Talk:Taxi (TV series)

Actual garage

According to The Taxi Book, the exterior shot was of the Dover Garage, which apparently still exists. The article doesn't mention which garage was used, but claims it was demolished. Anybody know which is true? Clarityfiend 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing source material?

Clarityfiend, why would you remove the links to the DVD cover images as source material? I have reverted to the version prior to your latest edits to put the sources back into the article pending your reply. I can't see any valid reason why you would think removing a link to an image which shows the source of the info is a positive enhancement to any article, as sources are important to verify the info per WP:V, plus I went to a lot of trouble to provide that info and the images meet fair use.--Bamadude 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..." What reader is going to question the existence of Taxi episodes? Second, using the backs of DVD covers as a source is rather unusual. I have not seen this done anywhere else in Wikipedia. If you really insist, I can cite The Taxi Book, but it's not necessary. Check out other TV series to verify this. Clarityfiend 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it follows from that clause that material unlikely to be challenged should specifically NOT be attributed. I agree that "DVD box" is kind of an odd source, but I don't see why it should be considered unreliable. "Too many sources" can be a concern, but it isn't here by any measure. I don't see what's gained by removing the source, though it should be changed to a footnote rather than just sit there as part of the text. Croctotheface 00:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the footnote, Croc, and I changed it to that. To answer Cf's question, "What reader is going to question the existence of Taxi episodes?" is not the issue; it's the episode list itself and the order of it that's the issue. The source for it is provided because, apparently Cf, you forgot the large edit war you were a part of just a couple of weeks ago that was centered upon those episodes, and in your case, your particular interest was based entirely upon my responses and edits concerning the episode list and not once did you raise a concern with the source material. The covers are the only source we have on the Web at the moment that users can readily verify, and where does it say that a DVD cover image as a source is an issue? Why cite a book that can't be readily verified per WP:V instead of an image anyone can click? I believe the reason you deleted it is because you haven't had a good argument with me in a few days, and yes, I digress, but that's what it seems like as it has no common sense attached to it; like a sieve, your argument doesn't hold water and even your previous comrade takes issue with it. Back up and punt! --Bamadude 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you get it through your thick head that I was not part of your edit war with Wack'd? For the last time, I am not conspiring with Wack'd and Croctotheface to get you. (However, I can't say the same about the Pope, Simon Cowell and your mailman.) I objected to airing your dirty laundry in public, period. Also, are you serious about a DVD cover being a more desirable source than a commercially published book? Next, how is the reader going to know that the source is to verify the order of the episodes? Finally, are you planning to fix your latest change? Clarityfiend 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the DVD cover image is a better source as it's only a click away, and a picture is worth a thousand words. Why make it more difficult for a user to verify an item just because you don't like the source or the provider of it; talk about personal attacks, eh? There is an invisible note directing the user to view the talk page before editing the episode order, and the reader who doesn't edit will click the ref and see what it is --- duh. Finally, what article changes are you referring to that you're asking me to fix? Was that another "personal attack" concerning my editing of my own talk page comments like you recently just did yourself? To avoid that in the future, try using the Preview pane feature before saving the page.--Bamadude 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

When you erase part of someone else's comments, it is common courtesy to indicate that you have done so, as Croctotheface did. I have put a more detailed flag back in and added one where you deleted my words, so anyone interested can judge for him or herself the merits of the case. As for the fix I asked for, Wack'd already repaired it. You put your sources where they interfered with the display of the subsection title. I have no idea what you're referring to when you bring up talk page comments. Unlike you, I neither edit nor delete other people's comments just because I don't like them. I have nothing to hide.

I am beginning to think that all this inane arguing is how you get your kicks, since you could have easily seen the problem I was referring to, and also because of this new talk page red herring, so I am not going to indulge you any further. Clarityfiend 08:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[Comments by Bamadude that probably would be perceived by Clarityfiend to a personal attack against Clarityfiend removed by Bamadude].--Bamadude 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's be accurate and/or tell the truth, Clarityfiend --- Croctotheface did not personalize his removal of remarks as you said except in the edit summary, whereas you personalized them in the text of the discussion. Look at that revision [here] to verify that. If you meant to say that, then be true to your moniker and provide more clarity in your comments. No offense to Croc or anybody; just setting the record straight with Cf. As far as your picking on my edits, find someone else's edits to pick on and you won't have me to deal with me anymore; I didn't look up you, you targeted me, remember? Your picking on my edits is mostly uncalled for and this last episode proves that. These comments are not personal attacks as they are strictly comments on factual evidence, not opinions; however, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts this isn't the last we hear of you.--Bamadude 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been as serious misunderstanding of verifiability policy here. It is never about how "easy" it is for the user to verify information. It's about whether or not it's possible. Citing a book is perfectly fine, in fact, it's generally exactly what we cite. Citing something like a DVD cover might make sense if no other source were available, and I'm happy to accept that you consider it a reliable source in a pinch. But here's the problem: if I cite a book (presumably copyrighted) in a Wikipedia article, do I scan the book into my computer and upload the book to Wikipedia? Nope. If I cite a (copyrighted) spoken word piece, do I rip it to .ogg and post it as a reference? No way. Doing the same to a DVD cover does not fall under fair use, is not necessary, and overlooks the fact that there are secondary sources we can cite (which are preferred). As much as you think WP:V might want it to be "easy" to verify, we aren't in the business of reproducing copyrighted material in order to make it more accessible. Not to mention, you've scanned alot more than the DVD cover - you've scanned the whole booklet. That's not covered under fair use either: it doesn't illustrate the DVD in question (only the cover does so) and it does not provide for critical commentary (in fact, your intent is to make this cover available to everyone in spite of its copyright status). I've removed these images because they don't fall under fair-use guidelines, and copyright policy is pretty clear about the fact that copyright violations should be swiftly removed. I've left the citations, for now, as "Season 1 DVD," but expect that those of you familiar with the article will cite the appropriate secondary source instead - I may look through the revision history and fix it myself if I have a chance. --Cheeser1 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New DVD cover section

After seeing the latest addition made by Bamadude, I first offered him the option to take this to Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Since he refused to consider it, I have had no choice, but to post this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Clarityfiend 04:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Your opinions were shot down and you lost this debate already. This is a non-issue in the first place as it's solely an issue with your own self-esteem and really has nothing to do with the article. Please get over it and move on.--Bamadude 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarityfriend is making a good-faith effort to resolve this situation by seeking outside opinions. Your comments are hostile and inappropriate. Please refrain from making such comments in the future (especially a whole new section of them as here). --Cheeser1 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser, the matter has already been resolved. This is obviously a personal attack by you based on comments made at the Wikiquette page and I won't respond to it except to say that the image obviously meets fair use and you're wrong. I will be posting a complaint about your tactics, though.--Bamadude 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It hasn't. Two of you have argued, and you've declared yourself victor. I've also made it very clear how these violate copyright law: they are not the cover, they are the entire booklet. The booklet is not covered by fair use, only the cover. Second, they are not being used for critical commentary or illustrative purposes, they are being used to allow the user to make use of their content. That's blatant copyright infringement, and the images must be immediately removed. --Cheeser1 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong again, Cheeser1 --- the complaint by Clarityfiend was a Wikiquette complaint, not an article debate, and certainly had nothing to do with copyright issues, which I do not agree with, BTW. You have now waded into the article debate and even created a new debate concerning the copyright issue, and I diffused that by agreeing (on another discussion page) to having the images removed as the reason for them existing in the first place has also been diffused; the veracity of the episode list is no longer an issue. So remove the images.--Bamadude 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You apparently did not "diffuse that by agreeing to having the images removed." If you wanted to cite these, you are more than welcome to cite the DVD inserts. You are not correct in uploading them to Wikipedia, and in doing so you, have violated copyright law. I immediately removed them, as is standard when copyright violations are present. --Cheeser1 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So that people can follow the bouncing ball better, I suggest tuning in at this link to catch the latest replies on this argument as Cheeser1 is posting replies to this at appx a half-dozen sites. I will be confining my replies to that link on this matter. For the record, Cheeser1's comments are not true at all and highly misleading; go read that link for more info.--Bamadude 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Since it seems blatantly obvious that this dispute is NOT going to be resolved for a while, I am asking for this page to be protected. I have watched this back and forth tennis battle for the past week and a half it has gone on; enough is enough. FamicomJL 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. We are currently in discussion about it, so let the discussion continue as I believe we are close to an agreement. I would ask Cheeser1 not to revert the inclusion of the image link until it's been decided if the image meets fair use or not; the reverts being made now cannot be readily seen by a non-editing user anyway and don't detract from the article.--Bamadude 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking for protection. Why have a revert war when we can just make it so that no one is able to edit the article? FamicomJL 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

At what point do you freeze it? One side or the other will be unsatisfied and it will start again when the page is unprotected. It's best to reach a truce and consensus than protecting a page.--Bamadude 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taxititle.jpg

Image:Taxititle.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 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) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

some uptight fool dislikes andy kaufman, a lot

so much so that in the 'premise and themes' section, even the poor john burns character is mentioned when latka isn't. silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.48.162 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Taxi Hours??

What is up with the section on a supposed animated spin off called "The Taxi Hours"? A quick search on Google and Youtube provides no relevant information that any such a series actually exists. Unless someone can provide proof otherwise, then I will be removing this section. Sounds to me like a figment of a fans imagination.Spman (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Appearances

I've added a table for appearances, taken partially from IMDB, but i know that J. Alan Thomas' number of roles are definitely less than 114. Also, i fixed Bobby's appearance number from IMDB but i think Simka, Tommy and Latka's roles may be incorrect too, when i watch all the episodes i'l go through again and keep a tally but until then i don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.98.4 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so i've watched through every episode and i've updated the episode count to what it should be. I've double checked, so i'm 99% sure about these numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMovieManiac (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any explanation for why each of the top stars were only in 112 of the 114 total episodes? Did they all just coincidentally get left out of 2? dmurphy1029 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmurphy1029 (talk • contribs)

No, i didn't include a Taxi Celebration, since it was clip-show and the only actor to appear in any new footage was Danny DeVito as himself, who just introduced it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.249.57 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

J Alan Thomas

I'm trying to create a page for this actor but i need references and sources. I don't mind creating and writing it but if you guys could gather together some reliable sources i'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.188.106 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast-section table

The number of episodes of each actor was uncited original research, being the personally tallied count of one editor and not cited to a third-party source. This is disallowed under one of the core policies of Wikipedia: WP:NOR. It's a clear-line violation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

oh, ffs. the law is an ass. how else is this information supposed to be generated? are you suggesting that his motives may be unsound & that his count is purposefully wrong? suggest another source for this information or leave it alone.

duncanrmi (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you personally agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but we all have to abide by them.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

Andy Kaufman was only ever a recurring cast member, not a season regular (despite being billed at the beginning of every episode). According to George Shapiro he agreed to appear in 14 episodes a season. (Although this slightly fluctuated from time to time -- for example, he apparently agreed to make an appearance at the end of the final dance number of Season 2, for example, even though he wasn't contractually obligated.)

Christopher Lloyd only became a series regular part way through Season 2 -- which means he only appeared in 12 episodes that year. Again, despite his billing.

Carol Kane made guest appearances in seasons two and four, but became a recurring character in Season 5. Appearing in 14 episodes, like Kaufman.

I don't wish to engage in a further edit war, so I'm explaining my edits here. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How many Emmy wins?

From the lede: "Taxi is an American sitcom that originally aired on ABC from September 12, 1978, to May 6, 1982, and on NBC from September 30, 1982, to June 15, 1983. The series won 18 Emmy Awards, including three for Outstanding Comedy Series."

Also from the lede: "The show was a critical and commercial success, having been nominated for 31 Emmy Awards and winning 13".

Which is correct? 18 or 13? 24.246.14.216 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Spelling of Alex's surname

This article spells Alex's last name as "Reiger", which I've seen to be used in at least one original script. However, on the character's locker (as seen, for example, in the first-season episode "Alex Tastes Death and Finds a Nice Restaurant") it's spelled "Rieger". Do we have any on-screen source for the "Reiger" spelling? If not, in this article should we give priority to the spelling used in the script or the spelling used in the broadcasts? Or are there perhaps further primary sources that might help settle the matter? (I know that IMDb spells it as "Reiger", but as its information is user-contributed, I don't think it counts as a reliable source.) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Having now watched episodes from later seasons, I note that in one or two of them Alex's locker is visible yet again, but this time with the spelling "Reiger". So it seems that the show was not consistent with the spelling of the character's name. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)