer eligibility is only checked at that point, so in theory you could submit ineligible producers and it wouldn't be caught if the show wasn't nominated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

That's likely clarifying credited *individuals*, not program eligibility. newsjunkie (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)