 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
|
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Low-importance). |
|
|
| WikiProject American television To-do: |
|
Here are some tasks you can do:
- Article requests: The Dance Scene, The Pee-wee Herman Show on Broadway, Kitchen Boss
- Years of American television
-
Rate articles from Unassessed American television articles and Unknown-importance American television articles.
- Cleanup: CNN, Nickelodeon, Nicktoons (TV channel), Disney Channel, The Ren & Stimpy Show, Rocko's Modern Life, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, SpongeBob SquarePants, Scooby-Doo, The Flintstones, Star Trek: The Original Series, Nick at Nite
- Copyedit: Cheers
- Expand: The Hub (TV channel)
- Verify: King of the Hill, Three's Company
- Other: Place the {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|USTV=|USTV-importance=}} banner into American television related articles and assess.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 100 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
[edit] Technical errors
The series frequently made erroneous references to weapons systems and their capabilities. Footage often did not match the weapons they were supposed to portray. In some cases, the weapons Airwolf was supposed to carry were larger than the actual helicopter itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.40.252 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The UK Blu-ray release
I hate having to defend a minor edit on the talk page...
Airwolf: The Movie had an extremely low quality UK Blu-ray release, perhaps the worst commercial release (non-bootleg) ever made. The reviewed I cited as a reference is a top hit for searches regarding quality, and so seems like a reasonable inclusion. It's not like I rambled on in a separate paragraph or created a whole new section about this - just a quit bit and a ref.- but if someone is determined to excise the information from the article again... I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you. Happy deleting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.138 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
And poof there it goes... again. If someone would rather the article not mention the existence of a Blu-ray heavily criticized for its transfer, then don't worry - it's gone and I'm certainly not going to bother bringing it back. (Now where did I put that white flag I'd so much like to wave?) But I really wish the deletion weren't defended with talk of reliability of sources - as if any mention from any review site would be judged good enough to justify inclusion. If you think the disc's shoddy transfer (or the fact that it was released in the first place) doesn't warrant a mention, then just say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.88 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP is not a consumer review site - we just report what's been written, and that from reliable sources. If the blu-ray transfer has been "heavily criticized", then there should be no problem citing reliable sources that do that, not just one apparntly obscure movie site. If someone wants to argue that the source that was cited is reliable per WP:RS, they are welcome to do so. From a first glance, it really didn't seem like a professional web publisher, just a collection of posts. If the site has an editorial staff, then it would probably qualify as a reliable source. The statement in the article was that "Airwolf: The Movie has been harshly criticized", but only one source is cited, and it's a reveiw, the equivilant of an editorial or an op-ed. It's just one person's opinion that:
- The Blu-ray presentation is extremely poor and I think it is probably the worst Blu-ray transfer I have seen so far. There has been little or no attempt to restore or upgrade the picture quality and certain scenes are blighted by faded colours and pixilation."
- That's it! Nothing to say that this is a common opinion, or why this reviewer's opinion is of encyclopedic value. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] About Stringfellow Hawke's Brother!
The article says his name is "Saint John Hawke"/"St. John Hawke". However, every time I've heard his name pronounced/mentioned/used, the speaker says, "Sinjin Hawke". I have an episode paused right now, so it isn't like my memory is playing tricks on me here. So how does "Sinjin Hawke" become "Saint John Hawke" when written? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- "SinJin" is the standard way of pronouncing the name "Saint John" unless you are talking about the canonised saint. It's one among many names whose pronunciation is extremely counter-intuitive. PRL42 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
