Talk:Jim Ignatowski/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jim Ignatowski. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notability?
Does anybody else find it a little strange that the only Taxi character with any wikipedia entry is Jim Ignatowski, and that it is such an extensive one?
- I'm not surprised Jim has an extensive article; he's a fairly popular and interesting character. However, the article does need currently need references for verification. Dugwiki 22:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that somebody had the sense to take him out of the "Fictional Polish-Americans" category. Perhaps no-one would mind if I removed him from "Fictional religious workers", too? After all, he was supposed to be simply a cabbie and an old hippie. The "Church of the Peaceful" was essentially fiction within fiction, not the character's occupation.Illusi0nist (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well TV Guide, placed Ignatowski 32nd on its list of the 50 greatest TV characters of all time. No other character in Taxi has that honor.
No, no other character in Taxi has the honor of being listed #32 on the TV Guide list of 50 Greatest TV Characters of all time - but according to the Taxi page, the character of Louis De Palma (played by Danny DeVito) was listed number one on that same list! (It looks like there was a page dedicated to that character at one time but that it has since been directed to that page for Danny DeVito.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johandav (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the line "The driving test he took is now the stuff of comedic legend, especially the "What does a yellow light mean?" bit." Due to the fact that it is blatantly the opinion of the writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.94.208 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that was the one segment i was expecting to see described here, it seems to embody the character's role and the typical interplay with other characters. Perhaps it would be best to 'slow down' removing content.17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not alone anymore, Latka Gravas. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 2014
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Jim Ignatowski → Reverend Jim – The last time I requested renaming, there were no votes, leading to no consensus. This time, I sure hope people will be aware of this. This fictional character from television sitcom, Taxi, has been referred as "Reverend Jim" by sources. I searched it on Google Books and Google Newspapers. Moreover, the current name has been less used by sources than the proposed name. Of course, if you don't like the proposed name, how about alternative name, "Reverend Jim Ignatowski"? Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I have no preference, but what I would like to recommend is that the article name include, for example, Jim Ignatowski (Taxi television series) or Reverend (Taxi television series) (Taxi in italics). The basic reason being that should a notable person named Jim Ignatowski actually be written about, who gets which article name is fairly clear. If we were having this discussion about John Blutarski, Bluto from Animal House, I'd make a similar recommendation. Otherwise, I'm good with either... OK --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Extra disambiguation does not cross my mind, and I'm not planning to change my proposal. See WP:DAB and WP:NC-TV. Also, here's the essay: WP:naming character articles. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - The first sentence here says, "If a non-television article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name that you are trying to create an article for, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or Cape Feare)." (emphasis mine). Being specific to TV shows, that trumps more general guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, COMMONNAME isn't even mentioned anywhere on that page. So sources aren't relevant to this situation. Mandruss |talk 04:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME is part of the policy, WP:article titles. It's not a guideline; it's a policy. How can one guideline override one policy is beyond me. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I see that the character was "Reverend Jim Ignatowski" in the show's credits, according to IMDb. If the above guideline wanted you to use that in the article title, it would say something about the credits. Since it does not, I have to take it literally, and Reverend is not a part of the character's name any more than President is part of Barack Obama's name. Mandruss |talk 04:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- According to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, laws must not be strictly interpreted, especially to illustrate a point. I guess I can't use names of The Simpsons characters, can I? George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- True, but I generally need a good reason to deviate from guidelines. I have considered everything you've said here, including in the earlier move discussion, and I don't see what I consider a good reason. You have your view, I have mine, and I'm prepared to accept the consensus, whatever it is. Mandruss |talk 06:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- As long as there are good redirects, I don't know why the actual title is so critical anyway. I expected more participation here, and that my opinion would be just one of several. If it's just me, I don't care about this enough to challenge a WP:BOLD move on your part. Just do it, and let's move on to something important. Mandruss |talk 06:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reading WP:PG, guidelines can/must be followed regularly, but "common sense" may apply for exceptions. Yes, it's just an article title because... names are names, but do you expect people to type this character's surname? "Reverend Jim" is what I had in mind, but I don't know someone here watching Taxi and knowing this character. As for policies, there is WP:POLCON, part of WP:PG. Because commonly-used names are not mentioned in the guidelines that you mentioned, conflicts may arise, so probably we should go for policy on using frequently-sourced name rather than current title according to the guideline, unless you disagree. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't expect anyone to type "ignatowski", but no one would need to. As of today, "jim i" is enough to make the name appear in the drop-down, and adding the "g" makes it the only entry in the list. But I feel a little weird continuing this debate when I've already conceded it. Best wishes and happy editing. Mandruss |talk 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- You'll feel weirder when I can bring up an example: Sideshow Bob. --George Ho (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't expect anyone to type "ignatowski", but no one would need to. As of today, "jim i" is enough to make the name appear in the drop-down, and adding the "g" makes it the only entry in the list. But I feel a little weird continuing this debate when I've already conceded it. Best wishes and happy editing. Mandruss |talk 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reading WP:PG, guidelines can/must be followed regularly, but "common sense" may apply for exceptions. Yes, it's just an article title because... names are names, but do you expect people to type this character's surname? "Reverend Jim" is what I had in mind, but I don't know someone here watching Taxi and knowing this character. As for policies, there is WP:POLCON, part of WP:PG. Because commonly-used names are not mentioned in the guidelines that you mentioned, conflicts may arise, so probably we should go for policy on using frequently-sourced name rather than current title according to the guideline, unless you disagree. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- According to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, laws must not be strictly interpreted, especially to illustrate a point. I guess I can't use names of The Simpsons characters, can I? George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - The first sentence here says, "If a non-television article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name that you are trying to create an article for, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or Cape Feare)." (emphasis mine). Being specific to TV shows, that trumps more general guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, COMMONNAME isn't even mentioned anywhere on that page. So sources aren't relevant to this situation. Mandruss |talk 04:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.