Talk:Columbo/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The heavy lifting no one else wanted

The data has been moved - whole - to List of Columbo episodes, where it belongs and per consensus reached here. Had I not done it no one would have done it--Djathinkimacowboy 21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted - no consensus for those changes which are still under discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You mean you do not approve, and don't want it that way. You are edit warring. You said nothing about this - nothing - when C. and I were talking about moving it. C. clearly said he'd do it before he stormed off; now you are also encroaching on 3RR territory. Either disucss further here, or it will be moved without your consent. If you won't input except to complain, that is to be ignored. And it did look better until you reverted me.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you actually read other editors' comments? I stated above quite clearly the following: "You say 'it seems any data related strictly to television issues should go to List of Columbo episodes. Later that article can be streamlined'. That is (1) unclear and (2) in no way agreed."
Can I also ask why you have been deleting content from this Talk page, including the comments of others? (i.e. [1]) Rangoon11 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rangoon, I see it here[2]. This kind of removal can be done when something is so unproductive and useless that it should be gone - and my edit summary is extremely clear about it. But if you think it shouldn't be missing from here, then revert it and make a note in edit summary. I won't remove it again if you're so hot to have it restored.

Secondly, if you'd care to read, C. even offered to move the material from here to List of Columbo episodes before storming off.

Also may I point out you are edit warring by consitently violating WP:DNRNC and other rules which I tried nicely to ask you about a while ago.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I will let Ckruschke speak for themself, if they wish to still be involved in this discussion, but for me a list article which is specifically about the episodes of the series is not the right place, or a remotely logical place, for moving details such as you just attempted to. Your overwhelming focus seems to be on removing content from this article. I'm unsure why as at present the article isn't even that long. Since the current series of edits began a reasonable amount of content has already been removed. Most of those deletions I support. However I do not wish to see this article suffer death from a thousand cuts, nor to see content moved from it to less suitable places purely in order to reduce its length. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[SIGH] No one asked you to speak for anyone else. You have absolutely NO grasp of what has been attempted at this article. Which is typical since you only want to edit, revert others and yell. You know what, you do your screaming and then I will try to reply to all of it later. You're edit conflicting with me and I cannot get any information on here now.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I will try to spell this out carefully: I felt the sections '6 Home video release' and '7 Awards' should have been placed in full at List of Columbo episodes. C. offered to help move those sections, which I later moved and you reverted. I won't move them again because of you. The objective was to make this article here a more pure and slimmed-down article for people to enjoy it more. You'd know this if you had participated properly at the beginning, instead of edit warring and throwing tantrums.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Please stop editing warring on this article. Reach a consensus before making major changes like this. Liam987 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Liam, I hope you are not addressing me. I opened a DRN which has now been moved to a MedCab, and promised when the DRN became active that I would cease editing the article till it's all over- and as you can see, Rangoon11has in no way stopped editing or agreed to stop edit warring. I only ask you be more specific in your posts in the future. Please do not accuse me (if that is what you are doing) of edit warring when I haven't edited the article since promising to rest while mediation is in progress.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database and blogs are not allowed in Wikipedia pages

Rangoon. I'm drawing your attention here, where you reverted my edit[3]. Look at the external links. I think you already know, blogs and the Internet Movie Database are not allowed on Wikipedia articles. If you revert this again, I will open an ANI about your edit warring and other rule-breaking.--Djathinkimacowboy 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IMDb cannot be used as a reliable reference for statements in the article, but it's entirely acceptable as an external link. Please see WP:IMDB. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
My eternal gratitude for the heads-up, F. It was truly driving me nuts because I recall a time when it wasn't allowed. Very good to know, and I stand corrected in my attitude about the site. Thanks again.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello! I just wanted to inform everyone that there is a mediation case regarding this article open at the Mediation Cabal. Please feel free to add yourself into the discussion. However, I ask that any editor wishing to do so to sign the posted Ground Rules at the top of the page. If you have any questions about the process or the Ground Rules, please feel free to message me (or email me) at any time.

I hope all editors can allow the process to unfold before any more major editing of the article transpires. So far, we have reached agreements on a few issues as we move on to tougher ones. All in all, the mediation is going well; I would love for any other editors who are involved but didn't get notified at first to join in.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring--warning

User:Rangoon11 and User:B3430715, I ask that you STOP edit warring until we have done more work and get better consensus here. B3, you know as far as I am concerned, you are a disruptor with a single purpose. Rangoon, I am appreciative that you are watching the article but you should not be making too many changes either. You agreed, Rangoon, as I did.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Talking random things? Nothing has been done further since last night! And you are a disruptor not me! B3430715 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You know what I am talking about, all too well. Don't play that with me. I know you're now trying to hide behind WP:COMPETENCY, but I think many admins are on to you. My warning is up - take it or leave it. And show your proof of my disruption. Rangoon will talk to you all day, but I know better. I'm done playing games with you.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with you, talking random things since the first day. Go get you admins, many as you can, we'll see. B3430715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

These are not "random things". You've been warned. And by the way: Do not accuse other editors of disruption just because you do not agree with what they post.Djathinkimacowboy 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

oh, you accused me first today. B3430715 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's that broken English now, eh? Yes, I accused you because you're doing it. So now 'I did it first' is your defence?—Djathinkimacowboy 04:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I have any broken English? You disrupted an ongoing discussion today, randomly with no doubt. And all I have for you is "wait and see"! B3430715 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning to User:B3430715: Yes, you do pretend to have broken English when it suits you. I don't know what you mean by "wait and see", but you'd better not be threatening me. You'd best explain what you mean by "wait and see". I can report you for that.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning to User:Djathinkimacowboy: If you can't tell from the context, then you better stay away. I say wait and see to you again, because the admins you had called will look over everything. By then, we'll know, who was being disruptive. who was faking up an Edit war from no where. B3430715 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The above comments (from both parties) are straying dangerously close to personal remarks. Let's get the conversation back to content. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please consult Qwyrxian's talk, Tgeairn? I think you need to see some history of this. I think my replies have been very restrained, all things considered. And B3's been warned by both of us as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC) STRICKEN—Djathinkimacowboy 05:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


Episodes and release

leave your issues if you disagree anything. B3430715 (talk)

Columbos' first name

From the article:

"Columbo's first name came under more speculation by the release of the first series on DVD. In the episode Dead Weight where Columbo introduces himself to General Hollister, the audience is shown a close-up of his badge, complete with the signature that appears to say "Frank Columbo". Since this is only a prop and the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's 1st name has never been revealed it looks as if this issue will always be a hot topic of debate amongst fans."

I'm confused by the phrase "Since this is only a prop...". Obviously it's a prop - just like his car, his raincoat, and practically everything else in the show. Why does the fact that it's a prop make it less likely to be genuine within the fictional context of the series?

I agree - it was shown on screen and therefore is canon. This paragraph was originally more definitive, but it was edited a month or so ago to imply that "Frank Columbo" is merely a working theory rather than anything factual. Marwood 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that sentence, it's clearly nonsense. Anyway, whoever wrote it could only manage to spell "first" as "1st" so I guess it's to be expected. 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I re-worded the start of the sentence to fix poor grammar - but it looks like someone has reverted it. Marwood 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've now changed it back, but I'm wary of this becoming a reversion war. Marwood 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
After some toing and froing, this bit now reads: "Since this is only a prop we can't assume that Frank is in fact Columbo's real name. It may have been a joke from the prop department, after all the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's first name has never been revealed. It looks as if this issue will always be a hot topic of debate amongst fans." The following note was added to the article by user in response to a comment that I inserted to the effect that the sentence made no sense:
"How can it not make sense. The badge is a prop. The guy who made it probably just made it up. If Columbo's real name was Frank then why isn't it common knowledge. Surely when asked the creators of the show would say "oh it's Frank, didn't you read the ID badge in Dead Weight?" They don't say that, they say it's never been revealed and they should know, they created the character."
Reply by me (Matt). The phrase "since this is only a prop" does not make sense because everything in the show is obviously a prop. You might just as well say that since the cigars Columbo smokes are props, we can't assume that Columbo does in fact smoke cigars. The suggestion that it may have been a joke from the prop department needs to be supported by a reference. Otherwise, all we know for sure is that the show's creators say the name has never been revealed, but apparently it was revealed. Matt 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
Does anyone have a citation from Levinson and/or Link saying Columbo's name was never revealed? Dead Weight was a series one episode when Levinson and Link were actively involved in the production of the show - they would very likely have seen the rushes with the name "Frank Columbo" obviously visible. "It's only a prop" means nothing - the props department isn't autonomous. They would have been briefed and their work checked by the director and/or producer; especially when creating a prop as important as Columbo's police badge which is going to be seen in every episode. It was on screen and unless there is anything else on screen to contradict it, then it is a fact. 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please listen to this radio interview Dawidziak Interview It's with Mark Dawidziak, author of The Columbo Phile who many people believe to be the most comprehensive Columbo book ever written. Columbo's first name is discussed about 11 minutes 30 seconds into the interview. 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That interview was conducted in 2003, before the series was available on DVD. On the VHS release, the name "Frank" is too blurry to make out. On the DVD it is very clearly "Frank", irrespective of what Dawidziak says. Irrespective of what anyone says, the only first name given for Columbo on screen was Frank. 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The episode dead weight has been out on region 2 japanese DVD since 2002 and how can you say irrespective of what Dawidziak says? The guy obviously did his research. He must have interviewed everybody involved so spoke to the creators. Why, after the episode of dead weight aired do the creators still say he doesn't have a first name? Peter Falk says Columbo doesn't have a first name and he must have looked at the ID badge while filming. 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest the following wording for this paragraph:
"Probably the closest thing to a definitive answer came to light following the release of the first series on DVD. In the episode Dead Weight where Columbo introduces himself to General Hollister, the audience is shown a close-up of his badge, complete with the signature that appears to say "Frank Columbo". However, the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's first name has never been revealed, so its apparent disclosure on the badge may have been unintentional. Whatever the case, the question of Columbo's first name is likely to remain a hot topic of debate amongst fans.
Any objections? Matt 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
I have no objection to that, it's perfect. I just think it's important that people know that the creators of the show never intended Columbo to have a first name and they never gave him one. 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What "the creators" think does not matter - what appears on screen is what matters. Sydney Newman (creator of Doctor Who) did not intend the Daleks to appear in the series - they still did. Joe Straczynski (creator of Babylon 5) did not intend for Sinclair to leave at the end of series one - he still did. Stan Lee (creator of the Incredible Hulk) did not intend the characters name to be David Banner - he still was. You show me something that occurred on screen - within the continuity of the programme, that contradicts "Frank" and I'll believe you. 09:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Levinson and Link were the writers/producers of the episode dead weight so had a great deal of control over that episode. I agree with you 100% that the name on that id badge appears to be Frank but my arguement is, it's not Columbo's first name. That prop was created at the start of the series and a name was needed to go on it. When asked what the characters name was the reply would have been he hasn't got one. Thats part of the Columbo gimmick, just like we never see his wife. So now the prop maker chooses his own name or maybe the name of a relative, who knows, and puts it on the ID. I don't think anyone involved with the production would have thought that in 30 years people would have DVD clarity and the ability to zoom in and enhance the image.
Now you say it is definitely Frank because of whats written on the ID and above you wrote "the props department isn't autonomous. They would have been briefed and their work checked by the director and/or producer." That means Levinson and Link would have been involved in this stage of the production so would have agreed that the characters name is indeed Frank. So why, to this day do they say that the character was never given a first name? 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We do see his wife, though. She had her own series, remember? Guv2006 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how I see it. In my opinion we need to distinguish between guesswork and uninformed speculation, and facts that can be backed up, or at least informed opinion that we can give a source for. The appearance of the name badge is a fact. I'm assuming that the creators' consistent position that Columbo's first name has never been revealed is also a fact. The problem, then, is how to make these two statements compatible. The most neutral and non-speculative wording I could think of was "its apparent disclosure on the badge may have been unintentional". Matt 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC).
My arguement is that what Levinson, Link and Falk believe is irrelevant - it is what is shown on screen that counts. Indeed, what the creator of any TV series believes should not rank above what is shown on screen. If David E. Kelley put our a press release tomorrow saying that throughout the series Ally McBeal, Ally was actually working for an architect not a law firm, that doesn't make it true. It blatantly contradicts what was on screen. From on-screen evidence, Columbo's name is Frank. Nothing shown on screen contradicts that. Dawidziak can say it was never revealed in as many books as he likes. He is wrong - it was revealed, in Dead Weight. 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It should perhaps also be noted that the same ID badge is seen several times in the first season. Yes, "Dead Weight" is the only episode in which it is shot in close up (so that we can clearly read the 'Frank Columbo' signature), but one can also clearly see the very same ID card being shown in "Murder By The Book". It is also shown very briefly (and less clearly) in a few other episodes as well. Interestingly, later (post-1989) episodes have Columbo showing a police ID card that gives his actual name as "Lt. Columbo"!

You can also see "Frank" on his badge in episode 4 of season 5, A Matter of Honor. (see ) --NoiZy 08:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a clearer picture than the one currently on the main page. Why don't we swap them out? MArcane 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that the rank and badge number on the ID card (that says "Frank") don't match with the gold shield? Not that it affects the name debate, just interesting. ---B- 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would a police detective be shuffling around with an ID card saying Frank Columbo if that wasn't his name? If indeed Frank wasn't his name, surely Columbo, on producing his ID, would say "Uh, by the way sir, my name isn't Frank - the police department screwed up," or words to that effect. Whatever the show's creators say, there is obviously evidence that his first name is indeed Frank. Therefore, this evidence should be viewed as fact as there is nothing within the show that contradicts it. The show lives within its own universe, and writers, producers etc cannot alter what has already been created by attempting to pretend something didn't occur which clearly did. Guv2006 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just another thought... Prior to the DVD-release during the original tv run, were there ever any appearance of this famous badge that made it possible to read the first name? Following the 'just a prop' line, could that have been placed there as a filler, instead of just scribbling, but never intended to be legible on screen? And in fact, as shown on TV, never were revealed? Of course, this entire argument falls apart, if it actually were readable during original broadcasts... In comparison, if Peter Falk, while making "notes" from a murder scene, actually wrote down his groceries, and only a still image from a digitally enhanced image would reveal it, doesn't really make those groceries a part of the story... I'd say the same goes for "unreadable" names... Loial (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember that on NBC Columbo DVD site, there is a picture shows Columbo's first name...but the site is down now, and all i could find is this.Detectiveboy (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
We have it as 'Frank', from a couple of sites I believe. It is not at all in contest. During his run, Falk and the company decided not to reveal his first name. They revealed it later. Link and Levinson have said it was 'Frank' all along.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
WoW, Link and Levinson did said so? That will be an excellent prove, but where? Please add this into the article. --Detectiveboy (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Djathinkimacowboy, IF YOU THINK THAT I HAD BEING disruptive, THAN JUST IGNORE ME LIKE WHAT YOU DID. I just want to know, since you pointed that out, if Link and Levinson ever said so, But you, however being very impolite. Detectiveboy (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has some kind of issue or doubt about Columbo's first name, I suggest you look here[4] and here[5]. TWO citations, perfect in accordance with WP rules. End of arguments.Djathinkimacowboy 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry,I can't help you out Detectiveboy. I too, never heard Link and Levinson have said it was 'Frank' all along, and I guess that Djathinkimacowboy must have made that one up. I'm sure you ain't questioning his name since you'd give us a Columbo police ID. I'll confirm this with Rangoon11 later. B3430715 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, is a fan site, and therefore should not be considered a reliable source, especially for something that is considered one of the significant hallmarks, and one of the heavily talked about aspects of the series. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That is a fan site (And got nothing to do with the conclusion). The evidences we had so far are: The snapshots from the series, the official site poster, and the DVD covers. Since the poster and DVD covers are consider to be an ad, therefore Frank is what being propagandized or given by the officials. What we are trying to figure out here, is whether Link and Levinson have said it was 'Frank' all along. B3430715 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the case, without some official explicit proof and citation beyond what is being "propagandized" in these ads, posters and DVD covers, the article should not state or give the impression that his name was definitely Frank. This is why I recently removed it from the lead intro section and rewrote the "First Name" section so that the definite answer is left an open, debatable question. IMO, that is the best course to take. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this is how the article should be done:
1. Columbo's first name is never explicitly mentioned during the series. When he is asked if he has a first name in episode By Dawn's Early Light, he replies that the only person who "calls" him "that" is his wife. In the episode "Undercover", Columbo is asked once again what his first name is, to which he emphatically answers "Lieutenant". Even the opening credits just simply read "Peter Falk as Columbo", without specifying the character's first name either.
2. In The Columbo Collection, William Link said that they never come up with a First name. SO no first name. He also denied "Philip Columbo".
3. Several sources cite the lieutenant's name as "Philip Columbo". Columbo's first name Philip was conceived by Fred L. Worth. In Worth's book, The Trivia Encyclopedia, the fictitious entry about Columbo's first name was actually a "copyright trap"
4.However, the name "Frank" is often seen relatively clearly on his police ID. In the 1971 episode "Dead Weight", when Columbo introduces himself to General Hollister, the audience is shown a brief close-up of Columbo's badge and police ID; the signature reads "Frank Columbo". The signature "Frank Columbo" is also clearly visible in the episode "A Matter of Honor", in which it is also seen that Columbo's badge number is 416.
5. Moreover, Universal Studios officially "propagandized" "Frank Columbo" in ads, posters and DVD covers.
That be good. No need to go more deeper than that. Universal Studios is official, and nothing more official can be found. Let the readers decide. Detectiveboy (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise in the first sentence, I have removed the name, and just wikilinked "title role". IMO, any mentions of "Frank" should be restricted to the "Character profile" section because I still consider this issue, including Universal "propagandizing" it, under dispute. Art solely in ads, posters and DVD covers; and screenshots of props are a poor reliable source substitute for official articles, press releases, and the like. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

shall we cut down some of the copyright trap details? I also changed the "title role" to Peter Falk as Columbo. Detectiveboy (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


What? So One more question and My wife... ain't a catchphrase after all? And why does User:Djathinkimacowboy thinks that "There's something that bothers me" isn't a catchphrase? Detectiveboy (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Columbo Episodes

(First four posts below are copied from the talkpage of Rangoon11)

Why have you restored the wrong&inaccurate info here? Have you first read over that?B3430715 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The table is correct and was discussed at length during a recent mediation. The addition of a second DVD table is also unnecessary and messy.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Look, what is wrong is wrong. What do you mean by "Universal Studios Home Entertainment is continually releasing new episodes of Columbo on DVD." and why do yo need a table which tells you when exact date it was first broadcast? And it has nothing to do with the mediation since only few people participated. B3430715 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be best to continue this discussion on the article talk page. I will move the above thread over to there.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
? If something simple is needed, then it is best to have your table to be moved to wiki simple, because here, what's accurate comes first. B3430715 (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please explain what you believe to be inaccurate about the table. I am also very firmly of the opinion that we do not need detail on France and Netherlands only DVD releases, when we don't even have info on original international broadcasts. Let's keep DVD info to English-language releases please. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed, The Mystery Movie Collection DVDs includes different episodes from the # season DVDs. Take another look hereB3430715 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Then why can't they simply be included in the existing DVD table? Rangoon11 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mystery Movie Collection 1989 is never the same as The Complete Eighth Season, it includes one episode from season 9. Same does the other Mystery Movie Collections. Thus, they shall not be included in a same table. Beside, what gives an official cut for the specials, season 11 and specials? As you'd said, that's a detail on France and Netherlands only DVD releases. B3430715 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm missing something but why does that mean those releases can't go in the existing DVD table. I am personally strongly against having two DVD release tables in this article - there is no way I can see that the information is so complex that it can't be handled in one. Is your point about season 11 that this wasn't actually a "season" but merely a number of specials?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Lets solve it one by one. First, do you think that the 8th Season and 1989 collection shall stay in the same cell?
The Complete Eighth Season (R2) <-includes all season 8 episodes
The Mystery Movie Collection 1989 <-includes all season 8 episodes + 1 season 9 episode
B3430715 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Rangoon, this[6] edit, though I hate to admit it, the detail of putting the season after the episode title is too much. We don't need that. The titles are sufficient. That is a crossing of the line established by WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That makes two editors who do not agree with your edit.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Rangoon, I agree 100% with your statement:

I am also very firmly of the opinion that we do not need detail on France and Netherlands only DVD releases, when we don't even have info on original international broadcasts. Let's keep DVD info to English-language releases please.

Also, I agree that existing information with differing seasons can be fit onto one table: but if that table grows to ridiculous proportions, I will be in favour of removing it altogether until we can reach an agreement of the most common/popular DVD release sets.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment, DVD releases: I do not like that table the way it is. Season 11 is missing from it. That season is definitely released in Region 1 NTSC. That table also needs to be less confusing. It makes no sense once you get to seasons 8-10. It needs work.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
no longer needed; edit war has stopped, and person initiating the discussion is blocked indefinitely
hello Djathinkimacowboy, where is the revert war you are talking about? Don't you see, we are discussing. Also, I have no idea who and which you are replying to above. Which DVD releases table? B3430715 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The question for two who joined:
do you think that the 8th Season and 1989 collection shall stay in the same cell?
The Complete Eighth Season (R2) <-includes all season 8 episodes
The Mystery Movie Collection 1989 <-includes all season 8 episodes + 1 season 9 episode
B3430715 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
User:B3430715, you will read the posts and catch up--no one is going to argue with you since you are just like User:Detectiveboy. I have very little patience with you and your strange act, acting like you can't use English properly when I know you can use it properly.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I and Rangoon had no problem before you came, talking random things with out first finish reading though the talk page. Who cares if you have any patience or not. B3430715 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

B3: The admins are going to care about my patience. And Rangoon seems a little tired of you and your disruptive behaviour. This page is for everyone, not just you when you feel like disrupting the article talk with your nonsense. I notice you badgered and hounded Rangoon on his talk before he moved it here.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop your Defamation,I say the same to you: This page is for everyone, not just you when you feel like disrupting the article talk with your nonsense. B3430715 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a rest, mate. There's no 'defamation' and you know it. Besides, it isn't defamation when it's true.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You too, give it a rest, boy. The very first thing I see today is someone claiming an edit warring, but where was it? And your defamation, everyone can tell it's there. B3430715 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Warning to User:B3430715: Do not call other editors "boy". That is a personal attack and you know it.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

IN REPLY TO SOMEONE WHO CALLED OTHER mate! B3430715 (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Columbo’s Badge Number

The article states that Columbo's badge number is 416. However, this appears beside a photograph of Columbo showing his police credentials from the episode “Dead Weight” (which is being used to show that his signature gives his name as “Frank”), and that gives his badge number as 235. Jock123 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Article split

In my view the time has come to create separate articles for the Peter Falk series and the character. Both are highly notable topics capable of extensive treatments. In my view this is the best way of enabling a high quality treatment and logical structure for the topics, particularly for the Falk Series which is not well served by the present article. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While were at it, could we also split the Mrs. Columbo/Kate Loves a Mystery section into its own separate article as well? Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I would agree with that too, it is independently notable and a separate though related topic.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. We broached the article split issue earlier this year (see end of archive 1) and then ended up working on the episode lists and awards. Splitting the show and the person seems sensible to me. GedUK  11:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
peter is columbo, just remove the character bio to a new page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm agreed to article splits. As long as the separate articles are not as messy and overloaded as this one is now. I.e., someone put back the original broadcasting table without discussing it here first, and without real reason. It had already been decided and agreed upon by an admin that the chart needed to be removed.——Djathinkimacowboy 18:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Firstly welcome back! Re the table, you might remember that we spent a lot of time working on a table which would avoid the need for two separate DVD tables plus a table for broadcast history. I believe that we did in the end reach a compromise position which we implemented. However during your time away, I also stopped watching the article for quite a long time and returned to find that we had gone back to the prior position.
I remain of the view that we should have some info on the original US broadcasts in this article (although not the international broadcasts) but I am firmly of the view that two separate DVD tables is messy and unnecessary. It should be possible to simplify this into one table. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon. We are in agreement, then. Perhaps we can wait and see what the others think, but since you and I did so much work - and you did the major part of it - I don't think we need wait too long.——Djathinkimacowboy 18:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The raincoat

I replaced "trench coat" with raincoat. Columbo's rumpled and uninspiring raincoat is emphatically not a glamorous and evocative trench coat. It has no shoulder straps, no belt, is single-breasted and has small high lapels, it's just a short 1960s raincoat and not a very flattering one at that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude,it is not a raincoat! You can call it a raincoat, but trench coat is the right word. just google image it. Beside, it is less-likely for someone to use a raincoat to keep him warm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not a trench coat. It is a rain coat. Falk describes it as such, and it was advertised as such when he first bought it. A trench is as Invert said, long, belted, wide lapels, think Inspector Clouseau. And I really do not know what keeping warm has to do with anything. That is certainly not part of this article, nor should it be.——Djathinkimacowboy 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Why not just google image it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. It's still not a trench coat.Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

99.99% of the "trench coat" images on Google images have wide labels, are double breasted, and are belted at the waist. Columbo's coat is simply not a trench coat. As I said, it's just a short 1960s raincoat. The fact that it hardly ever rains in Southern California, and is pleasantly warm almost all year, is all part of the humor in Columbo's wearing his raincoat all of the time. FYI, I am a bit of an expert in fashion history, I taught one session at FIT on 1960s fashion. Invertzoo (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

About the car

I looked at the article about Peugeot 403, and in the "Culture" section it said that Columbo's car is a 1960 model, not 1959 as mentioned here. I changed it to "either or". However, the car enthusiasts might possibly be right about the year, and IMDb might be wrong, as IMDb is not very reliable. This point needs to be checked. Invertzoo (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is some kind of problem with the internet movie database, and I am thinking WP really doesn't like us using it as a citation for anything - but I could be wrong. There are a couple of sites I believe that identify his car's year because there are enthusiasts out there who know their stuff. I think it is important to have the correct year without question and until we do, we ought to say it's either a 1960 or a 1959 but that it is unknown. One thing I can tell you is the series used more than one Peugeot, so no doubt they were not all the same year.——Djathinkimacowboy 18:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Famous" actors list removal

I've removed the indiscriminate list of supposedly famous guest actors per WP:V, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO:

  • lists are of indiscriminate length, nor is there a clear or even apparent set of rules governing inclusion
  • lists are easily obtainable on IMDB and in the context of Wikipedia are simply raw and indiscriminate data
  • there was not a single reference for any actor/actress included in the list
  • qualification of "victims" and "murders" is immaterial and not encyclopedic content
  • "Ray Milland, George Hamilton, William Shatner, Robert Vaughn, Joyce Van Patten, Patrick O'Neal, Dabney Coleman, and Ed Begley, Jr. all appeared in two episodes." How is this quantification encyclopedic? Where is a source for including this info? "Hamilton and Shatner played the killer both times." Again, why is this encyclopedic and not just raw, indiscriminate data?

There are countless examples of why this entire section doesn't meet any standard of quality on Wikipedia. Therefore, let's rebuild the section here and once we have a mass large enough, migrate it to the article. Please submit all actors below for their inclusion, but only if there is a specific reference to cite. DKqwerty (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll start:
  • William Shatner — ref
  • Ed Begley Jr. & Tyne Daly — ref
  • Faye Dunaway — ref
  • Leonard Nimoy — ref
  • Dick Van Dyke — ref

Netflix availability

I have confirmed Columbo is not on UK Netflix, but I don't want to add "in the US" to the article as this is rather incomplete - it might be available in Canada or other countries. Should I check this out or go with adding US and letting that have further caveats edited in as needed?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Columbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)