Talk:CHiPs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

In regards to Caitlyn Jenner:

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

On the 2010 version of Hawaii Five-O, CHIPS is playing in the background of the episode "He Kane Hewa' Ole". Danny and Steve begin discussing who would be Ponch and John.

Should this article contain an analysis of the homoerotic subtext of this show? Camp 70s disco, tight uniforms, butch chaps etc... 79.73.2.90 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CHiPs" doesn't stand for anything. In California CHP officers are referred to as "Chippies". Rick Rosner originally wanted the show to be called that, but NBC didn't like it so he changed it to "CHiPs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.198.177 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Remake[edit]

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)[reply]

CHiPs Producer Mistake[edit]

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)[reply]

Merger_proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


checkY Done! ChadH (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Teambeach, 24 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} 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)[reply]

That would be interesting. Can you please link to the file? Dawnseeker2000 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ponch Italian?[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request on 29 February 2012[edit]

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)[reply]

Please also add that CHiPs was inducted into the Diecast Hall of Fame on February 24th, 2012 at the Diecastspace.com SupercConvention in Las Vegas. Larry Wilcox and Robert Pine were there to accept on behalf of the show. Photos are available. More info available on the Diecastspace.com site. WebWriter24 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebWriter24 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like advertising to me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: WP:ROC for the first request. WP:ADS for the second request and it's not on the list that you mentioned http://www.diecasthall.com/announcements/hall-of-fame-class-of-2012-updated/ ChadH (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the CHiPs cast is having a reunion to celebrate the 35th anniversary isn't relevant to CHiPs? Are you people for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.198.177 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Note: I did about a hour of searching to find a WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:INDY with no luck. The CHiP's reunion website seems to be a fan run site, which is not an independent source (Which I am assuming Dennis was alluding to). Remember Wikipedia is is not a crystal ball, so while the reunion is great, (and as a huge CHiPs fan myself, it is) until it happens it's basically advertising which is not allowed on Wikipedia. There needs to be independent sources so that it brings factual and informative content to boost the article about the CHiPs TV show. While searching for sources, the website is one of the top hits as well as the Facebook page... Those are the best forums for that type of information, and I urge you to read what wikipedia is and isn't. ChadH (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source of info about future DVDs?[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. Hmm, I should have looked more closely here, seems like I was way off the mark. Redirect created per the IP's suggestion. Jenks24 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– Per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is this series really camp?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014 re: CHiPs[edit]

Please change the phrase 'strait-laced' to 'straight-laced' because the former is incorrect. Stebonius (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - As a UK English user I agree it looks wrong, but "strait-laced" is an "Alternative spelling of straight-laced" as can be seen here - Arjayay (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn Jenner credit[edit]

See Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Film and movie credits -- this has been discussed before, and there is a standing consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It follows MOS:IDENTITY which is a guideline backed by WP:BLP, "do no harm". The harm that it does is described at Deadname. If VPP rewrites IDENTITY then we will write to the new guideline. Skyerise (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a standing consensus and if you want to edit against that consensus you need to form a new consensus, which is what we're trying to do at the village pump. Edit-warring over it doesn't help. You were asked to discuss in this edit summary but you didn't. Please do so now. Respect WP:BRD and note that while it is under discussion, the status quo reigns. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, WP POLICY does not allow consensus to trump WP POLICY. We need to wait for new POLICY to trump the current POLICY. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is not policy, it's just part of the MOS, which is a guideline. WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, trumps guidelines. Another part of the MOS is WP:NOTBROKEN, which applies to changing redirects, and your most recent, undiscussed, change to the article. Please refrain from making more changes until the current discussions at the Village Pump are complete and the community's decision on how this matter should be handled is finalised. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, again, the current POLICY is stated at the top of this Talk page for your convenience. And, yes, that is a POLICY. It will automatically update when any discussions fruit a new POLICY.
Furthermore, don't you think reverting to a deadnamed wikilink is unneededly disrespectful to her? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 01:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the template that you are referring to. It specifically raises MOS:IDENTITY, which is NOT policy. It also refers to Wikipedia's guideline and this guideline. Again, this is not policy. Regarding the wikilink, I again refer to WP:NOTBROKEN. Also, this is not a 1RR page, and since you have chosen to edit-war I have left an appropriate warning on your talk page. Please be sure to read WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO before editing further. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, [[WP:ACDS]] is a POLICY that trumps any guidelines or consensus and I have posted the ACDS with 'pa' parameter boilerplate on your Talk page for your convenience. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ACDS is a disambiguation page and WP:ACDS is not a policy either. As I have explained on my talk page, you need to actually start reading the templates that you are adding. The template that you added specifically says pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification. This is not such a page. It's an article about a TV program that ended 32 years ago and Jenner's mention is more in passing than anything else. Per WP:NOTBROKEN there is no need to change "Bruce Jenner" to "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)" as Bruce Jenner is a redirect to the other article. That Jenner now goes by a different name is completely irrelevant, since 33 years ago "he" was "Bruce Jenner". Until such time as the community has decided on a specific direction, the WP:STATUSQUO reigns. I note that your only contribution to the community's attempt to form consensus on how we should refer to such people is an invitation to "poll Cait"[1] The tone of that comment makes me suspect that your edits are not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy that editors maintain a neutral point of view. You also need to stop claiming that guidelines are policy when they are not. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that the issue was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and "preserve historic gender" received strong support. For further clarification, see the archived discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I have added a template to the top of this Talk page reflecting the current [[WP:MOS]] identity policy guideline [[WP:MOSIDENTITY]]. When the POLICY GUIDELINE updates, the template will automatically update with any new POLICY GUIDELINE. Also, please be advised that edits to this article are within the scope of [[WP:ACDS]] (Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions) specifically with the "pa" parameter in the warning template [[Template:Ds/alert]]. ACDS is a POLICY, not a guideline. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACDS is not a policy, it's a procedure. Pages that are policy carry an appropriate banner, usually {{policy}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MGM production from article text[edit]

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 [2].

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 [3] 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CHiPs&oldid=1200860554"