Talk:Taxi (TV series)/archive-001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Episode list per DVD covers

Images removed due to violations of fair-use/copyright provisions. --Cheeser1 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list --- the final word & proof

There was some discussion in the (now-incorrect) next section below about the episode order vs. airdate order. The gist of the argument by one user was that sometimes, a network will run episodes out of their original intended order, i.e., the way the producers wanted the episodes to run. It is true that this happens sometimes (proof provided below) and it sometimes causes breaks in continuity; imagine if in one episode, a character is holding her new baby in her arms, and in the next episode, she's still pregnant with the baby. This is extreme and would surely be non-existent; continuity lapses are typically very small as the above example would be too obvious to the viewer. It was mentioned that the now-defunct (but excellent) TV series "Keen Eddie" was run mostly out of producton order due to the quantity in Eddie's matchbook collection changing drastically at the end of the episode when Eddie would post them on his bulletin board.

However, mainly because I wanted to own the DVD series and partly to settle the claims, I purchase the entire 1st 3 seasons of "Taxi" in a box set to verify this for myself and to enjoy some classic TV, one of my favorite shows of all-time. Guess what I found out . . .

Contrary to previous claims by user Wack'd, the episode number and the airdate number are the exact same on the DVD cover; no juggling by the network, at least in Season 1, which was the only season in question and is currently the only season posted anyway. I scanned & uploaded the DVD covers inside [1] & out [2] to show the order on the DVD and the airdates are the same. Wack'd claimed that the DVD is the official source and that we should believe it over IMDB, which I agree, but the point is moot as they are listed the same, though his claim was that they were different. I don't know where Wack'd got the info that they were different as obviously, this claim is false.

This just goes to prove what I've always said about sources --- it's important to have a handy source to cite so everybody can check it with ease to keep WP honest and correct. Non-Web citations are prone to lapses in verification by others and tend to pass along incorrect information. I'm not saying they shouldn't be used and aren't reliable; I'm saying they are more faulty that readily-available sources are official/reliable.--Bamadude 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It could also be mentioned that the "production order" could be a 3rd order (which in itself means nothing) as sometimes episodes (and most film segments) are filmed out of their intended order for ease in filming/production. In other words, if Episodes 1 & 5 had the characters at the same location which was outside the studio, they would surely shoot those scenes at the same time and probably film the episodes at the same time also, so the production order of the shows would be different, but they would be aired (or intended to be aired) in their proper order later. I'm not an expert on this as I'm not involved with TV/film production, except that it really has nothing to do with the argument, so please don't extend this part of the discussion as it doesn't relate to the article itself; I just mentioned it for clarity.--Bamadude 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of my arguement was NOT the difference between airdate and episode # order - it, actually, was much more simple than that. I was simply stating that the episodes were in order of airdate on the DVD box (the episodes were actually listed WITH the airdates), and that the DVDs (being an offical source) would be more reliable when building the episode list than an unoffical source like IMDb (the users actually admit to the frequent flaws in their information). It had nothing whatsoever to do with the difference between airdate order and episode # order (in this case, actually, there is no difference between the two, and whoever added the airdates obviously used an incorrect source.) Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You have now lied at least 4 times and these links below prove it:
  • LIE #1 - Look at this comparison on the page history: [3]. You not only changed the correct order of the episode list that I fixed earlier (my correct edit on the left side), you also changed the airdates, purposely editing the episode list and the airdates incorrectly as shown in your bold red edits (your incorrect edits on the right side).
  • LIE #2 - Your source was quoted as "the back of the DVD cover" in the reason for your reverting back to your incorrect edit on the history page on 15 SEP 2007 at 16:11 --- scan down to that date/time on that page, edit id #158126113. That statement would mean that you either owned the DVD cover or had actually seen it, but if you really had, you would have known you were wrong, which is Lie #1. The page history doesn't lie as it's in your own words --- it clearly shows that you lied then about seeing the DVD cover and are lying now to cover it up, which is your statement above --- Lie #2.
  • LIE #3 - This edit made on 30 AUG 2007 at 16:19 shows that you initially created the episode list, and did so incorrectly at that and the history page from then until now shows you defended it up until today.
  • LIE #4 - Don't need a link here as logic proves you wrong --- the airdates were added by another user and they were correct --- it was your episode list that was incorrect, being out-of-order. The adding of the airdates by that user was what drew attention to this whole thing.
Didn't the Martha Stewart case teach you anything? If you make a mistake, don't cover it up by lying and then don't cover up old lies with new ones --- oh what a tangled web we weave. There's also no middle "e" in argument.--Bamadude 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have one correction to my argument that I just discovered was incorrect, but it's a minor one at this point. I had just intended to add the IMDB episode list as a 2nd source, as I initially used the IMDB list as my source for my 1st edit of the episode list, but I just found out that it's incorrect also. However, I was not aware that it was because I didn't own the DVD at that time and I did defer to Wack'd and his alleged proper sourcing of the DVD cover at that time as being a more-official source per my previous remarks below. But I bought the DVD myself yesterday and I verified the proper order from the DVD and posted it in the article along with scans of the DVD covers as visual proof as the source, so I stand corrected only in that respect and had no knowledge the IMDB list was incorrect until just now, but it doesn't affect my argument as the IMDB list doesn't matter anyway --- the DVD is the official source as we have both agreed upon earlier.--Bamadude 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I just went to IMDB and submitted changes to their episode list to match it with the DVD. It may take until appx 2 OCT 2007 for the changes to appear.--Bamadude 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list for season #1 (previous moot arguments)

This entire section below has been proven incorrect and is moot --- see the newer section above regarding this.--Bamadude 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the DVD & the IMDB list differ from each other, but look at the airdates on the DVD list and you'll see that they are listed out-of-order from their original airdates --- it even says so on the DVD listings. Even without that fact, the IMDB is a more-reliable source than a DVD listing as DVD sets are notorious for listing shows out of chronological order.--Bamadude 21:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You may need glasses - the DVD listing says that the episodes are listed in airdate order. Also, IMDB is not a very reliable source - for one thing, the episode listings are a new addition, and I've seen IMDB pages that say that title characters of TV shows only appear in three episodes. What may have thrown you off was that the episodes were listed in columns, not rows. Also, I've never seen one DVD collection of any TV show list the episodes out of order (unless it was for a continuity reason). I will have to revert your edits again. Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I think that the information printed on the back of an offical DVD packaging is more likely to be correct than an unoffical website nutorious for being wrong. Even the users admit that mistakes are made.(Above statement appended by --Wack'd on or about 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
Need glasses?? Damn, you're psychic --- I was actually born legally blind in one eye, but the other eye works very well, thank you; it's called amblyopia. Glasses wouldn't work on me now anyway as it's pretty well permanent if not corrected during your very early years. I couldn't stand to wear those glasses with the block on the good eye as I couldn't see anything, so I now "lie in the bed I make" to quote the Brother Cane song, but I digress . . .
Of course, my eyesight isn't the problem here as what I see in my good eye looks fine; it just doesn't make any sense as I believe you've made some errors in your argument (or in the conveying of your argument), but I actually think I understand what you meant and I pretty much agree with it. I'm not going to revert anymore unless I get more facts to the contrary and discuss this further, but I want to make sure I perfectly understand your current argument as you seem to be more knowledgable about TV shows than I am and that seems to be your editing forte; I'm just finding what I believe are errors in the wording of your argument that need to be cleared up.
Look at a partial view of the episode/airdate list below as copied from the article in the order as YOU listed them:
# Episode Title Airdate/Summary
01 Like Father, Like Daughter

September 12, 1978

John finds that the money case on the pay-phone is missing the door; thus, any call can be made using only one quarter. Alex uses his free call to get the location of his daughter (whom he has been out of touch with for fifteen years) from his ex-wife, only to find that she is taking a flight out of Miami to study in Portugal. Alex and his friends then take a company cab to meet Alex's daughter's flight so he can spend time with her before she leaves.
02 Blind Date

September 26, 1978

Alex, after having a conversation with the operator on Bobby's answering service, decides to ask her out; only to find that she is overweight and self-conscious to the point that she is continually expecting Alex to dump her. Meanwhile, Latka finds $2,000 in the back of one of the taxis and is pressured by Louie to hand it over.
03 The Great Line

October 17, 1978

John uses a pick-up line ("Let's skip the preliminaries...you want to get married?") to ask out a girl named Suzanne Caruthers (Ellen Regan), only to find it works all too well when he finds himself a married man only one hour later.
04 Come As You Aren't

October 10, 1978

Elaine is throwing a party at her apartment for the art dealers she works with, and invited Alex. Fearing that admitting to being a taxi driver might make it seem like she has no class, she tells Alex to lie about his occupation so that no one will ask how they know each other.
05 One-Punch Banta

September 19, 1978

Tony wins a match against champion Carlos Navarone (played by real-life world champion Carlos Palomino) with one punch, and in result gets pit up against a ranked contender at Madison Square Garden. Tony is confident that he can win the match, but finds out minutes before that Carlos let him win.
Point #1 --- You said:". . . the DVD listing says that the episodes are listed in airdate order" (my emphasis), but I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion as the table above that you edited lists them in the producers episode order, correct? I'm talking about the number to the far left: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, etc. Episode #5 (in alleged "episode order" as listed above; I don't have the DVD here to check it) was aired on 19 SEP 2007, and since the earliest episode on the list was 12 SEP 2007, that would mean it's #2 in "airdate order". The numbered list sure as heck isn't in airdate order, so what order are they if not in episode order? I think you meant to say that "the DVD lists them in EPISODE order, and that's the order we should go by for continuity purposes", correct? If so, I agree.
Point #3 (joke, it's #2) --- This has nothing to do with the point, just the debate itself --- you said "IMDB is not a very reliable source . . . I think that the information printed on the back of an offical (sic) DVD packaging is more likely to be correct than an unoffical (sic) website nutorious (sic) for being wrong. Even the (IMDB) users admit that mistakes are made." I don't mean to point out your misspellings with the "sic" tag as I hunt-and-peck fast also and sometimes make "tpyos" myself (I typoed "episode" as "eposide" about 10 times in my rough draft due to my typing method), but I placed (sic) behind yours to show that I cut and pasted it and didn't make the typos myself. Anyway, the IMDB contains factual errors just like we find all over the web and especially here on Wikipedia, the repository of many things legendary. Wikipedia editors (and a few administrators) are notorious for implementing the old line from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" --- "When the legend become fact, print the legend", i.e., if everyone believes something is true, let's call that the truth from now on, which is lazy and intellectually dishonest. This really has nothing to do with the argument itself, but we're editing here on a website that is highly-regarded as the motherlode of urban legends and POV remarks, so my point is --- don't throw stones at IMDB; the person who added that episode list apparently has it listed in "airdate order", not "episode order", obviously not realizing that they are different (according to your DVD box) and that episodic order is more important, as I didn't realize myself earlier, and lastly, Wikipedia has plenty of its own errors.
Point #5 (now I'm airing out of order, it's #3) --- You said "What may have thrown you off was that the episodes were listed in columns, not rows." This is another "red herring" (a political/debate tactic used to throw a person off from the point of the discussion) that has nothing to do with the article, but I bring it up because it's just a belittling remark that isn't factual anyway. Putting the data in rows instead of columns doesn't change anything as I'm not the one confused here. Episode #5 still aired #2 in airdate order, correct?
Point #4 (back on track) --- You said "I've never seen one DVD collection of any TV show list the episodes out of order (unless it was for a continuity reason)" (my emphasis added). I would think you meant that you've never seen a DVD collection list episodes out of EPISODIC order because of continuity, not unless it was for continuity, like I'll describe below with the sadly-defunct TV show "Keen Eddie" --- is that what you really meant? After all, the reason you have EPISODIC order in the first place is to establish continuity, and to go outside that order can destabilize the continuity, so you wouldn't go outside of episodic order because of continuity.--Bamadude 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I pretty much agree with these points that I believe you're making:
1) The "airdate order" and the "episode order" are two entirely different things. --- I agree, and I had originally assumed they were one in the same, which is why my initial remark in this string apparently made no sense to you.
2) The "episode order" is the one to use as it's the one the producers/creators made and keeps things flowing in chronological order. --- I agree also.
3) The network allegedly didn't follow the Taxi producers' episode order (if the DVD should be believed as being in true episodic order), instead shuffling them around to suit them (putting their own preferred episodes up-front) and ran the episodes in their own order, which is the "airdate order" --- I have to trust you on this that the DVD order is correct as I don't have a copy of it, and if your list matches the DVD, it's in conflict with the airdates, but it should be trusted as the best source unless there is a better source that contradicts it, so again, I agree.
4) The episode order as listed on IMDB is incorrect because they're listing it by "airdate order" instead of the producers' preferred "episode order", which is how everyone should list TV episodes. --- I agree with the point and I have to trust the airdates and episodes are different based on your statements as I don't have the DVD.
Is that your claim in a large nutshell? If so, I pretty much agree with you; apparently there was just some misunderstanding and miscommunication that needed to be worked out. It should be noted that listing episodes by airdate order usually makes the episodes appear out-of-order to the viewer depending on the level of continuity between episodes, and one instance where I've heard this happened is with "Keen Eddie", where Eddie would add a matchbook to his bulletin board at the end of each episode, but the number of matchbooks at the end of the show would change dramatically, e.g., 7 to 2 to 5 to 9 to 3 each week as the episodes were aired drastically out of episodic order, like taking a CD and putting the tracks you think are the best upfront regardless of how the artist wanted them to run. However, it must be pointed out that running a show out of chronological order doesn't make a hill of beans difference if they don't rely on past episodes for future material, but that's probably somewhat rare.--Bamadude 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This entire section above has been proven incorrect and is moot --- see the newer section above this section regarding this.--Bamadude 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possesive vs. pronoun + verb

Please, make sure all those native speakers of English (not me) understand the difference between "it's" and "its". It is a rather annoying ignorance. Danielantonio@ozu.es

[edit] DVD

i know this really isn't the perfect place to ask, but any word on any of the other seasons being released on dvd? on that same note, maybe someone should add a section (or sentence, whatever) about the existing DVD releases (maybe include describing their lack of bonus and special features...). just a thought 209.120.230.238 00:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writers

This series had some of the best scripts. Who did the writing on this series? I think that would be a good addition to this article.

[edit] Mainspace directions to editors

As a rule, we don't put directions to editors in the mainspace. There are lots of spaces in lots of articles where someone may be especially inclined to add incorrect information. We don't put information instructing them not to do that into the article. The audience for our articles is the general public, and people who are not interested in editing Wikipedia have no use for that kind of message. Croctotheface 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that, except that you just edited a mainspace directive in an article to go to the point you wanted it to go, so I assume you just learned and started promulgating this initiative within the last 5 minutes??--Bamadude 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
First, please don't leave the same comment here and on my talk page. Second, despite what you have said, I have no interest at all in pointing a link anywhere or in the order of episodes on that list. As I said in my edit summary, "I had mistakenly thought that this [the directions] was already commented out." I saw that there was some sort of punctuation and assumed that it was comment text. Second, you left a 3RR template on my page--I actually only reverted once, in part. My other edit was a novel approach to the message that had not existed before. It was not a reversion in whole or in part. Croctotheface 03:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that you and Clarityfiend (which is an ironic moniker for that user, BTW) tag-teamed up on me to keep your mutual edits in place, so if you revert me twice and they revert me twice, I have to revert more than 3 times to overcome it, which obviously isn't fair play, but apparently that's no problem for you two to play that game as you apparently feel that bending the rules is OK and keeping the spirit of fair play alive isn't. I had only reverted to the version you created. Since the edits you two were making were only edits regarding WP:MOS, I relented as the content was essentially 100% mine anyway. The fact is that the edits by you two were only made to "tweak my nose" so to speak and very childish because I had apparently called a friend of yours (Wack'd) onto the carpet for his repeated incorrect edits and lies. Then incorrectly reporting me to administrators (to no avail) because you aren't happy that your improper tactics aren't working instead of discussing the issues is utterly ridiculous. I have no problem with admitting that I had unknowingly fractured WP:MOS at least once and I relented in the edit war as a result, but I'll bet you two won't accept any complicity in your own egregious actions.--Bamadude 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think everyone is out to get you, but we're not. You wanted a comment to editors in the article. That's not how we do things. You don't even want it anymore. I don't see what the problem is. Also, PLEASE stop leaving the same message on my talk page and the article talk page. It's either a personal message for me or a message for everyone who might want to edit this article, not both. Croctotheface 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about the REAL truth here for a change as you 3, in my opinion, use either lies, obfuscated truthes & the bending the rules or a combination thereof to accommodate the means to your ends, not to mention being unable to accept any blame for your actions.

The latest issue has nothing to do the episode order, which was set and agreed upon as of my last visit to the page yesterday; the problem is the way you and your friends handled it and are still doing so. I called your friend Wack'd on the carpet for his blantant screwups and coverups which he failed to admit and apologize for, and I believe he enlisted (or encouraged) your & your other friend Clarityfiend (I will assume these are all separate entities and not sockpuppets) to "tweak my nose" by using WP:MOS to revert minor edits I made and it's obvious one of both of you further reported the incidents to Wack'd as he responds to messages I've left for you two that have nothing to do with him.

Your small cabal circumvents the rules by ganging-up to revert my edits instead of discussing the issues, so if you revert twice and your friends revert twice, I have to revert more than 3 times to overcome it, which is highly unfair. A "consensus" is not a gang of people who attack a user just to antagonize the situation. In my opinion, you 3 lack a desire to do the right thing and act fairly and honest in your edits, your dealings with other users, and your use of the site which is very childish. On eof your friends tried to report me to an administrator and asked me to be blocked simply because I didn't agree with your edits.

The original user who started this edit war (Wack'd) has still not admitted that he made a number of errors & lies in his edits and statements. I have admitted that I unknowingly made edits which were contrary only to WP:MOS in style/format and didn't contest your edits or try to hide my complicity when I discovered that I was wrong on these minor counts, but instead of discussing the issues, you start using the "letter of the law" and trickery to push your edits forward. You 3 should take a cue from my own statement admitting my error and admit your own faults and use the site fairly without trickery and unfair tactics; it's wrong, very childish and you owe the users of this article an apology for your disrepect of it & an admission of guilt in your obvious complicity to circumvent the rules. I actually expect nothing personally and I'm not asking for it, but you owe it to the discussion users.--Bamadude 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fruitless responding to somebody who's convinced there's a conspiracy against him. I'm done wasting my time. (See you at the next WP:CABAL meeting, Croctotheface.) Clarityfiend 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I also have no interest in arguing. If you think something unfair is going on, there are plenty of methods for dispute resolution or mediation. I don't even see a change you want to make to the article. If the article is the way you want it, I don't understand why you would choose to spend time making these kinds of charges. Croctotheface 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you 3 don't think this is a big deal, then drop it --- I'm only responding to your threats and pointing out your lies and contradictions. The article is fine and this is only a case of childish name-calling you have dragged me into, but everytime you send me a message concerning it, I will respond; I can be a last-word freak also.

But as long as I have your attention, why do you keep responding if you not upset or have a guilty conscience? I'm not going to complain to anyone at WP that I claim to have evidence that you 3 are working together to revert my edits in this article for no real reason other than contempt, or that I claim to have evidence where this has happended before. I'm just complaining to you 3 that you have no class or responsibility for your actions. WP:MOS errors are everywhere and I've already admitted that I engaged in at least one error inadvertently, which is more forthcoming then any of you have been over your own errors & indiscretions. Clarityfiend (ironic handle, BTW) went out of its way to find small edits to revert strictly out of spite and constantly threatens me (3 pathetic threats so far) with some sort of administrative action like this user is in charge of the Wikipedia police force to put down those who disagree with the user --- you think this is normal behavior? The fact that one of you will respond to a message sent to another is proof enough of a consipracy, and now that you all 3 have responded inside a few minutes only makes it obvious that have something to hide. If you weren't worried about your own actions, you wouldn't keep responding defensively about this issue; you'd just not respond period, so the more you run your mouths, the more guilty you look.

Clarityfiend, the ONLY complaint you have is you don't like my reverting your edits. So what? I don't respect you either with your phony pious attitude and threats. You're only upset that your buddy Wack'd had incorrect info in the article, you didn't catch it after 9 months of editing, but I did and had to defend it against his reverts back to his incorrect info for so long that I had to buy the DVD 9which I'm enjoying, BTW) to prove him wrong and post a rebuttal to his incorrect edits & his smart-ass attitude everytime he reverted and I revealed his error & lies, so you attack my reverts over totally B.S. reasons simply because you don't like my methods, but I whipped your buddy in a debate and proved him wrong and a liar regardless. If that's your case, you need to work on the case as it's mostly damning on your own actions.--Bamadude 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clarityfiend

There is an issue at hand behind-the-scenes regarding this article directly and I want to bring it out in the open so that everyone has the opportunity to comment and knows the entire truth as it affects the future direction of the article and many other articles and users in general. In my opinion, it's basically a personal revenge attack against me by another longtime user who is mad that I have challenged their edits in this article in the past, but I'll let you be the judge of that.

It is my contention that User:Clarityfiend has been relentlessly controlling this article, finding any way possible to revert my contributions regardless of consensus or whether they are proper or not with little or no debate, but when I speak up against it, Clarityfiend manipulates the WP rules by twisting and using them against me in a prosecutorial manner like a WikiLawyer, at times fraudulently and recklessly in order to gain an upper hand on an edit war by putting me down through improper manipulation of the WP policy instead of discussing and debating in a proper public forum, i.e., this page. I have plenty of documented instances of this which you will find below.

  • For instance, on one of the initial occasions that I edited this article, I was submitted by CF as candidate for blocking because I disagreed (see here), and then it was retracted when CF realized and admitted that it was incorrect to do that to me.
  • I believe in the public's right to know and that all users should have a word in discussions related to an article, as articles are not owned by CF nor myself --- the debate should be held here for all to see. However, realizing that there was nothing left to do when the last debate over this article was lost by CF (see 2 sections above), CF waited for my next edit and attacked it, not by reverting and discussing the issue here in public, but by submitting me to Mediation. When I said I wouldn't play along with this new tactic, CF then reached into its bag of legal tricks and submitted me to Wikiquette for remarks I made in an old closed discussion because CF had apparently run out of viable "legal" solutions. I then "filed a countersuit" with plenty of examples of CF's egregious behavior, some of which have been admitted by CF. For more on the story, go to this link to read all the details and judge for yourself.

In order to resolve the latest dispute, I once again agreed to relent and remove the DVD cover images from the article, but left the links to them in as they are necessary per WP:V, which means essentially that I once again let CF win to settle the issue. But if this can happen to someone who is an experienced editor and knows a decent amount of the WP policy like myself, it can happen to those who have little experience and fortitude to fight back when they are victimized by biting, and Wikipedia then becomes a fiefdom owned by dictatorial editors using Wikilawyering tactics with nothing but their POV getting through.--Bamadude 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that other editors do not respond to this. This article's talk page is not the place to mount a complaint against another user. --Cheeser1 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important to know where the article is going and what impact a user's actions have upon it for the good of the public's right to know, as censorship of comments about an article or the contributors thereof is unjust.--Bamadude 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)