Talk:Miami Vice/Archive 1

Tartikoff brainchild

Hello,

I replaced the paragraph below that someone deleted; it seems relevant to me as an explanation for the unique style of the show.

In the early 1980s, the head of NBC's Entertainment Division, Brandon Tartikoff, reportedly wrote a brainstorming memo that simply read "MTV cops." The result was Michael Mann's production of Miami Vice.

--68.220.113.55 17:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is actually plausible; David Declan said on one of the "Punky Brewster" first season DVDs that Tartikoff made him create that series based on just the name "Punky Brewster", which was the name of one of the NBC boss's old classmates. The character was built around the name, stories were built around the character, and the dog in the show was called Brandon, apparently to further stroke Tartikoff's ego. Although I wonder if these stories of Tartikoff could also be some kind of inside joke…—mjb 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to add to this part, because this is a rumor which Yerkovich debunked in the extras on the season 1 DVD. BubbaStrangelove 2:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Crockett's Football Career

90yd TD in under 6 seconds? I know it's fiction, but a Greyhound would struggle to do that! I can only assume he was indulging in a lot of Medellin's finest export at the time LOL!

You're thinking of 90 meters. A 100 yard dash usually lasts 5.5 seconds because yards are 24% as long as meters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

A 4.4 40 is considered nice and a 4.0 40 would be blistering. We aren't talking Olympic sprinters in shorts (and I can't believe a 5.5 100 meter for that - the world record times I see for 100 yard dashes are over 9 seconds and meters aren't *that* different), we're talking football players in pads carrying a football and getting slower over 90 yards, so a *9* second 90 yard touchdown run would be pretty damned amazing. Doing that in 2/3 the time is simply impossible. I don't remember that detail of Vice, but it was wrong, or it's being reported wrong. 74.227.120.238 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys the above is untrue. I watched the episode in question last night and Crockett said he ran the 90 yards 6 seconds before the end of the game! And now the facts: A yard is SHORTER than a [metre]. 1 yard is 36 inches ==> 36" * 2.54 cm = 91.44 cm = 0.91 m or 1 yard is 91% of a metre. 90 yards * 0.91 m = 81.9 m. If you can run 82 m in 6 seconds you should be doing the 100 m sprint in under 8 seconds - I don't think so ;-) 85.22.22.41 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This could have happen, the clock would have run out of time. The play is dead upon a tackle or a touchdown.....go Crockett. The clock is ticking pal.

Police department name

The police department was the Metro-Dade Police Department during the series run. The department was renamed when Dade County was renamed Miami-Dade County.70.149.135.25 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Miami Vice actors

Let's get the actors page going Philip Michael Thomas' page is embarrassingly sparse. BubbaStrangelove 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Production details

I added the bit about "early use of stereo in series television" and "Michael Mann eschewed red." I think these came from a copy of Mix Magazine from the late 1980s. I'm 99.9% sure that these are correct but it would take me a long long time to find the article in question. 69.181.2.10 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seperate article for episodes

Many TV show articles have seperate articles for their respective episodes if they are exceeding in number. I propose we create a seperate article for the episodes of Miami Vice. An excellent template would be the one used for episodes of Stargate SG-1 or House, M.D. What do you guys think? I was originally going to be bold and go ahead in creating the article, but then I figured that getting people's opinions and feedback would be better in handling a show as popular as this one. I honestly can't see why we shouldn't have a seperate article, but any objections and comments are welcome.--DethFromAbove 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added all the episodes, and was a bit shocked when seeing they were gone. However, good work. It does streamline the page quite a bit, and like you said, it just makes sense. The only thing I'm going to change is to bump the link up on the See Also catagory. Since I think it's more relevant than the other ones, like Magnum PI. (?) - BubbaStrangelove

Redundant information?

The following information is included under the Television Series portion of the article

Miami Vice was one of the best-known shows of the 1980s, and it had a huge impact on the decade's popular fashions as well as setting the tone for further evolution of police drama. Series such as Homicide: Life on the Street, NYPD Blue, and Law & Order, though being vastly different in style and theme from Miami Vice, followed its lead in breaking the genre's mold.

In fact the show has been so influential that references and styles of "Miami Vice" have often been borrowed by many of today's entertainment industry in order to indicate or emphasise the 80's decade. Examples of this includes the episode "The One With All The Thanksgivings" from the American sitcom "Friends" (1994 - 2004). Flashback scenes in this episode shows the characters Ross and Chandler in Pastel coloured suits with rolled up sleeves like that of "Sonny Crockett" from "Miami Vice" in order to emphasise the 80's decade. Another more obvious example would be the computer and video game "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," which was published by Rockstar Games and is set in the 1980's. Two undercover police officers would appear in a police sports car within the game when three felony stars is obtained by gamers. It is believed that the two officers (one white and one black) represents the two leading characters of "Miami Vice." One of the main characters, Lance Vance, was actually voiced by Philip-Michael Thomas.

In short, the tshirt under Pastel suits, rolled up sleeves, Rayban sunglasses and other attitudes of "Miami Vice" have today become the norm image of 1980's culture. Ironically often people today would recognise the decade's image yet are unfamiliar with the famous cop show despite it being the phenomenon that gave birth to the style.

What do others think about reediting this part, or somehow streamlining it? Not only does it contain information that is given later on in references to pop culture, it contains a lot of subjective wording, like "Ironically often people...", "another more obvious example..." While the show was influential in regards to how TV was made, and the style of its characters was co-opted by its audience, maybe there should be some sort of citation, or just a statement like "The show encapsulates much of the nostalgia that is associated with the 1980s, as evidenced by numerous pop culture references (listed below) in which the look established in Miami Vice is used to symbolize the era." Or something to that effect. What do you all think? To me it just seems to be giving a narrative version of what is stated later on - I think a lot of the information could be included under the relevant pop culture references.

I also feel that while references to the show are abound, saying that it is the "norm 80s style" leaves a lot open as well. What about new wavers, punk rockers, and the tons of other styles associated with the 80s? Many of the characters in Scarface dressed the same way, as did many people - the style was definitive of Miami early-80s. Vice didn't exactly just make up the look.

This section needs help.

Yeah, I noticed that and it bothered me. Some parts of that section are really POV. If you're up to it, you should totally reword, if not completely re-write that.--DethFromAbove 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This was what I came to the discussion page to post about, myself - Miami Vice was huge and influential and much referenced - no doubt about it, it would be hard to overstate... but that's just what this otherwise excellent article does. The Friends thing for example, is far more a riff on A Flock of Seagulls-type stuff which (1982) predates Miami Vice. And so it goes with much of the article - Miami Vice didn't invent most of this - I like the parts of the article that say things like The show had a huge influence on (men's) fashion at the time, popularising, if not actually inventing, the "T-shirt under Armani jacket"-style. That's what it primarily did: populari[z]ed and crystallized and captured much of the archetypal '80s', more than invented it. The qualifier is important. I'd definitely strike the Friends reference and tone down much of the rest. It's true innovation was cinematic with a synthesis of music and imagery, motion and emotion. 74.227.120.238 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Runtime

I'm putting "60 minutes (including commercials)" as the runtime, since episodes vary in length.

In what American network primetime universe are commercial timeslot allocations varied from week to week? Producers know EXACTLY how long their episode will run, week in, week out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The times vary over the years, though - hour long episodes were 44 minutes for a long time in the 90s but were, IIRC, quite a bit longer before that and sometimes run 42 minutes or so these days. So it could have easily switched from 46 to 45 minutes from the first to last season or something like. 74.227.120.238 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup-list in Episode List

It was me who added the tag in question.

IMO, in its current state, the list is very unclear and aesthetically not very pleasing, and therefore needs to be put in a proper table ASAP. See Fastlane (TV series) for an example. Jupix 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An ugly, long list is the very reason I created this. Enjoy!--DethFromAbove 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the link to the Episode list be in the section "Episodes" rather than "See also"

Jackass Holster

should it say "Jackass leather holster" in the fire arms section? just wondering if this was vandalism or not 71.144.87.83 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was an actual brand name and style of holster.

See: http://www.gunaccessories.com/Galco/JackassHolsterComponent.asp Deathbunny 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed

Holy crap does this article need some work. There's way too much OR and POV writing overall (the entire "Reason for series end" needs to be scrapped outside of the first bit from the newspaper, the rest is all conjecture/essay). And what's with all the gun pics? Is this article about a TV show or gun fantatic's idea of porn??? RoyBatty42 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are way to many gun references on the page. They weren't that important in the show --Christof Damian 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lost Madonna

I came across The Lost Madonna, an article for a Miami Vice episode and wasn't sure what to do with it. So if anyone here would like to wikify it or AfD it or anything else, please feel free to help out.-Andrew c 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Craft stinger? I don't think so

I personallly know the boat builder who made the so called: Chris-Craft stinger, it was indeed, a stinger, but not a chris craft, it is a custom built Stinger Boat made in Fort Worth, Texas, by Marshall Womack, it was NOT a chris craft, the company is also known now as "Tex-Star Stinger" and "Eagle Mountain Peformance Marine"

point being, the famous boat was not a stinger, and the real builder did not get the credit he deserves.

5/12/07

Good work, knowing the guy and all, but many times what's scripted doesn't match real life. I better get over to "Saving Private Ryan" and tell how the grenades aren't MK2s but actually pieces fabricated in a Hollywood propshop by a guy I heard of on the DVD supplements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Vice Scarab.jpg

Image:Miami Vice Scarab.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 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 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've cleaned up the images and put them in places next to paragraphs that support them. This was done to both have logical continuity as well as for support in having the images in the first place as they are suppose to be there to support the article. I've uploaded a new one with Glen Frey as there were none that gave examples of notable personalities.

In addition most if not all of the images in the article have no "Fair Use Rationale". They are required per Wiki so if some kind soul would take this for action that would be helpful. The new image that I uploaded has what I believe to be a good rationale statement. This can be copy and pasted into the other images with slight changes and alterations to reflect those images.
Uploaded Image: [[Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.JPG|75px]]
Thanks FrankWilliams 15:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode Listing Table

I've also added a episode listing table that is small and complete. I've also linked those episodes that have their own articles for quick linking. Also made the table sortable within each season for easier looksups. FrankWilliams 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD Cover Images

I've added fair use rationales to the DVD cover images as required. I added back those covers prior to a rationale being put there and the objection was to not having a rationale. The images are there for identification of each of the season's out on DVD. FrankWilliams 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is of course a violation of Fair Use, as you were told here, less than a month ago. It hink its time to either consult an admin on whether your interpretation of Fair Use actually fits within the actual policy, Frank. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Vice Boats.jpg

Image:Miami Vice Boats.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 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Firearms section

Can someone point out how this section is vital, or even important to the article? It is largely uncited (and the image captioned as Sonny Crockett's SigSauer is in fact a wikicommons image of that firearm, constituting Synthesis OR). I am concerned this sections is simply gun-lover cruft. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to stay away from articles that your have no knowledge about. Firearms were a big part of Miami Vice. It was a COP show you know. What you suggest is preposterous. There have been whole articles in gun magazine on which guns were used in the show. BTW the section is NOT largely uncited it largely is. Just count the refs. FrankWilliams 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The show was a cop show, and as a cop show used a lot of firearms. Different episodes like Evan dealt with guns (Mag-10's), and the characters used different guns at different times throughout the show which is why the section is there. Movie articles have there gadget sections, Miami Vice firearm section. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 13:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidestepping Franks' little ownership problem, I am well aware of the program's genré. What I am suggesting is that, since the nature of the weaponry was not of critical importance throughout the series, but instead tended to focus on the actual plot - as tv shows are wont to do - it seems fan-crufty to go into detail over what weapons were used, and including imagery that is OR bt synthesis. To the latte, I speak of two images, one of which is a WikiCommons image of a SigSauer, identified in the caption as being the weapon that was used in the series, which of course it is not. Secondly, an image of Johnson's character pointing a weapon which is identifed through what can only be termed OR by synthesis. Was the firaerm identified in the episode, or in an episode guide? If not, it is a contribution based upon personal information, and therefore primary citation - which WP doesn't utilize.

While I think the section is not very important to the article, if the consensus at this time is that it should remain, I think it is important that the above concerns be addressed. I am going to remove the image of the SigSauer, asits inclusion is the grosser of the two OR violations in the section, and will remove the specificity of the weapon used in the Johnson image, replacing it with a more encyclopedic wording. I am not going to add 'cn' tags to all of the statments made, because I think it would be POINT-ish, but when a claim as to what weapons were used (ie, what weapon Trudy used, Tubbs' hammerless revolver, etc.), it must be cited; otherwise it's OR speculation, and will eventually be removed as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, while I do agree with you that the section is a bit fancrufty... But I think you are incorrect in calling the citations OR. For a bald statement of fact, such as "Character X used that weapon Y in episode 3 of season 5", citing to the episode is hardly OR. A TV episode is a primary source for an article about the TV show and, while we have to use great caution in citing to primary sources, this seems an appropriate use of that source. Blueboar 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a source and used that with the episodes to add references to the section. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ElGreco, that was wha I was looking for. Now, as for the image of Johnson aiming the "Bren Ten", I can see the citation, but the remaining issue is whether it is noteworthy. Was the choice (or change of) that weapon the subject of an episode? Was it a frequent topic of conversation, or a matter of the plot? Granted, I haven't watched all of the episodes in some years, but I don't seem to recalll that the Bren 10 was the 'Fifth Beatle' of the series or anything. I am concerned that this is something of an Undue weight issue. Can someone explain how the current caption is more suitable than, say:

"Don Johnson using one of the many firearms used in the series."

Note that I left off the wikilinking of Don Johnson, as he is previously wikilinked in the article (actually in every single image in which he appears, as well as the text of the article).

Another note: there is a bit of excess wikilinking going on in the article, btw (which I will address after this post). As well, yet another image of Johnson aiming - yes, you guessed it - a Bren Ten in the Fashion section. While weaponry might be the height of fashion amongst gun wonks, it is inappropriate for the section, and I will adjust the caption accordingly, so as to preserve it from removal as decorative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason you deleted the DVD section? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(inserted directed response) Yes. I removed the images of the DVDs as they fail the Fair Use criteria for inclusion. They were added by a user who has been appraised on this topic before (specifics on your User Talk page). In addition to being simply decorative without solid purpose for their presence, they also have the effect of slowing down page load for users on slower machines (someone else told me about this, since I have a T1). The images in place a bit much, but for the most part, help describe the article. The DVD images simply do not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this section. The weapons used by the main characters has very little relevance to the series, whether sourced or not. If you can find a similar sections in other Wikipedia articles, then I would change my tune. But as it stands, this section is too long and overpowers the rest of the article. Does no one think it's odd that this section is just as long as, or longer, than the characters section? Bulbous 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Weapons were an integral part and VERY relevant to this series even more so then the standard cop show. In fact the Bren-Ten was an unknown gun until it's connotation with Miami Vice. Another reason guns were so important is that Michael Mann is a gun instructor and takes very painstaking steps in the authenticity and usage of weapons in his movies and TV Shows including Miami Vice in which he was an executive producer. Also, you're not going to find other articles with this section because IMHO Miami Vice is such a unique TV Show. Also to answer Bulbous question: the article is not finished and thus still evolving. I have now doubts that the character section will expand and be longer the the firearms section. FrankWilliams 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about either integrating this section into the "Characters" section, or splitting it off into it's own article? There can be no doubt whatsoever that the existing section is not relevant to the main article. And the suggestion that Miami Vice is somehow unique amongst cop shows, or any other TV show where firearms were central to the theme is over-the-top ridiculous. Bulbous 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your humble opinion; and yes there can be doubt. That's why we're discussing it in the first place. I also think Tim Cole would disagree with you as he wrote a whole article on the weapons of Miami Vice Tish Janeshutz would also disagree with you as she had an entire chapter devoted to Firearms in her book "The Making of Miami vice".

I don't think *either* of them would disagree with me. I wouldn't protest if you wrote an article about weapons in Miami Vice, as did Cole. I wouldn't protest if you devoted a small amount of space to the subject in the main article either (such as Janeshutz did, writing one chapter on the subject in an entire book). But the amount of weight given the subject in the main article is way out of proportion. Cut it down, integrate it into the characters section - or, if you would prefer, expand it by starting a new article. Didn't any of the bud guys use firearms? Bulbous 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FrankWilliams 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a new article would be terrific, actually, maybe "Technology of Miami Vice" or "Firearms of Miami Vice". Since Frank appears to be a gun wonk (going solely from what he's noted on his User page), he seems to be the ideal candidate to write this article. As well, he is the one who has added most of the material from the section, it could be ported over to the new article. Either way, it shouldn't really remain here, due to UNDUE issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (originally: 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Premature deletion of material

Editors should give other editors time to fix and repair existing paragraphs. If a citation is needed use the citation needed tag. El Greco and I have been busy adding many references to this article and there have been other editors who have been quick to delete material, talk about ownership problems. Fact is this article is chock full of citations more then the majority or articles I've read on Wiki. Thanks FrankWilliams 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How much time were you looking for, Frank? The material I deleted regarding the various characters' arms has been uncited for over a year. As well, the picture of the SigSauer supposedly used by Johnson has been in place, gathering dust in all its crufty little corners since early August of last year. Whoever does have OWNership issues with this article should have been sued for neglect. Um, that was a play on words there. No one is talking legal action here. I think the point has been hammered quite cleanly through home all the way to the center of the earth.

That you and El Greco have been working on the article is fantastic, brilliant even. I am not faulting you fellers for doing the cite/construction work. If I kick in every once in a while, suggesting out how things might be better, and what stuff is going to cause you more problems, then I don't expect you to get all uncivil and snippy about it (directed towards Frank).

You should seriously consider writing a separate article about the firearms used in the series. It's great that someone wrote about it, and a few books/articles/whatnot were written about it, but the fact remains that keeping it in the article presents the appearance of undue weight being given to the subject of firearms in the series.

When Star Trek was televised back in the 60's, tons of articles came out about the science of warp engines, phasers and all the tech of the series. However, if you notice the wiki article, there isn't a lot of mention on that. However, there is a related article, Weapons of Star Trek that focuses on all the weaponry seen/used/alluded to in the series. The same goes for the Next Generation incarnation of the series, which ran in many of the same years as Miami Vice.

Granted, Star Trek wasn't Miami Vice - nothing was. I am using one to show how to better illustrate the other. I hope I have helped to illuminate the territory in which we find ourselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD images

Frank, please stop adding in the DVD images. You have attempted to add the DVD covers to at least two different articles now, and on each one, you have been told by at least two experienced editors that it isn't allowed. When El Greco asked about it, you complained that it was me, having a "hard-on" against the allowing of DVD images, when in actuality you had been told by another experienced editor the same thing you have been told in this Discussion page, article page, and on the Non-Free Content discussion page. You have now been told by no less than five editors and admins what the rules are in regards to the inclusion of DVD images. Please stop and abide by the consensus of the community as to fair-use rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We are all currently having a discussion on this topic at: [1]. Please contribute to this section prior to making any changes to the DVD section of this article. As it stand now the general consensus is: that one image is allowed and more could be allowed as an exception. Thanks FrankWilliams 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the page, and it appears that six editors there (myself included) do not feel that these images are encyclopedic. I understand that you thought that there might be enough fair use to allow for one, but the edit you offered seems to suggest that more might be forthcoming with consensus. As I don't see that many admins changing their tune on Fair-Use rationales in regards to the inclusion of DVD images, I think you should switch it back. There is no consensus to make the change as of yet, and you should not "jump the gun" in this regard. Please self-revert the changes, okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Two Miami Vice Ferraris.jpg

Image:Two Miami Vice Ferraris.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 07:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode Guide

I've seen in a lot of other articles where they create a sub-page for the episiodes, and simply place a link to it in the main article. This avoids a cluttered look. Do you think that would work better here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DJ&GGL-Miami-Vice.JPG

Image:DJ&GGL-Miami-Vice.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 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.JPG

Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.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 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters Section

Will User:206.125.176.3 please stop adding the entire Lt Martin Castillo article in the page. It serves no purpose. Too much information is given. If you really want to help out go find real world sources and bring back the Martin Castillo article. There was more on Castillo than on Crockett and Tubbs. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted him/her again, based not on the edits but his behavior (which, judging from his/her user talk page, is apparently not a new issue). He needs to come here and seek a consensus. if he doesn't he needs to know that he will likely be reverted as a disruptive influence, POV-pushing unduely-weighted material. I've advised that he's at his 3 edit limit. I hope he comes here to discuss matters, but I am guessing he might need more stick than carrot in this situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Return of the cruft and uncited

Wow, where and when did all this cruft re-enter the article? the end of the series stuff was almost entirely uncited, and is at risk for getting bounced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to clean it up. This is one of the more harder sections to cite. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Martin-Castillo.jpg

Image:Martin-Castillo.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 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality of the Article

This page has gone from excellent to worse. It should be renamed "EL Greco's Page"; what is it with this dude. There was very good information in pages past like the name of the characters that celebrities played and that's all gone now WTF? These pages are really becoming quite worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Way to vandalize the page. If you notice sections like the celebrities, cars, and firearms are summarized and given their own section. Next time don't revert to a very old version of this article. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting back to a "better version" is NOT vandalism; newer versions are not necessarily better, as in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're telling me you don't like a page that much more sourced, than the version you reverted to? _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the added sources are good but that many of the deletions are bad and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The deletions are necessary to keep the page in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If a section gets too big, you create its own article page and summarize it on the main page. It's not like any information was deleted, it's just moved to a different article. The main article page can not keep everything in its entirety. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, when you created the Castillo article some other editors removed it and forced you to condense the article and put it back on the main page. Many of these editors are so full of it. The policies are a serious joke. They just keep pointing editors in a giant circle jerk.

Also what about the Guest appearances. The article included the name of the character's name that each of the celeberties played and that got deleted. How is that better????????? These were all good references. There is probably a specific policy that says you can't include character names that guest stars played right? Or no, maybe somebody's opinion or interpretation of some general policy took presidence and got re-enforced by a few other editors in this insane Wiki notion of Mob Rule; this whole thing is preposterous.

MTV Cops

I'd like to start a discussion about the rumor regarding Vice starting from the idea "MTV Cops". As I'd previously stated, the show's creator, Anthony Yerkovich states outright on the Miami Vice Season One DVD that this was just a rumor that's developed into a legend. The show was originally conceived around the idea of cops using confiscated goods, and was to be set in LA. Michael Mann came aboard and moved the production to Miami. Yerkovich states he doesn't know where the MTV Cops thing came from, because it was him that went to Brandon with the idea.

I know a Time article from 22 years ago seems like a pretty valid source, but at the same time, there were lots of magazines that treated The Blair Witch as being true to life. What avenue do I have here to include the actual statements from the show's creator without violating copyright issues and uploading the interview? There's scores of web references that refer to the "MTV cops" thing as legend as well.

I think it's pretty important, as the "MTV Cops" thing, when looking at the timeline of the development, really makes no sense. The only relation to MTV is the cutting of music to video. That was something not in the original development of the show, and something else Michael Mann brought on board, as part of him wanting to make it cinematic, along with location shots and single camera filming. It's doubtful that "MTV" was ever mentioned. -- BubbaStrangelove (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't find any websites that flat out debunks the Tartikoff memo, all I do is find websites that reinforce (restate) the Tartikoff memo. I've also seen the DVD commentary and it can be integrated into the creation section. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How would I go about doing that? I guess it's not really a big deal. It just sort of stuck with me, because for nearly 2 decades I had that MTV story in my head, then when I heard the commentary, it was almost like being told Santa Claus didn't exist (or at least being told he did exist, but doesn't come from the North Pole...) BubbaStrangelove (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tubbs's Car

Will the IP user please stop changing the ref. The source provided states that he drove 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible. Unless you have a source that states otherwise, please explain your edits. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Per quote from Popular Mechanics "Crockett’s partner, Ricardo Tubbs, played by actor Philip Michael Thomas, gets to pilot a pristine ‘63 Cadillac DeVille convertible. It may not be the wheels of choice for an underworld overachiever, but it passes as the mark of a hard worker who has managed to cut out some kind of turf." - Popular Mechanics, July 1987 (Cliff Gromer). Popular mechanics is much more verifiable than IMCDB. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "verifiable"? Do you mean reliable? Or easier to verify? Kafziel ^{Take a number} 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant more reliable. See, the reason that IMCDB link was orginally added was to provide an image of the vehicle not to reference it. The Popular Mechanics reference was to source the information that it indeed was a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree that Popular Mechanics is more reliable than a bulletin board-type site, that doesn't necessarily mean that the guy who wrote that article was a Cadillac expert, and even magazine writers make mistakes from time to time. If it's this disputed, I'd say at the very least this calls for some more investigation and another good source. If another one can't be found, then maybe there's a way to mention the possibility of both years? Kafziel ^{Take a number} 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

From Forbes auto: "While the Crockett character has driven Ferraris before, Tubbs’ luxury-brand choice has changed, according to the scuttlebutt on various Internet fan sites. In the original Miami Vice television series, Crockett first drove a Ferrari Daytona Spyder, and later a Ferrari Testarossa. Tubbs, meanwhile, tooled around in a 1963 Fleetwood Cadillac Deville convertible." from [2]

From Winding Road: "Among the coolest shows, and cars of the decade though, were the classy rides rocked by Crockett and Tubbs of Miami Vice. Yeah yeah, we all know that the Ferrari Daytona Spyder was neither a Ferrari, nor a Daytona, but it certainly looked the part on the small screen. Plus there was still a Testarossa, an achingly cool 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville convertible, and a rotating cast of other sweet metal to lust after." from [3] _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are good. Not to say it erases all doubt or need for discussion (since, for all we know, those articles used Popular Mechanics as a source) but citing those sources in the article would certainly make for a stronger case. I'm going to unlock the article now; you can make the necessary changes, but if the controversy resumes please discuss instead of reverting. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should I just state it as it is and add the refs: "Crockett's partner, Ricardo Tubbs, drove a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible.'"

Or "According to Popular Mechanics, Forbes Autos, and Winding Road, Ricardo Tubbs, drove a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible.'" _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just adding the refs is fine. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg

Image:Miami vice don johnson.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SPAM

This "article" contains an excessive amount of links and references to commercial products. This is not coincidental. This is spam.

In addition the article is appalling quality. It's mostly POV, has lots of exaggeration and hyperbole that overhypes the effect of the show.

Dreadful, dreadful article that is mostly marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.234.40 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? The DVD links are allowed by Wikipedia policy. "Appalling"?? huh? You mind pointing out your POV and exaggerations and hyperboles? _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnnyfog edits

What's going on here? You delete information about the show for what reason, exactly? I mean no longer does the article conform to other Television articles or WP:FA articles. What's the basis behind your edits. They remove information, reorganize the page which unconform it from the WP:TV guidelines. _{El Greco}^(talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not like I removed anything vital. This article is flooded with primary references, many of which relate to the plot and not to significant real-world details (i.e. guest-star appearances, political subtext, etc).

As for the cite templates you keep mentioning, I can only assume you are referring to the awards section. I thought my template was better organized (separating the actors from the show itself), but if you object so strongly to it, I will reluctantly put the old one back.

As for my other edits, very little was removed other than the bullet lists. I also did extensive copyediting to make the cars, boats, and firearms section read better. Johnnyfog 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the cite templates I'm talking about: <ref name=irisheyes>{{cite episode |title=When Irish Eyes Are Crying |episodelink= |series=Miami Vice |serieslink=Miami Vice |city=[[Miami, Florida]] |network=[[NBC]] |airdate=1986-09-26 |season=3 |number=45}}</ref> The point is to include as much information as possible, not short change them like you did: Free Verse", aired April 4, 1986. _{El Greco}^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've fixed all of them except one, since you removed some information. I'll see if the previous version it was in could be readded somehow. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Themes and imagery section to the Production section since it mostly fits under that role as it does not unifying or dominant ideas and motifs, per the WP:TV MoS. And as states by it: "A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections." _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen I think we can both work together to make this article better. However my one concern is that in some of your previous edits you completely reshaped the article within one edit, thus making it difficult for any user to look at the changes and understand what's going on. If you could edit section by section and edit the whole page when need be then that would be great and a lot more helpful. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still don't see the need for all these primary references. It's in-universe info that has no bearing on the show's real-life impact. I've never seen a precedent for these on any other tv-related article. The point is not to include as much information as possible, but to include as much relevant info as possible. And as far as citing episodes goes, you only need the air date. And many of the plot-related citations are redundant.

Granted, the article has much bigger concerns than that. But the more unnecessary citations there are, the harder the article is to dissect and edit, as I found out when I first started on it yesterday. Johnnyfog 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I include them on the basis that they are a reference that shows this actor/actress was on this episode, this season, and played this character. It's almost like a backup as I look at it, to say if someone would question whether or not these guests were actually on the show. (There's no other way to show it (prove it), other than telling the user questioning the guest to watch the show). This way it's much more difficult to question the guest or any other information. That's why I think they should stay, because there is no other source that lists them all, other than I guess IMDB or TV.com, but even there I've seen some discrepences. This way it's straight from the actual source. Oh, and thanks for correcting/pointing that out for me - I meant relevant not as much as possible, I had a lot of work to get done and I was doing this inbetween job tasks. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good. But it's not necessary to attach citations to sections relating to plot (like Crockett's bio, for instance). Unless it's a secondary source (ie. not an episode listing), you should forget about it. It's just more headaches for you and others.

At any rate, we should re-work the lead paragraph and the episode section. I haven't watched enough to write an accurate synopsis, but once it's finished, I can cleanly link the stuff about the show's cancellation to the synopsis. Johnnyfog 03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you need for the synopsis? And how do you plan on linking the show's cancellation to the synopsis? Do you have outside sources, because we should be careful not to cross the WP:OR line. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing fancy. Just a quick summary of the story, followed by information about the show's cancellation (cut and paste). As for outside sources, you only need those for information which is not in-universe. I'm not aware of any restrictions on discussing the plot. You can examine other featured articles if you want. Johnnyfog 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some tweaking of the cars section. Added back the reason why Enzo sued them, kind of pointless to not state the reason for taking them to court. And the Daytona was based on the chassis of the Corvette, not the actual corvette itself. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'm adding back the nominations. Miami Vice was the first show to recieve 15 nominations in one year, and just showing what they won defeats the purpose. I've seen many more articles that list nominations as well. If anything another wikitable could be discussed or as I had previously done was decrease the font size from 100% to I think it was 84%. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok. How about this. Why don't we just add a passage discussing the show's nominations? I maintain that the current awards table is just too big. If you recall, one of the issues noted in that last assesssment was that the table was too large, remember? Johnnyfog 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

the awards table is excessively huge. -- Collectonian 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at The Wire (TV series) or List of awards won by The Simpsons or even this one List of awards and nominations for Lost. Two of them have their own article page, while the first one is no bigger than the current Miami Vice Awards and nominations section. Here's another one: Sesame Street Emmy awards and nominations. So I don't see why the table is a problem. Not many shows can say they have been nominated that many times or even won. I'll shift the refs around to cut the length. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at these two version of the page: V1 and V2. I think there has been an inprovement. And compare that to this: Original. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I stand corrected. Johnnyfog 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Impact

This is only a suggestion for those with research yens. Miami Vice is one of the few, if not the only, successful cop shows that had no impact on the cop culture. I speak from experience here, thus cannot put it in the article (OR). It impacted everything--including cop movies such as To Live and Die in LA, but found no emulation among actual cops. From a practical point, the lifestyle was far too expensive for cops, at least honest ones, for another, undercover is a seedy, thankless, mentally-perilous job (more PTSD there than any other aspect of police work) that pretty much kills a cop's usefulness in high-stress jobs after it ends. Finally, they were Crockett and Tubbs, but they weren't cops, and what they encountered had little of the ulcers and heartache we encountered. That is not to say it wasn't popular among cops--it was. We needed escapism too. If anybody can locate references to this, it would be a valuable addn.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[Citation Needed]

There's too many [Citation Needed] tags in this article. If you're not willing to dig up the cites yourself, don't bother asking for them. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.250.148 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the noobs

I've been watching this article for some time now (strictly as an observer), and I have noticed that certain editors display an ownership mentality. New contributions are (often harshly) reverted. Please remember that no one "owns" this article, no matter how much they have contributed to it. New perspectives should be welcomed, and respect given to new contributors. See WP:BITE Bulbous (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You and new users should make yourself aware of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:Citing sources. I am well within those boundaries. Wikipedia aims to provide encyclopedic and verifiable information, and if that means reverting users for not providing sources for their edits, then so be it. Otherwise you are violating the rules of Wikipedia. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit may be technically within the boundaries, but your attitude is not. Instead of mindlessly reverting material, why not tag it with a <<fact>> tag and invite the editor to properly source the material. As per the policies you listed above not everything needs to be cited, and certainly the latest edit was not controversial or likely to be challenged. The problem here is that you have appointed yourself as guardian of this article and are not very tolerant of others trying to improve it. Bulbous (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If something is uncited then what benefit does it have to the article or Wikipedia? To take it from the WP:CITE page:

Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable. The purpose of citing sources is:

• To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
• To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying.
• To help users find additional information on the topic.
• To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy.
• To improve the credibility of Wikipedia.

I understand goodfaith, but how am I or any other user suppose to know that a user's edit is true if they don't provide a source? I don't know where that editor is getting his information from and recall WP:BURDEN. If we can prevent uncitied and unverifiable information from entering the article, the article and wikipedia are better off. Do you know how much trivial or uncited information gets added to Wikipedia everyday? Or how many (IP) editors make an edit on an article and never come back? Now if I were to have tagged that sentence with {{fact}} would the editor have comeback and provided a source, or not have cared and left it as it, or removed the fact tag? Do you know every little gizmo or gadget made during Miami Vices heyday, and if you did and added them to the article, it's still irrelevant if you can't provide a WP:V and WP:RS to back up your claim. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason we provide sources is exactly that given in WP:BURDEN - because material that is likely to be challenged needs to be backed up. Did you seriously have doubts as to the veracity of that claim? Did you believe that the edit was FALSE? I don't think you do. I think you didn't LIKE the edit, and you used the fact that it wasn't cited as a means to remove it. You never said it was trivial, or irrelevant... although I fully expect you to make that argument now.

Understand that I am in agreement with you on the importance of reliable sources and proper citations. However, please note that the majority of this entire article... and indeed most articles, is NOT CITED. That in no way means the material doesn't belong... it just means that it is not contentious. It's not likely to cause a debate. I doubt there was anyone out there that was likely to read about some clippers and go "Whoa! That's, like, total BS!". And as a final note, the opposite of "no cite, no inclusion" is not "cite it and it can be included". If you HAD initially argued that the "clippers" edit was trivial, and of no importance to the article, I would have agreed with you 100%. Bulbous (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I felt that the information wasn't factual. Do you know how much stuff gets made up about shows or people on wikipedia? Don't suggest that I didn't like the edit, because that is pushing WP:CIVIL. Don't question me on the reason behind my edit, I stated it, I called it as I saw it and made it. Furthoremore, if it was trivial, which it may or may not have been depending on how it's written into the article to show the extent of the influence of Miami Vice, there would have been no source to back it up. Now that their is a source it takes it from being trivial to something that can be incorporated as I previously stated into something that can show the extent of the show's influence. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. Sourcing something doesn't change it from trivial to relevant. It just makes it verifiable, but it's still trivial. If you felt the clippers thing was bogus (which I very much doubt), then you could have taken 7 seconds to look it up. It was not hard to confirm. You're taking sourcing to an extreme. If you feel so strongly about it, why not start sourcing or removing every other unsourced sentence in this article? Bulbous (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unclear line in lead

From the lead (second sentence): 'The show became noted for its heavy integration...' What does this mean? Having looked at the possibilities at integration, I'm none the wiser - racial integration, maybe? It could certainly be made clearer - if it is meant to mean having lots of characters from different races, that could be called 'diversity'. Or the line could be removed entirely. Robofish (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this make more sense: "The show became noted for its heavy integration of music and visual effects to tell a story."? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil Collins / I Don't Care Anymore -- Edit War

Alright... this has been undone by 3 folks in 24 hours, including myself. While technically the edits in both directions were done by different people, I think for all intents and purposes it would qualify as an edit war at this point. As a huge PC fan, I can assure you I would love to see the info for IDCA included in the text. HOWEVER enough is enough already. The article has become so completely saturated with notes and links regarding music, that it reads more like a copy of Billboard Magazine than it does an encyclopedic reference.

I have a proposed solution - I will generate a song list by season then episode that contains every single song not performed by Jan Hammer or Tim Truman (as bits and pieces from their work composed for the show appear in numerous episodes). I can get this in place as early as tonight, and then link to it from the main article. Once this is done however, I would also propose a serious trimming in the music portion of the article. Iconic songs/scenes should remain, such as In The Air Tonight, Smugglers Blues You Belong To The City, etc - but a lot of the other stuff that is in there could easily be trimmed out. Thoughts? Greco - what you think? Thanks Srobak (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We can get rid of this: "A later hit by Collins, "Take Me Home", was used in the premiere of the show's second season, and the Genesis track Land of Confusion was used in the series' finale episode "Freefall"."

Per the proposal, we could link something like that in the external links section? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking to make it an internal link/list. Such as how List of Strategic Air Command Bases is an internal linked list off Strategic_Air_Command (specifically Strategic_Air_Command#SAC_Bases). Thoughts? Srobak (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem though: Lists of featured music or song lyrics: Original song lyrics for a television episode breach copyright. References to featured music should be supported by reliable sources. Do not just list music: Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show. Which is why I proposed an external link. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Wasn't gunning for lyrics though - and you still think it would fall into that category? If so - I have no problem hosting the list by season and ep and linking to it externally. Just fielding ideas. Srobak (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would fall into that category especially considering the number of songs the show used in a given episode. Which is why I floated that external link suggestion. We could try a list on incidental music that Jan Hammer, Tim Truman, or other musical artists produced specifically for the show, pertaining sources can be found. The List of Miami Vice soundtracks already exists, so maybe that article could be expanded or a new one could be built off it? _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tubbs's Cadillac

It is a 1964 NOT a '63. One, I have owned numerous Caddys of these two years, including the one owner original my grandmother bought in '64 and still has that I grew up with on a daily basis my entire life.

Two, look at the grill. In '63 the center bar was a solid chrome strip. In '64 it became a body color strip with thin aluminum pieces above and below. Also, the cornering lights are completely different, lacking the '63 badges in each and the outer bumper ends have scallops that the '63 lacked.

At the rear of the car, the tailfins are over an inch shorter than on a '63 and the taillight housings are pointed at the center, whereas the '63 was completely flat. This also results in a completely altered body line on the rear quarters.

While the two years look alike at first glance the reality is that externally the only parts that actually interchange are the roof(in the case of the Coupe, at any rate), the doors and the front fenders. Oh, and the fender skirts.

Just a small amount of research on the part of anyone will clearly show this. You don't even need to actually know what you are talking about, just go look at some pictures. Note:

http://imcdb.org/images/001/937.jpg

This clearly shows the center bar and the cornering lights and the scallops in the front bumper outer pieces and, less clearly but still there, the shorter tailfins.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.115.141 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source. Original Research it not allowed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The pic of the automobile being driven by Tubbs, a still from the show itself, is all the "source" you need. Please try not to bother something if you cleary do not know what you are talking about. It's one of the reasons Wikipedia has zero credibility. Also, two of the "citations" are no longer viable links, whiole the third I have requested update their claim since they are being used here to support incorrect data.

A picture is not a reliable resource. This has been discussed before - provide a credible source.....print media, web media, etc. Please stop vandalizing the article, and please read WP:CIVIL. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A picture is the ultimate data, since it clearly shows the car. Te only vandalism is, of course, being done by you since you don't know what you are talking about. Also, as a collector and restorer of vintage Cadillacs I AM a source unto myself, lastly, however, a contemporary newpaper article complaining about the fact Tubbs was stuck with a '64 Caddy while Crockett got the new Ferrarri: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19860904&id=bugLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nVkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6694,968350 If tou wish to bother incorporating this into a current rather than obsolete and incorrect link feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.115.141 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not recognize you as a source, therefore you need to provide reliable sources and verifiable sources that are not original reseach. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning, 75.62.115.141.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Miami Vice, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Grec - you want to start an A I/N on this guy? Srobak (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Final word on the subject, from the Movie Cars Database Forum and the now current owner, who had it shipped from the Bahamas to belgium: http://imcdb.org/vehicle_1937-Cadillac-DeVille-Convertible-1964.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.115.141 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion forum with some guy claiming he has it is not a citable source. Any continued, destructive edits without viable, citable sources will be considered vandalism and will result in you being blocked. As you are so hell-bent on "contributing" to WP, it would be in your best interest to create an account. At this rate your IP is at risk for being permanently blocked. Srobak (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP through SBC Global. All I have to dio is pull the plug on my router and plug it back in and God knows you aren't going to be blocking all of SBC.

You've been given multiple pictures including stills from the show, a contemporary newpaper article found through Google and the current owner of the car, on a forum with a lot more credibility than Wikipedia.

I have no interest in Wiki, I simply seek to correct an blatant error...and will do so.

75.62.115.141 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic netblocks are assigned by region, are easily distinguishable and blockable. Do you want to get the whole Plano area blocked for a while? There has been no problem in issuing them in the past. Provide citable sources, as per WP Guidelines. If you cannot do that, then cease your destructive, vandalistic, and non-contributory edits. Srobak (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, the information presented previous to your rampage is in fact cited. To help you in your quest for citing, please read the following prior to conducting any further edits: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Qualifying_sources Srobak (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Plano? Yes, I'd love to get that entire area blocked.

No wonder Wiki can't be used as a credible source anywhere, when you try and fix obvious errors someone with some entrenched ego issue does their best to prevent it.

Again, there are links. More noteworthy is the fact two of the sources listed for the bogus '63 claim are no longer valid while the third is reviewing a DVD release! But then there is the issue of simplicity. Google a '64. Then Google a '63. Assuming you have eyes there is no question of what the car is. Where this odd and fairly recent claim the car is a '63 came from is anyone's guess. It might in fact have come from the original error here at Wiki. Whatever, it is embarrassing that anyone would fight so hard to maintain the sanctity of a blunder in a pop-culture reference.

NOTE, I did just a bit of research on one of your "verified" citiations (one of the others is not available online and the other never was), #40:

http://www.nextautos.com/users/seyth-miersma

It's a user review done by a "staff writer" for a website, who doesn't appear to have actually written anything.

As such the contemporary newpaper article I provided is at least as credible a source. To say "at least" is, quite frankly, slumming. But just to be sure I went and researched the other two "citiations". The Popular Mechanics article #37 does not exist online, so it is not valid. The Forbes article #38 is no longer available online, making it also invalid. But in the process of said research into these "credible" citations I found...

http://www.miamivicechronicles.com/vehicle-faqs/

Miami Vice Chronicles Vehicle FAQs: Q: What car did Rico drive? A: 1964 Cadillac convertible

Now, with that in mind I am going to alter the entry one more time and include the only link to the only credible citation available. Since I don't mess with Wiki my suggestion is someone incorporate this data in a more professional fashion AND incorporate the still I linked here as well so there is no further debate. Adding the newspaper article might also be worthwhile.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Additional: This should also fulfill the "citation needed" request in regard to Gina's Cougar. The FAQ clearly notes it was a '71-73 Cougar and, while I am much less familar with these cars than my Caddys, I do know those three model years, much like the Montego and Torino, are almost indistinguishable. There *may* be some bumper differences but that would be the extent of it.

75.62.115.141 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that these "citations" are used in reference to other things in the article. Since two don't exist and one is of questionable quality it might be adviseable to remove them entirely. While you people have inspired me to register an account and become a thorn in someone's side I in no way understand the intricacies of links and code here yet and I'm not going to start knocking off things willy-nilly. Back to that point about not bothering things one knows nothing about...

FMChimera (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fansites like miami vice chronicles are not allowed under wikipedia guidelines as they border on original research. 204.186.176.35 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the love of God what part of this do you not understand? Your three citations offered are not legitimate. Two no longer exist or were never available online. The third cites a fan doing a review of a CD release, it just happens to be on a car related website. I have provided MORE than adequate evidence that you are listing incorrect data AND supporting it with incorrect or non-existent "sources". You literally have NOTHING to back up this bogus claim.

I'm uncertain what the problem is here but I do know that blatantly defending an obvious error like this is not merely absurd but disgraceful. Unless someone here can provide some evidence the car is a '63, and none is being shown(and of course none can be since the car is clearly a '64) this needs to stop. As is this "debate" is already being linked around the 'net as an example of why Wikipedia can never be used as source material for any serious debate or research.

FMChimera (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: 1963 Cadillac Deville, similar color and angle:

http://www.milkmandan.org/dev/null/archives/1963_cadillac_convertible.jpg

Clearly showing the differences in grill, bumpers, cornering lights, fins, etc.

FMChimera (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First, stop reverting the Popular mechanics cite and the other cites, because that alone is much more verifiable and reliable than you. Second, you cannot simply delete them because they are dead links. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's like talking to trees. The Pop Mechanics link doesn't exist. It's a link to their website, but the article was never online. As such, it's not, by your standards, valid. Meanwhile the Forbes link is dead, and the article cannot be found even by searching the Forbes site directly. Is this clear? They are neither verifiable or reliable because they DO NOT EXIST. The only link that works is the Next Auto link, which is a user review of the DVD release. But apparently that is more "reliable" than all the evidence, a preponderance of evidence, pictures, stills, newpaper articles, websites, etc, that clearly show you are wrong.

I am telling you, do not vandalize the info again by citing non-existent links and changing the correct year. If you want to pretend the car is a 63 that's fine but unless you can provide some form of proof you need to cease and desist.

FMChimera (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked a Mediator to review this, we'll go from there.

FMChimera (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I just wanted to point out that FMChimera is right; it's pretty clear from the pictures of the cars themselves. Plus, Popular Mechanics published a letter correcting their mistake: [4]. It's a letter to the editor, but they never would have printed it unless they were acknowledging having made a mistake. I can understand mistrusting a new editor, but a simple Google Book search would have cleared this matter up nicely without getting the page protected. Mangojuice^talk 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if FMChimera would have produced this item instead of posting fansites and pictues as references and following up by deleting references and changing the year, things would not have gotten out of control. Wikipedia makes is clear that the burden is on the user adding the information.......it needs to be WP:RS and WP:V. A picture doesn't do that, and simply stating that you are a owner of the car yourself falls under WP:OR.

Now, based on this factual information, the year can be changed to 1964, but keep the (original) Popular Mechanic cite and add this new cite to it and remove the other two. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He did provide a good source earlier: [5]; newspaper article from 1986. It was ignored. Try to remember WP:BITE, okay guys? Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not as reputable as Popular Mechanics, plus there were three WP:RS and WP:V sources already there including PM. The fansite the user added to cite wouldn't count................heck I found a fansite that listed the Cadillac as a 1962......as I going to use that? _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had said that when he posted the link, things might have gone differently. Instead, you ignored the source and instead insisted he was wrong because we can't recognize him as a reliable source. And then you allowed Srobak to treat him as if he was vandalizing, and said nothing. I am not saying you need to swallow your pride and apologize, but stop defending your mistake, you're just digging yourself in a hole. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for other user's edits, and any actions or inactions on my part are irrelevant. Srobak, Antique Rose, David0811, and J.delanoy all called it as they saw it, so don't sit there and single me out as not acting...........it's not my responsiblity to tell other users what to do. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, the more I learn from Wiki's policies the more I learn how utterly wrong this whole mess was. WP:EL does not say anything about fansites. Fansites are in fact NOT prohibited. So there's one fantasy exposed. Then there is this, also from WP:EL:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is the site content accessible to the reader?

In the case of both the PM and Forbes article the answer, as I showed, was no. Meanwhile yes, a contemporary newspaper article from an established newspaper is by definition as credible as a PM article. Thus I picked off two invalid cites and offered two valid ones and was correct in every instance within a couple hours of stumbling upon this. It's time to stop making excuses and just admit you were, for whatever motivating cause, wrong. That or just let it die. I'd like to, but I'm not going to just sit back and ignore things, either.

FMChimera (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are allowable as external links, but are generally frowned upon as reliable sources, which is different. Many are nothing more than personal web pages put up by a fan, with no editorial oversight or fact checking. Mangojuice^talk 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So is someone else going to change it or is left up to me to botch it up?

FMChimera (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Did the best I know how at this point since nobody else had. Someone else can improve the citation links.

FMChimera (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi guys, I've assumed control of the Mediation Cabal case here. I thought I might give Mediation Cabal a go as I'm pretty good at sorting out disputes in real life. If you want to continue discussion, could you please do it on the Mediation page? Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus has turned against FMChimera (talk · contribs) and I believe he might be fighting a bit of a losing battle here! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that - the issue has already been long resolved and the "battle" as it were - is over. His material is in already. There is nothing left to mediate. Srobak (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake there. There was a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal, but I closed it. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambig needed

{{editprotected}} Pleae replace Cory Hart with the piped [[Corey Hart (singer)|]]. Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More a question of curiosity - is the DA necessary? The section starts off stating "music artists", and there are several remaining names which do not specify "singer" which perhaps ought to in order to remain uniform, if indeed the DA is determined as being needed. Thoughts? Srobak (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question - the disambiguator (DA?) is simply to point the wikilink to the right destination, since Corey Hart is a disambiguation page (as a result of a recent move). The pipe at the end of the link is one of the pipe tricks; the full link would be [[Corey Hart (singer)|Corey Hart]]. Did that answer the question, or did I miss your point entirely?! --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue, under heading "Cancellation" it is stated that "the original writers left by the fourth season," leaving the reader to vaguely conclude that the original writers left sometime before, during, or after the completion of the fourth season, and participated fully, partly, or not at all in the writing of the fourth season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.109.92 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Runtime

I've changed the runtime, for a second time over the course of a couple years, to 60 minutes/120 minutes (including commercials)...

Each episode was not equal in length. This is verifiable on the DVDs, and can be referenced here - http://television.aol.com/show/miami-vice/99778/full-episodes

The topic was discussed the last time I fixed this. That discussion is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miami_Vice/Archive_1#Runtime

BubbaStrangelove (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I watched all of them...on average they are 48 minutes long. The infobox specifies that runtimes excluding commercials should be given, as is in the article now. Shows in the 80's ran longer than today. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watched all of them as well, the first 3 seasons during the original air, all the seasons when they started airing on USA, then TNT, then Spike, those these were edited. When the DVDs came out I watched them there as well. None of this matters because original research doesn't count (maybe sometimes it should...) Anyway, my familiarity with making mobile copies of the show was what prompted me to originally make note that they vary in length. Again though OR doesn't matter. The running times are easily verifiable through the availability of them online. It could be said those are cut, but some run over 49 minutes in length. Would it work to add in "on average", is it something that should go by consensus, and when do wikipedia infobox specifications override factual and verifiable information. I think these are things we should discuss before doing reverts. I'm thinking since it was perviously discussed, it should be reverted back to 60/120 until there's further discussion. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I wish I would have looked myself before posting or you would have mentioned the specification also includes that the episodes should be approximated. Sorry for any time I wasted with that one. Thanks for fixing it. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The nicknames are fine as they are. They are both cited and can be left there. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What nicknames? There is no nickname section in the info box. There is an also known as section, but that's for actual alternate names. If this is about the "MTV Cops" thing, that's not an actual alternate name. It was a high level description of the show that may or may not have been used during early development, but the show was never called that. It's fine to talk about it in the text, but to list it as an alternate name is obviously wrong. 128.114.59.182 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was assigned that nickname at first by TV Guide and consequently that name stuck in pop culture which has carried through even until today in many media reports. Srobak (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But nonetheless not an official alternative name of the show. Stop adding this! 169.233.38.156 (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Any truth (WP:RS) to the following ?

I remember hearing that this show was as special as it was because they used a unique (and expensive) production arrangement. The way I heard it was that there were four separate pre-production crews (writers, sets, etc) and four separate post-production crews (score, editing, etc) so that each episode's crew had a lot more time to produce a high quality product. Only the actors & shoot crew were the same every week. Can anyone shed any light on this either definitively proving or disproving this story (and possibly its origins)? 66.97.213.202 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

MTV Cops

I'm trying to find an elegant way to edit the article to include the "MTV Cops" memo being an urban legend. It's debunked on the Season One featurette "Making the Perfect Vice" --- I brought this up once before, and in the discussion it was determined that this could be added in; however, I've found since my last visit, that additional references reiterating the "legend of the memo" have been added in, as well as a reference to the featurette, but only including the information immediately following the part where they refer to it as a "legend" and being "more fact than fiction." (I'm not sure why since it had been discussed...)

I had sometime prior edited the article to simply refer to the memo as a legend, but that was reverted. This seems to be the most streamlined way to add this in, but the way the article has since been edited, it almost seems like it's suitable to start a whole new section mentioning that it's referred to as a legend. There's tons of websites that refer to it as such, and the DVD featurette is already sourced within the same paragraph.

Any ideas? Thanks! BubbaStrangelove (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool - I checked the links already cited for the "MTV Cops" line, and the citation to the Official NBC site states flat-out, "Legend has it...". The other references only speak of the memo as hearsay. Then I added clarification on the later part that's attached to the DVD featurette indicating Yerkovich's comments about it being conceived based off the story of seized goods. I left the references there, and if anyone wants to remove them they can, but I don't see a need for it aside for aesthetics, since 4 references for something pretty easily verifiable seems excessive. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the show's creation, two DEA agents had been running riot in Miami, having been assigned there soon after shooting a prominent protester affiliated with Vietnam Veterans Against the War in the back, following setting him up with a honey-trap cocaine entrapment scheme using a woman under psychiatric care. This occurred in Gainesville,Fl. It's all been in the newspapers. Following that Miami citizens noted the hot-dogging behavior of the two and public relations with the DEA turned bad. The show commenced soon afterwards. It is only speculation, however, that the show was the result of any external pressure on the writers and producers to jollify the portrayal of the law enforcement in the area. Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)