Talk:Taxi (TV series)

message: 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)
thread_title: Actual garage

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New DVD cover section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Taxititle.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  some uptight fool dislikes andy kaufman, a lot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Taxi Hours?? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Appearances

message: 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)
thread_title: J Alan Thomas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cast-section table

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recurring Characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How many Emmy wins? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling of Alex's surname