Talk:Airwolf/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cold war

I wouldn't say the Cold War was “emerging” in 1984…
Auto-jack 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A good point. I just reworded the sentence. --BorgQueen 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Cold war was already ended by 1984...

Merchandize information on wikipedia

You don't see a list of star wars toys on the Star Wars page do you… (Bjorn Tipling 05:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Including information about tie-in merchandise is in context since it provides insight into the show's impact on popular culture, and yes, I've seen information about commercial tie-ins on several film/TV pages. It's not about getting people to buy items, it's about providing information. The original author hardly has a PayPal account attached to the section. Unless you can provide a better reason for its exclusion, I'm reverting your edit. Ben King 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the Star Wars articles on Wikipedia, you'll find that Star Wars merchandise has its own category. Ben King 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's throw this one open for discussion. Do people feel that information about commercial exploitation of a TV brand (e.g. Airwolf) is a legitimate topic for inclusion in an article on that brand on Wikipedia? Rather than arbitrarily deleting someone else's work, I feel that it is perhaps best to establish some consensus on this issue. Over to you, folks. Ben King 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-profit organization with a mission to be a database of human knowledge. It wasn't established as a commercial endeavor to sell things. Information on a particular subject is not ment to promote sales of it and commercial links are therefore inappropriate. However, simply listing things that were sold to promote Airwolf I see nothing wrong with, as long as links aren't provided in order to buy them from somewhere. Maybe instead of listing the exact things that were sold, you could just say, a CD soundtrack, as well as a few models and toys were produced for merchandise, and provide a link to a collector's website to see what thinsg were available for collector purposes. Cyberia23 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A simple list of show related items that are—or have been—sold is not contrary to the ideas behind wikipedia. Such information, is about the show, and as such is encyclopedic. Reasons Star Wars does not have a comprehensive list, are most likely due to both the size of such a list and its easy availability in many places else ware on the internet. In the case of Airwolf, neither of those is true It took me quite a bit of time to find the model details back when I was trying to complete my collection. In addition, this show was—at least in large part—about the helicopter, and I think that details of each model that has been available will be of interest to future readers. I know that I would have loved to have had said information a year ago. —MJBurrage 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube link that was on this page was not a copyright violation, but it was an ad for a product, which can already be found in the external links section. —MJBurrage • TALK • 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements are copyrighted too. *shrug* Either way, my only goal here is to get editors to make sure the links are ok.---J.S (t|c) 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but in this case the ad was put on you tube by the person selling the procudt in question. So no copyright problem. I was under the impression that advertisments on wikipedia were against policy, but I could not find such a policy just now. —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mergers

This is the creator of the page for Michael Coldsmith Briggs III writing this in response to requests to have the aforementioned article merged into the Airwolf article. I will merge this article ONLY if the Stringfellow Hawke and Dominic Santini articles are merged as well.

Sorry, but no one OWNS wiki articles. You can oppose the move, and even give conditions in which might support it, but you can not prevent it unilaterally if there is a consensus for merging it. Feel free to participate in the discussion, and give your reasons for or agianst it. - BillCJ 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Correct, nobody OWNS Wiki articles. I can understand how one may be somewhat protective of ones that they have created (I am), but this sort of a reaction is really out in left-field. Make your case for or against the move, but don't try to threaten or negotiate!

2. I don't see where the discussion for the Archangel merge even is located...that's a problem. I would have posted there, but I was directed here from the ARchangel page.

3. OPPOSE MERGE. The primary characters from this show should have their own articles. Just because the ARchangel page is sparse (as in, almost non-existent) doesn't in itself mean it shouldn't be there, just that it has not been written sufficiently yet. Give it time (or better yet, help it!).

VigilancePrime 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!!!)

The Stringfellow Hawke and Dominic Santini articles, at the very least, are both too long and extensive to be merged into the main Airwolf article. Any description of the characters in the main article should probably be limited to short (i.e. single paragraph) blurbs, while the individual character articles get the more extensive treatment. Buried Alien

Now that I think about it, I realize that I was wrong to call it my article. The MCB article is the first one that I have ever written, so I was a little overprotective of it. Sorry for that. Just to let you know, I will expand the MCB article further when I have free time. Again, I am a newbie and am sorry for the out-in-left-field demands. The simple reason that that is the first article that I have written should be irrevelant to preventing it from being merged into Airwolf. As soon as I am finished working on it, I will merge it (if it is not too long.)

--Crazeedriver2005 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Like I said earlier, I understand how it can be to have a pet article (I have more than one) and be defensive about it; there's nothing wrong with that. I still agree that the article should NOT be merged. As always (okay, usually) I Assume Good Faith and don't fault you at all for your reaction. WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA! Best of luck as you continue to expand the article (I know it can be a long, arduous process)! VigilancePrime 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs#Plot: This section should be relatively brief, only discussing important plot elements that steered the course of characters lives, or the course of the show, or at least were popular with audiences (ie Seinfeld's Soup Nazi). Remember to add {{spoiler}} before you get into any details of the plot. Careful sentences structure can also suggest to users upcoming spoilers so try and keep bigger plot points towards the ends of paragraphs. - BillCJ 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, rules on Wiki only apply to people who actually try to keep them. I won't add the spoilers in again, because I'd be the one accused of revert warring, while those pushing their view of an issue still under discussion would be allowed to continue removing spoilers without consequences. There's obviously nothing I can do to stop them. I have tried. - BillCJ 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking a stand on the whole spoiler issue here. There is nothing specific enough in the Synopsis section to warrant the spoiler warning. Its general background information. The current guideline implies only using spoiler if specific plot details are given away. For example the Sixth Sense should not have a spoiler around the whole plot of the movie, most of that is given away in any ad for the film "I see dead people", but it is appropriate to warn before giving away the twist.

The only thing in the synopsis that is not background for season 1 is Caitlin, and that's already covered in the cast list. Are we going to spoiler warning those since they "give away" when a character leaves a show? —MJBurrage • TALK • 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry for over-reacting. The spoiler warning isn't warranted in this case. - BillCJ 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thunder Blade

Super Thunder Blade
Image:Stbsega.jpg and Image:Stbts.png I remember the arcade chopper looking more like an Apache or Cobra (which look more like each other than either does a Bell 222), but whoever put in the line about the copter in this game looking like Airwolf had to be thinking of Blue Thunder instead. Anynobody 07:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AirwolfS3.jpg

Image:AirwolfS3.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 1942 Airwolf Game Modification

There is a game modification for Battlefield 1942 entitled "Airwolf" which includes the ability to fly either the standard Airworf, or the red/black Airwolf (one for each team).

The map includes a canyon where Airwolf is located along with realistic sound effects (the howling wolf sound for turbos), actual Airwolf theme music, and even some still shots during map loads etc.

I suspect the mod isn't officially licensed and thus I'm not sure it warrants an entry, but considering it is the most modern of any existing Airwolf games I think it might be worth mentioning. If anyone has additional information on it please consider adding it. Costner 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a WWII era game, right? What does that have to do with the Airwolf helicopter based TV show in the 1980s? Other that the name "Airwolf" that is. -Fnlayson 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Did you not read my post? It is a mod to the BF1942 game, meaning all it shares is the core game engine. The Airwolf chopper, sounds, music etc is all unique to this Airwolf modification, thus making it the most recent videogame to involve Airwolf. If nothing else it is still worthy of a "popular culture" reference. Costner 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  - I did. You didn't mention anything about it being separate from rest of game. I take modification to be like an add-on. Thanks for clarifying... -Fnlayson 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Major additions reverted

I have reverted all of the major additions by User:91.105.105.10 for several reasone, the primary one being that almost all of it was Original Research. This included a large amount of speculation and conjecture. Some of it may well have been true, but we still have to have reliable sources whereever possible.

In addition, there were a number of style issues, some of which were changed from correct to incorrect styles. These include:

Changing spelled-out words to abbreviations or mixed numerals, such as "second season" to "2nd season".
Use of ALL-CAPS is episode titles, including changing existing titles from Initial Caps to ALL-CAPS.
Overuse of the POV term "fan-favourite", with no sources to confirm such status; also mis-spelled for a US-topic article ("favorite").
Various other mis-spellings and caps issues.
Very bad grammar in several places.

I could have fixed these style issues, and was actually doing so when I realized how bad the whole addition was. I therefore decided to remove all of it, rather than attempt to fix the style problems and add a whole slew of {{fact}}, {{originalresearch}}, and other tags to the article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you, Bill. Nice work. Raryel (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

90's Pilot?

Hi,

Anyone editign this article know of an attempt to revive the series in the mid-late 1990's? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no attempt, there will be a movie i think next year or the following but nothing esle--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Any idea where this news about a movie is located? Last I heard there was a guy developing a script to show people, but I have not heard of it turning into anything more than just another failed story attempt. Neutralman1024 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all fantasy and conjecture. There are absolutely no plans for an Airwolf movie or TV series at this point. A script was reportedly mooted to the suits at Universal but was rejected. SurgeFilter(SF 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

F.I.R.M., not Firm

On the few occasions that the name of the series' resident intelligence agency was rendered visually, it was as initials, F.I.R.M., not Firm; consequently, I am so changing it here and in the various related articles. Ted Watson (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the Firm (a play on the term the Company, i.e. the CIA) for the first season or two. Later they decided to change it to "The F.I.R.M." —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that "the F.I.R.M." was a play on "the Company," but that does not mean it was ever visually rendered as anything but initials. If some hand-written note by a character had it "Firm," that hardly counts as official. I have no memory of any on-screen appearance of the name other than the third season initials. (I was on my way back here to elaborate on this when I found that message.) Ted Watson (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In season 3 and season 1, there are several instances where Archangel is riding in the Firm's limo. The plate reads "FIRM" without any punctuation. 69.202.103.100 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to use the most common form (F.I.R.M./FIRM/Firm) and stick with it. It just wastes time changing back and forth in cycles. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So two for FIRM. Where was the consensus for the wrong way? none. Follow your own advice before undoing what's already got a 2-0 vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.103.100 (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, F.I.R.M. was the last agreed upon form before this week. Consensus does not mean a simple vote counting thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we reading the same page here? There was a change without a consensus and another who apparently agreed, but was not overly convincing. I'm just following precedent, and made FIRM consistent all the way through, if you bother to look at the changes rather than just undo them, you'd see that there are places where it was Firm, F.I.R.M. and FIRM, I made them all the same as I saw them in Season 1 and Season 3 license plates on the limo, can't get more official than that! And you agree it should be consistent, so following precedent of changing with one vote, I did get a consensus. -69.202.103.100 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One person does not make a consensus. It was mostly F.I.R.M before. It looks to be all FIRM now which is good that it is consistent. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "plate" that IP means "automobile license plate" (and I can't imagine anything else), that obviously doesn't prove there should not be periods. Has anyone ever seen an American "vanity" plate with an acronym including periods? I don't think so. If that is all the evidence toward "FIRM" or "Firm" in the face of all the other usage of "F.I.R.M." then the initials stand with no real challenge. I agree with Fnlayson that the article should be "all" consistent rather than just "mostly" so, but it should be that in the accurate way. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All these discussions really prove if that the series itself was not consistent in how the term was spelled. As Fnlayson said, we need to be consistent. We ought to mention al the alternative formattings in the first mention, but chose only one for the rest of the article. The problem is, which do we chose? Whatever we do chose, someone is going to thing it's wrong, and try to change it. THe only think we can really do is to just pick one, and that becomes the consensus, and we can enforce it as such in teh future. I don't have a preference, but I feel like suggesting F.iRm. as a combination of all possible choices! Seriously though, I'd pick whatever way it appeared first in the show, and stick with that. - BillCJ (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was driving home from work today and saw a vanity plate reading "Mrs.Esq." Just food for thought. Neutralman1024 (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And to further muddy the waters, the plates on the Firm's limo were probably from the studio's prop depeartment, not any state's DMV! - BillCJ (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you'll find that F.I.R.M. was used in the scene in Red Star in the 'Pilot' episode. Both Archangel and Marella are wearing an early variation of the very obvious close-up of the F.I.R.M. badge in the first Mongoose hijacking scene in the 3rd Season's 'Annie Oakley'. It was always intended by Don Bellisario as a sly name for the company and he has always referred to it as "the Firm", however it was either Production Designer Charles R. Davis or concept illlustrator Andrew Probert who came up with the badge for the art dept, so by rights everything should be "F.I.R.M.' with dots. I personally like Don Bellisario's intentions (or maybe it's Federal Intelligence of Righteous Men! ;)but I would partially agree with Fnlayson in that the capitals were actually shown in the show. -SurgeFilter (SF 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Quoting BillCJ, correcting one confusing typo that I just today figured out and got his actual intent: All these discussions really prove is that the series itself was not consistent in how the term was spelled. Excuse me? What I see here is that on every instance (license plates alone excluded and therefore not proving anything; Neutralman 1024 seeing one with abbreviations twenty years later and God knows where proves nothing about what was and was not allowed in mid-1980s California) that the general-use name of the agency was visually rendered on screen—how ever few and far between they were—it was with periods. Fnlayson and SurgeFilter seem unable to understand the difference between writing and pronunciation, that Bellasario's creating it to be pronounced "the Firm" as a play on the CIA's nickname, "the Company" does not in any way shape of form prove his intent for visual rendering. Given SurgeFilter's statement that it was capitalized and "perioded" initials in the pilot, I can see no reasonable and valid case for rendering it otherwise here (the idea is to make the encyclopedia accurate, after all). However, I will wait for further comment before I change them, in all four articles. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. Where did I say any of that? I have made no statements about how Firm is written vs. pronounced in the series. I've commented on consistency issues in this wiki article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my point that the series was not consistent in presenting the word "FIRM/Firm/F.I.R.M.". I don't mind anyone suggesting that we just pick one, and go with it, for whatever reason, whether you claim it was the one most used or not. But it would be nice to have a consensus on using one method for consistency, then we could enforce it if it's changed again - and it will be, because the series was not consistent. Ted, if you just go ahead and change it on your own without achieving a consensus to keep the change - and discussion is not consensus - then the next user who waltzes in here certain his way is right is going to change what you did to something else, and it start's all over again. This is in the end an extremely minor issue, which is one reason Jeff and I don't get too worked up over what the presentation of FIRM is, or get into edit wars over it. It's not worth it in the long run. - BillCJ (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As already noted, a license plate is effectively meaningless here.

The first season DVD episode summary leads with: "The Firm, a covert C.I.A. cell, orders…"

All of the packaging for seasons 1–3 also use "The Firm"

The single ID badge shown in "Annie Oakley" (3×08) does read "F.I.R.M.", however it is nothing like the ID badges from the pilot. The pilot film badges had longer words that while too small to be legible, were still large enough that they were clearly not four large capitals.

Having said that, in "Proof Through the Night" (1×04) Marella is holding a file that has an easily readable seal which has "F.I.R.M" across the top.

So it is pretty clear that it is "F.I.R.M." formally, and "The Firm" informally. The first time it comes up in the article we could use something like:

"Airwolf was built by the F.I.R.M. (informally The Firm), a covert branch of the C.I.A."

Later in the article I would then suggest using The Firm most of the time since it reads better and matches the episode summaries. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MJB. That sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. - BillCJ (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson: You talked about Bellasario coming up with the name as a play on "the Company," which does not have any direct bearing on visual rendering but does indeed deal with pronunciation. Don't tell me to read more carefully when the problem is that you aren't paying enough attention to what you write.

BillCJ: I stand by my point that the series was not consistent in presenting the word "FIRM/Firm/F.I.R.M. Stand by it and be damned. As related in this thread, the evidence shows that it was consistent, as "F.I.R.M." While in and of itself this might well be "an extremely minor issue," that is no excuse for letting an easily correctable piece of misinformation stay in the encyclopedia.

MJBurrage: Two decades after-the-run DVD packaging is not in-series use. And again, what you label as "informally" is refering to pronunciation, not visual rendering, which is the only issue here. It is misrepresentation of a patently irrelevant fact, and I strongly advise all that it not be mentioned again. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MJBurrage talked about the play on the Company near the top. Not me. Whatever... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, if it were a simple an issue as you present it, it would not be an issue! If there were only one visual presentation of the word, then yes, it would be a misrepresentation to present it another way, even though only a minor one. As for your "strong advisment", I can't even tell what it is exactly you're advising not be mentioned. However, issuing such advisements is probably not the best way to try to achieve a consensus with fellow editors. Assuming that's your goal here, as I am doing in good faith, even though it is not that evident that it is your goal. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the license plate—which tells us nothing since plates could not have lower case nor punctuation—does any episode spell it "FIRM" as opposed to "F.I.R.M.?

As for using "The Firm", Wikipedia does not follow in universe over common use per se. The company that owns the show uses "The Firm" in regular writing, and so that usage is as valid as anything else for an out of universe article (arguably more so for much of the article). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. We can even include a ref note stating what company-published (or authorized) sources this is based on. - BillCJ (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must give one, specific apology to Fnlayson: the second person to bring up Bellisario coining the name of his fictional intelligence agency as a play on the CIA's nickname (Attention BillCJ: That is what I was "advising not be mentioned" again, and you're right, I did fail to make myself clear there, so one more apology offered) was SurgeFilter, not him/her; again, my apologies for making that mistake and for the things I said about you that came out of that error. But regardless as to which of the group of you said it, the point stands: as even in the pilot (the very first episode) we see "F.I.R.M.," the derivation of the name is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

BillCJ: Again, if it were a simple an issue as you present it, it would not be an issue! But it is as simple as I present it! Let me pause to quote you again and then I'll explain. If there were only one visual presentation of the word, then yes, it would be a misrepresentation to present it another way. With the sole exception of the car license plates (which I submitted, MJBurrage agreed {asserting his position here twice}, and only Neutralman 1024 dissented, but, as 69.202.103.100 said relevant to another lone dissenting vote, in a manner "not overly convincing," do not prove anything due to the nature of vanity plates) the program itself invariably rendered it "F.I.R.M." That IS "only one visual presentation." Will you please cease asserting otherwise in defiance of reality? ...not the best way to achieve consensus with your fellow editors. Actually, all I'm trying to achieve with my fellow editors is acknowledgement of the fact of the situation as it actually exists. Consensus to the contrary does not overrule firm (no pun intended) FACT.

MJBurrage: The company that owns the show uses "The Firm" in regular writing, and so that usage is as valid as anything else for an out of universe article (arguably more so for much of the article). As I can find in the article (and I've learned my lesson, I looked closely) no use of the intelligence agency's name that is not in-universe—for instance, there is no reference to Bellisario's coining of the name—this is faulty, doubly so, in fact: The company that owns the show is not the company that created it, so its interior paperwork usage does not overrule in-series usage. Furthermore, here's a precedent about the non-standing of such documents over on-screen use: In the early years of the BBC science-fantasy series Doctor Who, scripts, company records, and even the covers and title pages of novelisations, referred to each story as Doctor Who and..., yet those are not the stories' official titles, not even in the very early days when only individual episode titles (the programme was serialised) got on-air exposure.

Again, I see no reasonable, rational, reality-based dispute for "F.I.R.M." --Ted Watson (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about how "F.I.R.M." is written in universe, that has been settled ("F.I.R.M." not "FIRM"). It is about how we write it (after a proper description) in an out-of-universe encyclopedia article.

"The Firm" reads better, and has a notable real world president (the shows owners own description's of the episodes). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow that "argument" at all. While I'll admit that "Firm" might read a little bit better than "F.I.R.M.," I'll grant no stronger term for this situation, and that doesn't justify rendering it WRONG! How can it possibly NOT be about how the term is written in universe? After all, this "universe" is what the specific term under discussion was created for. It just doesn't exist in any other context. We are talking about the name of a fictional entity, and F.I.R.M. is what it is. Admittedly it comes out "the Firm" in informal spoken conversation, where visual rendering is non-existent, except in the real-world scripts and such where doing so properly is a low priority because it doesn't show on-screen. In-series use is not only contemporaneous but first hand. The name was presented that way several times and invariably so (except for those already-dealt-with license plates, of course). Once or twice could be reasonably dismissed as a typo, given no statement to the contrary from the creator, but this is not what we have here. In any article about a fictional TV series, film, whatever, we should render any name the way it is visually rendered in the production, provided it is done so consistently (and in this case it was invariable). Simply and blankly asserting that in-universe use is irrelevant does not even begin to make the case that it is so, and the above makes the concept on the face of it appear, at least to me, to be highly illogical (to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, it does whether I say so or not, I might as well say so; if you can convince me otherwise, I'll withdraw this, but so far you've made no such effort). Indeed, BillCJ has previously conceded to the legitimacy of this position as a general practice, but claimed that due to actually non-existent inconsistency here it does not apply in this case. The fact of the matter as established here even before he posted this is that there was no such inconsistency on Airwolf, so the position does apply here. Furthermore, in my most recent posting I cited a precedent against putting the parent corporation's records (as opposed to those of the immediate creating production company, which have not been cited) over on-screen usage, and let me now add to this that such are second hand at best anyway. Deal with it. Let me point out that at the top of this thread most of you were saying that you were more concerned about the name being rendered the same way each and every time it appeared in the article (which it does not at this writing, so something needs to be done) more than about which rendering is used. Why is there now such resistance to this choice, which is clearly the correct one (and on reviewing the thread just now, I find that there appears to be a sizable majority vote this way, whether or not that qualifies as a consensus)? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quickly becoming a bikeshed issue. It does not really matter which style is chosen, but someone from somewhere will think it is wrong or inaccurate, and will change it. That's the history of this article, and nothing Ted has said will prevent someone who thinks Ted is wrong from changing it in the future, just as Ted did to someone else, without attempting to build a consensus first. Ted, you're not trying to build a consensus here; you're bullying, beating people over the head for minor quibbles and typos, yelling "you're wrong, you're wrong!", and that's never a productive method of getting anyone to agree with you. MJB has put forth a proposal as a proposal, and I've supported him. Stop telling us we're wrong to support that proposal, and belittling us for our choices. I'm done arguing with you, as we've covered the same ground enough times already. The article is already written in the style you prefer, and has been that way since you changed it several months ago. You can claim consesnus if you want, but what happens when someone else decides this style is wrong? With a real consensus, other editors will support the current style; I guess you'll find out who supports it when someone decides to change it to the "correct" style. - BillCJ (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, as this is how WP works. From the summary at the top of the page:

Consensus is about how editors work with others.
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.
Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.

That policy is what I am referring to when I talk about consensus, and it is what should govern decision making regarding articles, especially when there are competing opinions all based on "fact", but the facts and opinions differ. - BillCJ (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Towards finding such consensus, compare:

A C.I.A. agent works for an agency known informally as The Company, especially when discussing covert work.
A F.I.R.M. agent works for a division known informally as The Firm, a secret cell of the The Company.

It's not me, saying that it is okay to write the agency as both "F.I.R.M." and "The Firm". The show renders it "F.I.R.M." on all on screen documents, but it is not said as an initialism. The company that owns the show renders it "The Firm" in all packaging and episode summaries. Hence both are valid. Since F.I.R.M jumps out at a reader (just like bold does), it can interrupt the flow a a passage and the overall appearance of the text. I.E. the page looks and reads better if it uses both.

As for Dr. Who title examples, if an alternate title was only used in unpublished production materials, that it would have less weight than the aired titles, but one alternate titles are published they become valid (and sourcable) also-known-as titles. We even have an example here where there are two titles for the two-hour opening episode. I am not claiming that some unpublished memo is of equal weight with on screen usage, I am making the point that officially published material is notable regardless of whether it was used on screen or not. So just like one can write about the C.I.A. using the term The Company, one can write about the F.I.R.M. using the term The Firm. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's also look at the different trends. In the 80s it was common to put periods after the letters spelling an acronym, e.g. C.I.A. or F.I.R.M. Now, the trend is to omit the periods. I don't know what WP policy is for acronyms, but perhaps this solution can be solved by using FIRM according to modern trends in writing out the acronym. I don't think this issue is as trivial as some would suggest; this talk section would not have exploded with posts if it was. And as has been pointed out, it has been demonstrated as The Firm, the F.I.R.M., and on vanity plates, FIRM. As a possible compromise to this issue, how about we put in a sentence that there is controversy of whether the covert agency was the F.I.R.M., the FIRM, or The Firm and then select The Firm for smoother readership through the rest of the article. Just a suggestion, take from it what you will. — Neutralman1024 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ did not deal with anything I said in the posting of mine to which he was ostensibly replying, and which proved beyond reasonable, reality-based debate that it should be rendered as "F.I.R.M." Now that he is gone, perhaps we can get somewhere, since he (and in particular his blatantly incorrect and repeated assertion that the series was inconsistent in its visual rendering of the name) has been the biggest stumbling block. Besides, I have no idea what he could possibly mean by saying to me, The article is already written in the style you prefer, as he did in his last posting. As I said previously, the rendering of the only thing under discussion here currently varies through the article, which can easily be confirmed with a click of a mouse. I checked out the "bikeshed" page, and it is inapplicable to this. We have gotten together to discuss the proper rendering of the name of the agency in this show, and we have not become caught up in some minor and unrelated detail, but remain on topic; it's just that too many people here won't acknowledge the simple reality of the issue (invoking Jefferson as above).

Neutralman1024's "trends" discussion is patently irrelevant, as according to that case (and MJBurrage's "reads better" argument; furthermore, that simply is not as important as accuracy) the article on the television series The Man from U.N.C.L.E. should not render its titular organization with periods, at least in the text (that name was, after all, regularly pronounced as the word "Uncle"). The usage that you people keep less-than-fairly referring to as "informally" is all about pronounciation, that is, characters call it "the Firm" in spoken dialogue, and that is irrelevant to how it should be rendered in writing, print, type, whatever. I explained that in irrefutable detail before and stated that there was no point in bringing it up again (at least, that is how I should have put it), but it has been and in the same misleading misrepresentation as before. One last point to Burrage: Again, we are talking about the name of a fictional entity in a visual medium, so the visual rendering there is the only place the "real" version exists and production company records, scripts, etc., have such as a low priority because all those documents are required to convey is meaning, concepts, dialogue; they do not show up on screen.

We all (with the exception of the departed BillCJ) seem to have admitted that all visual renderings in the series (for the record again, license plates discussed and dismissed as non-evidentiary) were as "F.I.R.M." All we have to do is flatly and fully admit the fact (and it is a simple fact) here as a conclusion to this thread and that will constitute a documented consensus. Then if anybody ever changes it otherwise, whoever reverts it back will just need to include a ref. to this in his edit summary. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my argument is not patently irrelevant. And if you lack the fortitude to figure it out, you're a lost cause. You also contradict yourself:

the article on the television series The Man from U.N.C.L.E. should not render its titular organization with periods, at least in the text (that name was, after all, regularly pronounced as the word "Uncle").

You fail to explain the difference. The characters still referred to FIRM as the Firm, no different than the above-argument. It was also shown as FIRM, and as has been pointed out numerous times, Universal Studios writes "the Firm" in all of its synopses. Again, if it were as simple as you profess, there would not be such an explosion of posts on this issue, and you would not be ignoring other posters' valid points. Quit with the conclusory commentary. — Neutralman1024 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I "fail to explain the difference" in what? In the quote which this assertion follows, my point is the lack of difference in the two situations. Your argument is patently irrelevant, I explained how and why, and if you can't understand it, then you are the lost cause here. "The characters still referred to FIRM as the Firm" is talking about speaking out loud which has no bearing whatsoever on visual rendering, the one and only issue here. I don't know how that point can possibly be made any clearer. "It was also shown as FIRM" seems to be referring to the license plates (no one here has asserted any other specific instance of such a rendering, nobody, and some have flatly said it was shown no way but "F.I.R.M."; if you can cite even one, I'd love to hear it and I'll deal with it on its own terms, but understand that general and blank assertions won't impress me) which have been explained—and not only by me—as having no evidentiary value toward the question due to the limitations of that medium. It is as simple as I profess (BillCJ and I have already had this exact same exchange), and all posts to the contrary are not valid points. I have refuted every single one and bloody well ignored nothing but BillCJ's dissertation on how consensus in general works and is defined by Wiki regs. As was stated by Fnlayson early on this thread, "F.I.R.M." had been generally accepted and agreed to. I strongly suggest that you either get a grip on reality or follow BillCJ out. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't refuted anything other than our impression you were intelligent. But thanks for playing anyway. — Neutralman1024 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is in violation of both Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is also completely lacking in factual accuracy. I echo, if you honestly believe I have refuted nothing, you, not me, are the lost cause here. I also point out the fact that you failed to so much as acknowledge my completely reasonable requests for clarification of your "difference" remark and for a specific citation of "FIRM" other than the license plates. Please discus in good faith. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really possible to make a supersonic helicopter?

It does not seem possible to have a helicopter not stall or anything with jet engines running at the same time the helicopter propeller is running. I love the show but that just bothers me, but reallity seems to change and fiction seems to change, it was only 200 years ago it was impossible for man to fly! also 200 years ago no man reached or could reach the speed of 200mph! — Nerd (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been jet/helicopter hybrids, such as the Sikorsky S-69 (322 mph), Sikorsky X-Wing (230 mph) and Boeing X-50 (failed design), but they were not supersonic (655–760 mph depending on altitude). In theory a working X-Wing design (where the blades stop rotating and become wings) could go supersonic, but the previous attempts have not worked.

By the way, the show knew that a supersonic helicopter would have problems with the main blade, and dialogue mentions some changes in the blade's status before going supersonic. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe NASA tested a couple prototypes as well, but nothing came of it. The Commanche was originally intended to be a supersonic helicopter, but there are just too many problems with the mechanics. I found this site interesting, Uniblade Air Rotor — Neutralman1024 17:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Airwolf helicopter being violated

This info should go in the section about the helicopter.

Mechaphiliac Edward Smith claims to have had sex with the Airwolf helicopter. He says, "his most intense sexual experience was "making love" to the helicopter from 1980s TV hit Airwolf".

As for it being unverifiable..[1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.94.171 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's verifiable that smith claims this, but it's not verifiable that it ever happened. It's still non-notable and unencyclopedic, as WP is NOT a tabloid. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And do we actually need to give this pervert any more notoriety or publicity is really the question?SurgeFilter(SF 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I just saw this on "Best Week Ever" on VH1. So, if they're talking about it now in 2009 maybe there should be a section about this with some valid information. It is notworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.38.41 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image problem

When IP 76.212.76.56 rewrote the intro, he left out a period. In preparing to restore it, I noticed that the infobox image was gone. I added a note to my edit summary to point out its absence, but when I clicked "Preview" there it was. I therefore rewrote my ES to indicate its restoration, but upon clicking "Save" it disappeared again. Checking past versions of the page via Edit History indicates the problem to be retroactive, but if the image file no longer exists, why does the image display properly in Preview mode? No, the problem is obviously something else. Help! --Ted Watson (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's your browser settings? The infobox appears on my browser without any problem, unless the problem has been resolved and I'm a day late and a dollar short... — Neutralman2¹⁰ 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the latter is correct, as I see it now, too. Thanks for pointing it out. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

hulu.com

Would it be appropriate to add a notation that full episodes from all 4 seasons can be viewed on hulu.com with limited commercial interruption?— Neutralman2¹⁰ 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious"

Concerning the dispute between editors Giuliopp (hereafter "G") and IP 71.188.227.138 (hereafter "71") over the intro: With all due respect to 71, it is quite clear that he has missed G's point, which is that he wishes the article to avoid suggesting in its intro that a faster-than-the-speed-of-sound helicopter is technologically possible, or even that one actually exists. He is not simply trying to include an indication that the series is a work of fiction. Note G's first edit summary here: "better not to suggest that there is such thing as supersonic helicopters." 71's first reads, "there is no suggestion, by nature of it being a tv show, it's obviously fictional." Yes, the series is obviously a work of fiction, but that's just not what G is talking about. Just because something is a work of fiction doesn't automatically mean that any aspect of it is not possible at all, that it cannot exist, only that these particular examples or specimens don't exist. Check Barney Miller for an example of a work of fiction that is not inherently impossible. That is what G is trying to deal with, that the supersonic helicopter at the center of the show is a technological impossibility, nothing of the sort exists or can exist in the real world, and the article's intro should avoid suggesting otherwise even by implication. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

firstly it can exists and there has been tests on sucha aircraft, however its a very early stage and certainly will never be liked what show aircraft is like. However i totally agree with yourself and Giuliopp on the issues that it shouldnt be stated. Until sucha day that the aircraft is released with a realible source it cant be stated in the intro.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like I've ruffled a lot more feathers than I was expecting, which I didn't mean to. Anyway, user Ted Watson is spot on, with regard to my intentions. Given that the Airwolf machine is not a cartoon, but it's a real helicopter, I was trying to avoid that a casual reader, glancing at the intro, could walk away thinking "right... I didn't know that helicopters of that type could fly supersonic". Better to leave all the fictional features to where it is unambiguous, what is real and what is fictional, such as the excellent table in Airwolf (helicopter).

Giuliopp (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct :) as i said although there is a aircraft in development that a helicoptor and can go sub sonic its not real in the sense anyone can fly one or see it yet so unless it happens in teh future the artidcle as you say must be clear it a fictionally thing--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

God help the general public if they can't figure out that a supersonic helicopter does not exist, currently. There is plenty of groundbreaking research being conducted and proved that helicopters can travel in excess of 280 mph. Supersonic helicopter flight is possible. And from the commentary here, it is clearly obvious that a supersonic helicopter does not exist. Works of fiction are just that, fiction. How many times has Hollywood attempted to portray something as fact or in the realm of possibility? Are you suggesting that in Star Trek and in Star Wars they should have said that these devices are purely fictional and could never really exist in real life? You mean that it's not obvious light speed travel is impossible as proved by Einstein's Relativity Theory? What about the MacGyverisms? You seriously did NOT believe all of them to be possible, did you? Like sodium nitrate in a pill capsule can really blow a 4-foot hole in a concrete wall. Maybe they should have put a disclaimer that this is not real or possible in real life? Or how about the tv show terminator? Think there should be a disclaimer that says the robots portrayed in this show are fictional and there is no "real" robot that is programmed to kill humans? A casual reader would read, "Airwolf is an American television series that ran from 1984 through 1987." And from that, realize this is a fictional work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.227.138 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly miss hte point, people come here to learn about stuff not becaus there are fans, this is article about airwolf the show not the helicoptor which does nto need to be meantioned if you ar enot willing to read the wikipedia policies people have shown you then there no point in explainign ot oyu because you will nto listen.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, there were no wikipedia policies posted, but that's beside the point. The point is that this is an article about a fictional story. It's obvious that a supersonic helicopter does not exist. And if one wants to learn about it, then I suggest they research it appropriately. There is no suggestion that such an aircraft exists, and the fact that it says television series makes it obvious. No one else listens, and clearly fails to understand the simple logic involved. And that's fine. Apparently 2 is enough for a consensus these days...

More precisely, you did miss G's point entirely to begin with (your edit summaries are, as described in my posting that launched this thread, conclusive to that), and now don't want to admit to that error. Such an attitude is problematical to the encyclopedia—it prohibits content disputes from being resolved on their own merits—and should be discouraged by administration. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I made no error to have to admit to regardless of desire. The only problem here is that this is a fictional story, just like terminator and the other points I made. No one seems to want to address any of the points I made. Rather you're all ignoring them and insisting I'm not the one who's listening or that I'm the problem. Maybe you should spend less time trying to scapegoat me and more time addressing the merits of G's point, or in this case, the lack thereof.

So, to recap my POV, that supersonic in the intro is unnecessary (because it's just one of Airwolf's many extraordinary features) and is potentially misleading, because it may well suggest that helicopters like the Bell 222 (identical to Airwolf, to the non-aviation-expert) can fly supersonic. That's why I think that a more generic and encompassing high-tech is more appropriate, at that point of the article. Are we getting to some sort of consensus on that?

Giuliopp (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support--Ted Watson (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then, supersonic changed to high tech. Giuliopp (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

900,000 dollars an episode???

In the season 4 area this is written: "with a smaller budget of $300,000 an episode, less than one-third of the original CBS budget" There is absolutely no way that any episode of Airwolf cost 900,000 to make, even the title 2 hour pilot, in fact I'd go so far as to say that no show made in the 1980's ever cost that much. Perhaps someone meant to put that it was 300,000 for the entire season, that MIGHT make more sense, but the 300,000 an episode is outrageous and has to be wrong, someone needs to verify a more correct budget or remove that number altogether. RTShadow (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

as per wikipedia policy if it not verifable remove it--Andy (talk - contrib) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

$300,000 is not outrageous, even by 1980s standards. V: The series in 1984 was already over 1 million dollars per episode. I remember the producers complaining about the budget being slashed to 800K towards the end of V's run. Airwolf was very expensive to produce, there's multiple helicopters or planes in each episode, pilot costs, not only for Airwolf, but the villain's aircraft and chase plane/helicopter for the air to air shots. Then there's maintainence and fuel, the cost of insurance, and the cost of on location shooting. In other words 900K is pocket change for a show like Airwolf. --Pixel8 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then this needs to be verified/substantiated before it can be added. I still find this very hard to believe, because Airwolf, as many other action shows did in the 1980's (Dukes of Hazard, A-Team, Knight Rider, etc) used stock footage over and over again for their vehicle sequence scenes rather than original material each time. One million dollars an episode for any show, again, during that time, is far fetched. If you can provide evidence then it can be added. RTShadow (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While I can't source it at the mpment, I recall reading that both the 1978 Battlestar Galactica and the 1984 V series, as mentioned above, had budgets of a million dollars an episode, so 900,000 sounds reasoanble. Also, this may have been an average figure for the whole series' runs. So, no, it is not that far-fetched. But yes, such claims do need to be sourced properly - that's WP policy. - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My recollection is that the CBS episodes used little stock footage, with aerial filming in every episode. The USA season did not have the Bell 222 helicopter, and relied almost exclusively on models and reused footage. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you watch the series in its entirety, you will find that it was not until the end of the second season that stock video was used. Seasons 3 and 4 were full of it, you can recognize the original scenes from seasons 1 and 2. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

$900K isn't out of line. Helo time ain't cheap, & miniatures aren't, either. Then there's crew & actors' salaries, costuming, & the usual necessaries... "ST:TOS" in '66 was running over $200K/wk, & just with inflation, getting close to $900K wouldn't be unreasonable. And yep, "Galactica" went over $1M/wk (mostly SPFX & minatures); so did "Miami Vice". (Both record hi for the period, & I think "Galactica" was the first show to exceed $1M/wk.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Company man

Not having DVDs of the show, I can't say for certain, but IIRC, "the FIRM" was supposed to be a euphemism for CIA, not a branch of it, a bit like Steven King's "The Shop". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was coined to be a play on the nickname for the CIA, "the company," so I too have had my doubts about that particular passage. However, Jay Firestorm's denial notwithstanding, it seems to have been invariably visually depicted on the show as "F.I.R.M." except for automobile license plates (where it was "FIRM"), which at least in the USA in the 1980s could not have lower case letters or punctuation marks. It was simply that visual appearances were relatively frequent in the third season and prior to that extremely few and far between, not different. If Surgefilter's assertion in the edit summary-linked archived talk page thread that it appeared in the pilot as "F.I.R.M." was incorrect, it is quite certain one of the participants thoroughly opposed to that rendering would have said so; none of those people so much as acknowledged the existence of the statement, which is quite telling. I have no idea what Jay means by "accompanying literature," and deny that it and/or any fan club discussion overrules the content of the series itself. Nobody has ever cited any instances of "FIRM" (aside from the car plates) or "Firm" on screen, and without any Jay's sentence is incorrect. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lair was a washed out Mesa, NOT a dormant volcano...

AIRWOLF was my favorite t.v. show as a kid and I still enjoyit today on DVD. I've done a lot of research and paid close attention throughout the years. Therefore, I enjoy reading articles about AIRWOLF. However, I have noticed several inaccurate bits of information on Wikipedia. So, I have attempted to add names of actors and more detailed information.

For example, I added David Hemmings name for Dr. Charles Henry Moffet. Also, somebody erroneously makes the claim that the Lair was a dormant volcano. While I can see how a person could easily make that mistake during scenes where you view the bottom of AIRWOLF as it hovers straight out of the Lair... because the opening is a round shape. But volcanic rock is black. As AIRWOLF reaches the top, you clearly see the rock is red stone of the surrounding mesas and buttes.

I also disinctly remember some shots during the first season that showed erosion at the top where AIRWOLF came out the opening of the Lair... where it looks like faces etched in the rocks. Therefore, it was implied that these faces... gave it the fictitious name: Valley of the Gods.

Therefore, it is obvious that the Lair was a washed out (eroded) mesa (butte) that had formed into a cave. I mean look at the Grand Canyon! That is the same kind of rock that took hundreds of thousands (or more) years to form. Furthermore, I have NEVER heard of any volcanoes in Monument Valley Despite the fact that I have corrected this error several times, somebody keeps going back and putting the false information up and deleting my additional info such as actors names. I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate it if someone can explain how to make corrections and get them to stay posted. Thanks.

Sincerely,

OneHoof .OneHoof (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Army Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The trouble is all the other unnecessary detail you're putting in. Look at this & compare. If you'll trim it down to the corrections over Big Bear & Monument Valley, it'll get left in. Otherwise, you're pretty much asking for it to get rv'd again. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OneHoof, thanks for your attention to detail, and for your service. The main problem with oyur additions is that it is far too much detail on the series pilot, when this is an overview articke for the whole series. I'll try to go through your additions later tonight or tomorrow, and put bck the corrections you tried to make. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

fourth Saeason

When will the fourth Season be publish on DVD?--109.91.69.55 (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is too long to be a synopsis.

Not being American, I never heard of this programme, but I decided to see what it was. A section of this article is called Synopsis but it is 460 words long. As they say elsewhere, tl;dr: too long; didn't read. If something purports to be a synopsis it should be a few short sentences — not an essay.

Next! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.29.141 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The premise of this series is fairly complex, incapable of being done justice (and accuracy) in "a few short sentences." To put it another way, "All generalizations are worthless (including this one)." --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no chatacter listing for ArchAngel

He is the second most important character in the series.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean under the "regular cast" section, there is. The character's name is Michael Coldsmith Briggs III and he was played by Alex Cord. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming he means a separate article on the character. There was one, Michael Coldsmith Briggs III, but it was AFDed here, with the result being delete/redirect back to this page. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry why no seperate page for the character?Unicorn76 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a separate page, Michael Coldsmith Briggs III, but it was deleted by an AFD discussion here, with the result being delete/redirect back to this page. It cannot be recreated easily. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't take much, actually. It just needs to be a significant improvement on the deleted version, which wouldn't be hard; as you can see in the page history, the previous version was just a paragraph. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this

Michael Cole Smith Briggs(code name Archangel) was the deputy direction of the U.S agency caled the firm. Michael had been a seasoned operative before becoming an administrator.

Almost always dressed in white and accompanied by a beautiful intelligent woman, Michael went outside the firm structure to work with Hawke on national security. This put at him odds with the head of the firm known as Zeus.

The character was written out of the series when they brought a new cast. All that was siad is that he was reassigned to AsiaUnicorn76 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would have to be a lot more than that; that's not really an improvement on the deleted version. If that's all there is, it's fine as part of the character list.

If you look at the page history, you can see what the article used to look like when it was deemed too insignificant to warrant its own page: [5] Unless it is somewhat comparable to the Stringfellow Hawke article, it doesn't stand much of a chance. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the show went out of its way to hide his history, you'd be hard pressed to get enough to justify a separate page IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I guess that explains it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Technical errors

The series frequently made erroneous references to weapons systems and their capabilities. Footage often did not match the weapons they were supposed to portray. In some cases, the weapons Airwolf was supposed to carry were larger than the actual helicopter itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.40.252 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The UK Blu-ray release

I hate having to defend a minor edit on the talk page...

Airwolf: The Movie had an extremely low quality UK Blu-ray release, perhaps the worst commercial release (non-bootleg) ever made. The reviewed I cited as a reference is a top hit for searches regarding quality, and so seems like a reasonable inclusion. It's not like I rambled on in a separate paragraph or created a whole new section about this - just a quit bit and a ref.- but if someone is determined to excise the information from the article again... I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you. Happy deleting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.138 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And poof there it goes... again. If someone would rather the article not mention the existence of a Blu-ray heavily criticized for its transfer, then don't worry - it's gone and I'm certainly not going to bother bringing it back. (Now where did I put that white flag I'd so much like to wave?) But I really wish the deletion weren't defended with talk of reliability of sources - as if any mention from any review site would be judged good enough to justify inclusion. If you think the disc's shoddy transfer (or the fact that it was released in the first place) doesn't warrant a mention, then just say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.88 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a consumer review site - we just report what's been written, and that from reliable sources. If the blu-ray transfer has been "heavily criticized", then there should be no problem citing reliable sources that do that, not just one apparntly obscure movie site. If someone wants to argue that the source that was cited is reliable per WP:RS, they are welcome to do so. From a first glance, it really didn't seem like a professional web publisher, just a collection of posts. If the site has an editorial staff, then it would probably qualify as a reliable source. The statement in the article was that "Airwolf: The Movie has been harshly criticized", but only one source is cited, and it's a reveiw, the equivilant of an editorial or an op-ed. It's just one person's opinion that:

The Blu-ray presentation is extremely poor and I think it is probably the worst Blu-ray transfer I have seen so far. There has been little or no attempt to restore or upgrade the picture quality and certain scenes are blighted by faded colours and pixilation."

That's it! Nothing to say that this is a common opinion, or why this reviewer's opinion is of encyclopedic value. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

About Stringfellow Hawke's Brother!

The article says his name is "Saint John Hawke"/"St. John Hawke". However, every time I've heard his name pronounced/mentioned/used, the speaker says, "Sinjin Hawke". I have an episode paused right now, so it isn't like my memory is playing tricks on me here. So how does "Sinjin Hawke" become "Saint John Hawke" when written? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"SinJin" is the standard way of pronouncing the name "Saint John" unless you are talking about the canonised saint. It's one among many names whose pronunciation is extremely counter-intuitive. --PRL42 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Real reason that Deborah Pratt left the show

If you look at actress, Troian Bellisario's birthday on iMDb, it's 28 October 1985. Season 2 of the show wrapped on 13 April 1985. The math is easy as to why Deborah Pratt left the show, as to have "Marella" pregnant would have had to be written into the series mythology to start Season 3 on 28 September, 1985.
Can someone please update the citation at that point in the wiki as I don't know how to technically do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurgeFilter (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)