Talk:CHiPs

message: CHiPs DVD set season 2 will be released on Oct. 1st. Warner has not provided a release date yet.  They haven't even finished their Sept. schedule, and haven't gotten to October yet.
Would it be possible to include what "CHiPs" actually stands for? The article doesn't mention it anywhere, and I'd think it should be right near the top, if not in the opening paragraph. --Khaim 11:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is no source listed for the 2003 remake.  Someone had added a link to http://www.booyastudios.com as a reference, but I can find no information related to "CHiPs" or a 2003 remake on that site. --PatrickD (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003 Remake

message: The Rick Rosner linked to this article is not the same person as the CHiPs producer. This article links to a page in wikipedia about the TV show producer Rick Rosner. However it is another Rick Rosner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rosner).  The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) has both, Rick Rosner II, the man linked to this article who is not involved with the series (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1262827/), and Rick Rosner I, the actual CHiPs producer (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0743121/). A proper article about Rick Rosner should be created and linked to this article, or at least change the links to points to a void article in order to avoid misleading information about the show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.195.13.142 (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CHiPs Producer Mistake

message: CHiPs '99 is a four year old stub, of basically 2 lines of text and a rather excessive cast list, it could have a section here - with a loss off all those red links.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge Well... it has almost been 2 years since you brought this up! So why not! Move the one line into a section and embed the infobox. Do we really have to wait a week? ChadH (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger_proposal 

message: I would like to add a picture of Frank Poncherello's Badge from the series.  It has the actual B600 number on the badge. 
Teambeach (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be interesting. Can you please link to the file? Dawnseeker2000  20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Teambeach, 24 March 2011 

message: "The character of Ponch was originally conceived to be Italian ("Poncherini"), but when Erik Estrada won the part, the character was changed to Hispanic American."
In one episode, Ponch identified as Italian. The patrol officers were getting a bit rowdy in the briefing room, and Sarg told them to cool it. Ponch said, "I can't help it Sarg. I'm Italian, we're emotional." (And to which Sarg's stone-faced reply was "I'm Dutch, we're not.")
207.6.107.32 (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My instinct is that when the writers of a show change a fact to suit whatever scene they're writing, then they consider that fact unimportant. So unless some third party can be cited saying it is important, Ponch's ethnicity should probably be ignored by Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponch Italian? 

message: Please add the fact there will be a cast reunion and convention on September 15th, 2012. More info can be found on the official site: http://chipsreunion.com WebWriter24 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like advertising to me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: "Fact" is probably the operative word here. And the lack of interest in independent sources, which makes one question the whole thing. Can you cite any independent newspapers, magazines, books, professionally edited web sites, etc on this planned event? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 February 2012 

message: On 15-Jan-2012, several edits were made adding information about upcoming DVD releases of CHiPs seasons 3, 4, 5 and 6. No source of this information was provided. A phone call to Warner Home Video's customer service line, asking about this, says that "nothing has been announced" for those seasons. How do we know this is legit information?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.44.119 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of info about future DVDs? 

message: According to the aforementioned article, this 80s police series is now considered to be camp!! By definition, camp means:
an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing or humorous because of its deliberate ridiculousness.
Anyone care to comment?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.225.8 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are unsourced facts or opinions at Camp (style), feel free to challenge or delete them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this series really [[Camp (style)|camp]]? 

message: Please change the phrase 'strait-laced' to 'straight-laced' because the former is incorrect.
Stebonius (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014 re: CHiPs 

message: RE: the edit summary "Undid revision 727033952 by Dennis Bratland (talk) already in the infobox, 99.9% of tv show articles don't have the studio in the first sentence" in .
With regard to the first point, see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE in the MOS page for infoboxes: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." We want articles to be complete, missing no key facts, even if the infobox didn't exist. The previous edit summary  suggests that this deletion somehow moves the article closer to GA status, but the base criteria for Good Articles is compliance with the Manual of Style.<P>Second, I don't know if anyone has accurately sampled the thousands of TV series articles, but we have 145 TV Featured Articles, and most of those articles about a TV series have the production company in the first sentence, or at least in the intro:
*Animaniacs
*Firefly (TV series)
*Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)
*Making Waves (TV series)
*The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest
*Sesame Street
*Thunderbirds (TV series)
Exceptions include House (TV series), The Simpsons, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., and Blue's Clues, but note that while we leave out the production company from the intro, we do list the producers themselves by name. No FA TV series articles leave the producers and the production company entirety out of the introduction, let alone delete it from the entire article text.<P>We must include that this was an produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the article text, not just the infobox. The usual practice for our best articles is to put this information in the introduction, and typically in the first sentence. If there is some special reason why CHiPs should deviate from this, then the production company must be moved from the intro to the body of the article, not deleted altogether. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it's not enough to list it in the infobox; it has to go in the text itself.<P>In general, if you find vial information in the wrong place in an article, the solution is to move it to the right place, not to delete it altogether. An article with missing information is worse than one with all the facts, but less than perfect organization. And in this case, the claim that the production company was in the wrong place is weak at best.<P>Note also that, if we really want to move this article closer to MOS standards, then per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section we should mention the production company not once but twice in the text, once in the body of the article, and again in the intro, since the intro should summarize key facts. Counting the infobox, the production company should be mentioned three times total. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of MGM production from article text