Talk:Airwolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Cold war

I wouldn't say the Cold War was “emerging” in 1984…
Auto-jack 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A good point. I just reworded the sentence. --BorgQueen 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Cold war was already ended by 1984...

[edit] Merchandize information on wikipedia

You don't see a list of star wars toys on the Star Wars page do you… (Bjorn Tipling 05:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Including information about tie-in merchandise is in context since it provides insight into the show's impact on popular culture, and yes, I've seen information about commercial tie-ins on several film/TV pages. It's not about getting people to buy items, it's about providing information. The original author hardly has a PayPal account attached to the section. Unless you can provide a better reason for its exclusion, I'm reverting your edit. Ben King 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the Star Wars articles on Wikipedia, you'll find that Star Wars merchandise has its own category. Ben King 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Let's throw this one open for discussion. Do people feel that information about commercial exploitation of a TV brand (e.g. Airwolf) is a legitimate topic for inclusion in an article on that brand on Wikipedia? Rather than arbitrarily deleting someone else's work, I feel that it is perhaps best to establish some consensus on this issue. Over to you, folks. Ben King 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-profit organization with a mission to be a database of human knowledge. It wasn't established as a commercial endeavor to sell things. Information on a particular subject is not ment to promote sales of it and commercial links are therefore inappropriate. However, simply listing things that were sold to promote Airwolf I see nothing wrong with, as long as links aren't provided in order to buy them from somewhere. Maybe instead of listing the exact things that were sold, you could just say, a CD soundtrack, as well as a few models and toys were produced for merchandise, and provide a link to a collector's website to see what thinsg were available for collector purposes. Cyberia23 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A simple list of show related items that are—or have been—sold is not contrary to the ideas behind wikipedia. Such information, is about the show, and as such is encyclopedic. Reasons Star Wars does not have a comprehensive list, are most likely due to both the size of such a list and its easy availability in many places else ware on the internet. In the case of Airwolf, neither of those is true It took me quite a bit of time to find the model details back when I was trying to complete my collection. In addition, this show was—at least in large part—about the helicopter, and I think that details of each model that has been available will be of interest to future readers. I know that I would have loved to have had said information a year ago. —MJBurrage 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube link that was on this page was not a copyright violation, but it was an ad for a product, which can already be found in the external links section. —MJBurrage • TALK • 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Advertisements are copyrighted too. *shrug* Either way, my only goal here is to get editors to make sure the links are ok.---J.S (t|c) 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
True, but in this case the ad was put on you tube by the person selling the procudt in question. So no copyright problem. I was under the impression that advertisments on wikipedia were against policy, but I could not find such a policy just now. —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's it all gone?

What on earth has happened to the rest of this once great entry? It used to have an extensive trivia section, and the cast list isn't even complete any more. What a shame!

I've reverted to previous edit. Surely it can't be intentional that so much was deleted?!

[edit] Mergers

This is the creator of the page for Michael Coldsmith Briggs III writing this in response to requests to have the aforementioned article merged into the Airwolf article. I will merge this article ONLY if the Stringfellow Hawke and Dominic Santini articles are merged as well.

Sorry, but no one OWNS wiki articles. You can oppose the move, and even give conditions in which might support it, but you can not prevent it unilaterally if there is a consensus for merging it. Feel free to participate in the discussion, and give your reasons for or agianst it. - BillCJ 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Correct, nobody OWNS Wiki articles. I can understand how one may be somewhat protective of ones that they have created (I am), but this sort of a reaction is really out in left-field. Make your case for or against the move, but don't try to threaten or negotiate!
2. I don't see where the discussion for the Archangel merge even is located...that's a problem. I would have posted there, but I was directed here from the ARchangel page.
3. OPPOSE MERGE. The primary characters from this show should have their own articles. Just because the ARchangel page is sparse (as in, almost non-existent) doesn't in itself mean it shouldn't be there, just that it has not been written sufficiently yet. Give it time (or better yet, help it!).
VigilancePrime 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!!!)
The Stringfellow Hawke and Dominic Santini articles, at the very least, are both too long and extensive to be merged into the main Airwolf article. Any description of the characters in the main article should probably be limited to short (i.e. single paragraph) blurbs, while the individual character articles get the more extensive treatment. Buried Alien

Now that I think about it, I realize that I was wrong to call it my article. The MCB article is the first one that I have ever written, so I was a little overprotective of it. Sorry for that. Just to let you know, I will expand the MCB article further when I have free time. Again, I am a newbie and am sorry for the out-in-left-field demands. The simple reason that that is the first article that I have written should be irrevelant to preventing it from being merged into Airwolf. As soon as I am finished working on it, I will merge it (if it is not too long.)

--Crazeedriver2005 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Like I said earlier, I understand how it can be to have a pet article (I have more than one) and be defensive about it; there's nothing wrong with that. I still agree that the article should NOT be merged. As always (okay, usually) I Assume Good Faith and don't fault you at all for your reaction. WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA! Best of luck as you continue to expand the article (I know it can be a long, arduous process)! VigilancePrime 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Articles

I desperately (well, not desperately, but you know what I mean!) need help expanding my Michael Coldsmith Briggs III article. Any help, advice, or info you have would be extremely helpful. Just put them on Talk:Michael Coldsmith Briggs III page or User_Talk:Crazeedriver2005. Thanks guys!

--Crazeedriver2005 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about doing an article on Airwolf herself. What do you guys think?

--Crazeedriver2005 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea! Be sure to do some reserach of Television project guidelines to see what the best name for the article would be, and to see if this article might need to be renamed instead, to Airwolf (TV series). Just keep in mind that the page has to reflect that Airwolf was fictional, as were her capabilities, though a real Bell 222 was used in filming. We can't write the article as if it were real, even tho that would be fun to do! We can list the capabilities it had for the show though, but we need to keep speculation on its abilities out of the article. Just remeber that Airwolf is a "character", while the Bell 222 used for the role is an "actor". - BillCJ 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that others may questions the subject's notability. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) for more information on this. I would argue that as the star character of the show, Airwolf itself is notable, but others may disagree. Just be aware of this, and don't be offended if we are forced to merge the material back into this article. - BillCJ 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This would be just as appropriate as the articles on KITT and KARR. One could even argue that the helicopter is more notable than the human characters from the show.
As noted by BillCJ, one would need to source the details, for example I just noticed that someone has changed the wing gun calibers to a quote from a fan-produced tech manual instead of the calibers shown on screen. (It should be .50 and 30 mm) —MJBurrage • TALK • 01:14, 3 March 2007 (U

I have a couple of questions:

1. How do you rename a page?

2. Would it be alright if I put some of the information on the Airwolf page and this Talk page (armament info, etc) into my proposed article?

3. Do I have to get permission from anyone to use this info?

Crazeedriver2005 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave this page where it is, and place the helicopter information on Airwolf (helicopter). As the info on the article page is already there, we just need to cut-and-paste it to the new article. I'd be careful about using the info on the talk page if it seems too speculative.
I am going to go ahead and set up new the aritlce in the next few days, using the basic format from the Aircraft Project. I have created a number of aircraft (including helicopter) articles, so I think you'll like the overall look. Feel free to add in what you want, and I'll feel free to tweak it. I do want to stress what is part of the actual aircraft, and what is fictional. I think a lot of people aren't clear on that, so this new page can be the place to clear it up. Happy editing! - BillCJ 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Crazee, I've got the new page up at Airwolf (helicopter). Again, feel free to play with it, move things around, see what you like. This is a bare-bones set-up of a regular aircraft page (copied from the Bell 222), with the helicopter info pasted in from the Airwolf page. I asked a fellow editor to set up a comparison chart on the basic Bell 222 and Airwolf. He remebered the show from when he was younger also, and was happy to help out.
If you want to go in a completely different direction with the page, that's fine with me. THis will give you something to work with anyway. Oh, I haven't split the trivia section up on the main article yet; may try to get to it tomorrow. - BillCJ 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs#Plot: This section should be relatively brief, only discussing important plot elements that steered the course of characters lives, or the course of the show, or at least were popular with audiences (ie Seinfeld's Soup Nazi). Remember to add Template:Spoiler before you get into any details of the plot. Careful sentences structure can also suggest to users upcoming spoilers so try and keep bigger plot points towards the ends of paragraphs. - BillCJ 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, rules on Wiki only apply to people who actually try to keep them. I won't add the spoilers in again, because I'd be the one accused of revert warring, while those pushing their view of an issue still under discussion would be allowed to continue removing spoilers without consequences. There's obviously nothing I can do to stop them. I have tried. - BillCJ 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking a stand on the whole spoiler issue here. There is nothing specific enough in the Synopsis section to warrant the spoiler warning. Its general background information. The current guideline implies only using spoiler if specific plot details are given away. For example the Sixth Sense should not have a spoiler around the whole plot of the movie, most of that is given away in any ad for the film "I see dead people", but it is appropriate to warn before giving away the twist.
The only thing in the synopsis that is not background for season 1 is Caitlin, and that's already covered in the cast list. Are we going to spoiler warning those since they "give away" when a character leaves a show? —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. Sorry for over-reacting. The spoiler warning isn't warranted in this case. - BillCJ 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield 1942 Airwolf Game Modification

There is a game modification for Battlefield 1942 entitled "Airwolf" which includes the ability to fly either the standard Airworf, or the red/black Airwolf (one for each team).

The map includes a canyon where Airwolf is located along with realistic sound effects (the howling wolf sound for turbos), actual Airwolf theme music, and even some still shots during map loads etc.

I suspect the mod isn't officially licensed and thus I'm not sure it warrants an entry, but considering it is the most modern of any existing Airwolf games I think it might be worth mentioning. If anyone has additional information on it please consider adding it. Costner 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That's a WWII era game, right? What does that have to do with the Airwolf helicopter based TV show in the 1980s? Other that the name "Airwolf" that is. -Fnlayson 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you not read my post? It is a mod to the BF1942 game, meaning all it shares is the core game engine. The Airwolf chopper, sounds, music etc is all unique to this Airwolf modification, thus making it the most recent videogame to involve Airwolf. If nothing else it is still worthy of a "popular culture" reference. Costner 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I did. You didn't mention anything about it being separate from rest of game. I take modification to be like an add-on. Thanks for clarifying... -Fnlayson 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thunder Blade

Super Thunder Blade
Image:Stbsega.jpg and Image:Stbts.png I remember the arcade chopper looking more like an Apache or Cobra (which look more like each other than either does a Bell 222), but whoever put in the line about the copter in this game looking like Airwolf had to be thinking of Blue Thunder instead. Anynobody 07:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AirwolfS3.jpg

Image:AirwolfS3.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 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F.I.R.M., not Firm

On the few occasions that the name of the series' resident intelligence agency was rendered visually, it was as initials, F.I.R.M., not Firm; consequently, I am so changing it here and in the various related articles. Ted Watson (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the Firm (a play on the term the Company, i.e. the CIA) for the first season or two. Later they decided to change it to "The F.I.R.M." —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that "the F.I.R.M." was a play on "the Company," but that does not mean it was ever visually rendered as anything but initials. If some hand-written note by a character had it "Firm," that hardly counts as official. I have no memory of any on-screen appearance of the name other than the third season initials. (I was on my way back here to elaborate on this when I found that message.) Ted Watson (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major additions reverted

I have reverted all of the major additions by User:91.105.105.10 for several reasone, the primary one being that almost all of it was Original Research. This included a large amount of speculation and conjecture. Some of it may well have been true, but we still have to have reliable sources whereever possible.

In addition, there were a number of style issues, some of which were changed from correct to incorrect styles. These include:

  • Changing spelled-out words to abbreviations or mixed numerals, such as "second season" to "2nd season".
  • Use of ALL-CAPS is episode titles, including changing existing titles from Initial Caps to ALL-CAPS.
  • Overuse of the POV term "fan-favourite", with no sources to confirm such status; also mis-spelled for a US-topic article ("favorite").
  • Various other mis-spellings and caps issues.
  • Very bad grammar in several places.

I could have fixed these style issues, and was actually doing so when I realized how bad the whole addition was. I therefore decided to remove all of it, rather than attempt to fix the style problems and add a whole slew of {{fact}}, {{originalresearch}}, and other tags to the article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airwolf helicopter being violated

This info should go in the section about the helicopter.

Mechaphiliac Edward Smith claims to have had sex with the Airwolf helicopter. He says, "his most intense sexual experience was "making love" to the helicopter from 1980s TV hit Airwolf".

As for it being unverifiable..[1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.94.171 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's verifiable that smith claims this, but it's not verifiable that it ever happened. It's still non-notable and unencyclopedic, as WP is NOT a tabloid. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)