![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)