Talk:Miami Vice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miami Vice article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article is currently listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Miami/Cleanup

Contents

[edit] Tartikoff brainchild

Hello,

I replaced the paragraph below that someone deleted; it seems relevant to me as an explanation for the unique style of the show.

In the early 1980s, the head of NBC's Entertainment Division, Brandon Tartikoff, reportedly wrote a brainstorming memo that simply read "MTV cops." The result was Michael Mann's production of Miami Vice.

--68.220.113.55 17:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is actually plausible; David Declan said on one of the "Punky Brewster" first season DVDs that Tartikoff made him create that series based on just the name "Punky Brewster", which was the name of one of the NBC boss's old classmates. The character was built around the name, stories were built around the character, and the dog in the show was called Brandon, apparently to further stroke Tartikoff's ego. Although I wonder if these stories of Tartikoff could also be some kind of inside joke…—mjb 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm just going to add to this part, because this is a rumor which Yerkovich debunked in the extras on the season 1 DVD. BubbaStrangelove 2:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crockett's Football Career

90yd TD in under 6 seconds? I know it's fiction, but a Greyhound would struggle to do that! I can only assume he was indulging in a lot of Medellin's finest export at the time LOL!

You're thinking of 90 meters. A 100 yard dash usually lasts 5.5 seconds because yards are 24% as long as meters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
A 4.4 40 is considered nice and a 4.0 40 would be blistering. We aren't talking Olympic sprinters in shorts (and I can't believe a 5.5 100 meter for that - the world record times I see for 100 yard dashes are over 9 seconds and meters aren't *that* different), we're talking football players in pads carrying a football and getting slower over 90 yards, so a *9* second 90 yard touchdown run would be pretty damned amazing. Doing that in 2/3 the time is simply impossible. I don't remember that detail of Vice, but it was wrong, or it's being reported wrong. 74.227.120.238 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys the above is untrue. I watched the episode in question last night and Crockett said he ran the 90 yards 6 seconds before the end of the game! And now the facts: A yard is SHORTER than a [metre]. 1 yard is 36 inches ==> 36" * 2.54 cm = 91.44 cm = 0.91 m or 1 yard is 91% of a metre. 90 yards * 0.91 m = 81.9 m. If you can run 82 m in 6 seconds you should be doing the 100 m sprint in under 8 seconds - I don't think so ;-) 85.22.22.41 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


This could have happen, the clock would have run out of time. The play is dead upon a tackle or a touchdown.....go Crockett. The clock is ticking pal.

[edit] Police department name

The police department was the Metro-Dade Police Department during the series run. The department was renamed when Dade County was renamed Miami-Dade County.70.149.135.25 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miami Vice actors

Let's get the actors page going Philip Michael Thomas' page is embarrassingly sparse. BubbaStrangelove 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production details

I added the bit about "early use of stereo in series television" and "Michael Mann eschewed red." I think these came from a copy of Mix Magazine from the late 1980s. I'm 99.9% sure that these are correct but it would take me a long long time to find the article in question. 69.181.2.10 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate article for episodes

Many TV show articles have seperate articles for their respective episodes if they are exceeding in number. I propose we create a seperate article for the episodes of Miami Vice. An excellent template would be the one used for episodes of Stargate SG-1 or House, M.D. What do you guys think? I was originally going to be bold and go ahead in creating the article, but then I figured that getting people's opinions and feedback would be better in handling a show as popular as this one. I honestly can't see why we shouldn't have a seperate article, but any objections and comments are welcome.--DethFromAbove 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added all the episodes, and was a bit shocked when seeing they were gone. However, good work. It does streamline the page quite a bit, and like you said, it just makes sense. The only thing I'm going to change is to bump the link up on the See Also catagory. Since I think it's more relevant than the other ones, like Magnum PI. (?) - BubbaStrangelove

[edit] Redundant information?

The following information is included under the Television Series portion of the article

Miami Vice was one of the best-known shows of the 1980s, and it had a huge impact on the decade's popular fashions as well as setting the tone for further evolution of police drama. Series such as Homicide: Life on the Street, NYPD Blue, and Law & Order, though being vastly different in style and theme from Miami Vice, followed its lead in breaking the genre's mold.
In fact the show has been so influential that references and styles of "Miami Vice" have often been borrowed by many of today's entertainment industry in order to indicate or emphasise the 80's decade. Examples of this includes the episode "The One With All The Thanksgivings" from the American sitcom "Friends" (1994 - 2004). Flashback scenes in this episode shows the characters Ross and Chandler in Pastel coloured suits with rolled up sleeves like that of "Sonny Crockett" from "Miami Vice" in order to emphasise the 80's decade. Another more obvious example would be the computer and video game "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," which was published by Rockstar Games and is set in the 1980's. Two undercover police officers would appear in a police sports car within the game when three felony stars is obtained by gamers. It is believed that the two officers (one white and one black) represents the two leading characters of "Miami Vice." One of the main characters, Lance Vance, was actually voiced by Philip-Michael Thomas.
In short, the tshirt under Pastel suits, rolled up sleeves, Rayban sunglasses and other attitudes of "Miami Vice" have today become the norm image of 1980's culture. Ironically often people today would recognise the decade's image yet are unfamiliar with the famous cop show despite it being the phenomenon that gave birth to the style.

What do others think about reediting this part, or somehow streamlining it? Not only does it contain information that is given later on in references to pop culture, it contains a lot of subjective wording, like "Ironically often people...", "another more obvious example..." While the show was influential in regards to how TV was made, and the style of its characters was co-opted by its audience, maybe there should be some sort of citation, or just a statement like "The show encapsulates much of the nostalgia that is associated with the 1980s, as evidenced by numerous pop culture references (listed below) in which the look established in Miami Vice is used to symbolize the era." Or something to that effect. What do you all think? To me it just seems to be giving a narrative version of what is stated later on - I think a lot of the information could be included under the relevant pop culture references.

I also feel that while references to the show are abound, saying that it is the "norm 80s style" leaves a lot open as well. What about new wavers, punk rockers, and the tons of other styles associated with the 80s? Many of the characters in Scarface dressed the same way, as did many people - the style was definitive of Miami early-80s. Vice didn't exactly just make up the look.

This section needs help.

Yeah, I noticed that and it bothered me. Some parts of that section are really POV. If you're up to it, you should totally reword, if not completely re-write that.--DethFromAbove 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This was what I came to the discussion page to post about, myself - Miami Vice was huge and influential and much referenced - no doubt about it, it would be hard to overstate... but that's just what this otherwise excellent article does. The Friends thing for example, is far more a riff on A Flock of Seagulls-type stuff which (1982) predates Miami Vice. And so it goes with much of the article - Miami Vice didn't invent most of this - I like the parts of the article that say things like The show had a huge influence on (men's) fashion at the time, popularising, if not actually inventing, the "T-shirt under Armani jacket"-style. That's what it primarily did: populari[z]ed and crystallized and captured much of the archetypal '80s', more than invented it. The qualifier is important. I'd definitely strike the Friends reference and tone down much of the rest. It's true innovation was cinematic with a synthesis of music and imagery, motion and emotion. 74.227.120.238 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runtime

I'm putting "60 minutes (including commercials)" as the runtime, since episodes vary in length.

In what American network primetime universe are commercial timeslot allocations varied from week to week? Producers know EXACTLY how long their episode will run, week in, week out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
The times vary over the years, though - hour long episodes were 44 minutes for a long time in the 90s but were, IIRC, quite a bit longer before that and sometimes run 42 minutes or so these days. So it could have easily switched from 46 to 45 minutes from the first to last season or something like. 74.227.120.238 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup-list in Episode List

It was me who added the tag in question.

IMO, in its current state, the list is very unclear and aesthetically not very pleasing, and therefore needs to be put in a proper table ASAP. See Fastlane (TV series) for an example. Jupix 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An ugly, long list is the very reason I created this. Enjoy!--DethFromAbove 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the link to the Episode list be in the section "Episodes" rather than "See also"

[edit] Jackass Holster

should it say "Jackass leather holster" in the fire arms section? just wondering if this was vandalism or not 71.144.87.83 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was an actual brand name and style of holster.

See: http://www.gunaccessories.com/Galco/JackassHolsterComponent.asp Deathbunny 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up needed

Holy crap does this article need some work. There's way too much OR and POV writing overall (the entire "Reason for series end" needs to be scrapped outside of the first bit from the newspaper, the rest is all conjecture/essay). And what's with all the gun pics? Is this article about a TV show or gun fantatic's idea of porn??? RoyBatty42 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are way to many gun references on the page. They weren't that important in the show --Christof Damian 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Madonna

I came across The Lost Madonna, an article for a Miami Vice episode and wasn't sure what to do with it. So if anyone here would like to wikify it or AfD it or anything else, please feel free to help out.-Andrew c 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chris Craft stinger? I don't think so

I personallly know the boat builder who made the so called: Chris-Craft stinger, it was indeed, a stinger, but not a chris craft, it is a custom built Stinger Boat made in Fort Worth, Texas, by Marshall Womack, it was NOT a chris craft, the company is also known now as "Tex-Star Stinger" and "Eagle Mountain Peformance Marine"

point being, the famous boat was not a stinger, and the real builder did not get the credit he deserves.

5/12/07

Good work, knowing the guy and all, but many times what's scripted doesn't match real life. I better get over to "Saving Private Ryan" and tell how the grenades aren't MK2s but actually pieces fabricated in a Hollywood propshop by a guy I heard of on the DVD supplements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.140.26 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Vice Scarab.jpg

Image:Miami Vice Scarab.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 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 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I've cleaned up the images and put them in places next to paragraphs that support them. This was done to both have logical continuity as well as for support in having the images in the first place as they are suppose to be there to support the article. I've uploaded a new one with Glen Frey as there were none that gave examples of notable personalities.

In addition most if not all of the images in the article have no "Fair Use Rationale". They are required per Wiki so if some kind soul would take this for action that would be helpful. The new image that I uploaded has what I believe to be a good rationale statement. This can be copy and pasted into the other images with slight changes and alterations to reflect those images.
Uploaded Image: [[Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.JPG|75px]]
Thanks FrankWilliams 15:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Listing Table

I've also added a episode listing table that is small and complete. I've also linked those episodes that have their own articles for quick linking. Also made the table sortable within each season for easier looksups. FrankWilliams 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Cover Images

I've added fair use rationales to the DVD cover images as required. I added back those covers prior to a rationale being put there and the objection was to not having a rationale. The images are there for identification of each of the season's out on DVD. FrankWilliams 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is of course a violation of Fair Use, as you were told here, less than a month ago. It hink its time to either consult an admin on whether your interpretation of Fair Use actually fits within the actual policy, Frank. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Miami Vice Boats.jpg

Image:Miami Vice Boats.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 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms section

Can someone point out how this section is vital, or even important to the article? It is largely uncited (and the image captioned as Sonny Crockett's SigSauer is in fact a wikicommons image of that firearm, constituting Synthesis OR). I am concerned this sections is simply gun-lover cruft. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to stay away from articles that your have no knowledge about. Firearms were a big part of Miami Vice. It was a COP show you know. What you suggest is preposterous. There have been whole articles in gun magazine on which guns were used in the show. BTW the section is NOT largely uncited it largely is. Just count the refs. FrankWilliams 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The show was a cop show, and as a cop show used a lot of firearms. Different episodes like Evan dealt with guns (Mag-10's), and the characters used different guns at different times throughout the show which is why the section is there. Movie articles have there gadget sections, Miami Vice firearm section. El Greco (talk · contribs) 13:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sidestepping Franks' little ownership problem, I am well aware of the program's genré. What I am suggesting is that, since the nature of the weaponry was not of critical importance throughout the series, but instead tended to focus on the actual plot - as tv shows are wont to do - it seems fan-crufty to go into detail over what weapons were used, and including imagery that is OR bt synthesis. To the latte, I speak of two images, one of which is a WikiCommons image of a SigSauer, identified in the caption as being the weapon that was used in the series, which of course it is not. Secondly, an image of Johnson's character pointing a weapon which is identifed through what can only be termed OR by synthesis. Was the firaerm identified in the episode, or in an episode guide? If not, it is a contribution based upon personal information, and therefore primary citation - which WP doesn't utilize.
While I think the section is not very important to the article, if the consensus at this time is that it should remain, I think it is important that the above concerns be addressed. I am going to remove the image of the SigSauer, asits inclusion is the grosser of the two OR violations in the section, and will remove the specificity of the weapon used in the Johnson image, replacing it with a more encyclopedic wording. I am not going to add 'cn' tags to all of the statments made, because I think it would be POINT-ish, but when a claim as to what weapons were used (ie, what weapon Trudy used, Tubbs' hammerless revolver, etc.), it must be cited; otherwise it's OR speculation, and will eventually be removed as such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, while I do agree with you that the section is a bit fancrufty... But I think you are incorrect in calling the citations OR. For a bald statement of fact, such as "Character X used that weapon Y in episode 3 of season 5", citing to the episode is hardly OR. A TV episode is a primary source for an article about the TV show and, while we have to use great caution in citing to primary sources, this seems an appropriate use of that source. Blueboar 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I found a source and used that with the episodes to add references to the section. El Greco (talk · contribs) 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, ElGreco, that was wha I was looking for. Now, as for the image of Johnson aiming the "Bren Ten", I can see the citation, but the remaining issue is whether it is noteworthy. Was the choice (or change of) that weapon the subject of an episode? Was it a frequent topic of conversation, or a matter of the plot? Granted, I haven't watched all of the episodes in some years, but I don't seem to recalll that the Bren 10 was the 'Fifth Beatle' of the series or anything. I am concerned that this is something of an Undue weight issue. Can someone explain how the current caption is more suitable than, say:
"Don Johnson using one of the many firearms used in the series.[1]"
Note that I left off the wikilinking of Don Johnson, as he is previously wikilinked in the article (actually in every single image in which he appears, as well as the text of the article).
Another note: there is a bit of excess wikilinking going on in the article, btw (which I will address after this post). As well, yet another image of Johnson aiming - yes, you guessed it - a Bren Ten in the Fashion section. While weaponry might be the height of fashion amongst gun wonks, it is inappropriate for the section, and I will adjust the caption accordingly, so as to preserve it from removal as decorative. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Any reason you deleted the DVD section? El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(inserted directed response) Yes. I removed the images of the DVDs as they fail the Fair Use criteria for inclusion. They were added by a user who has been appraised on this topic before (specifics on your User Talk page). In addition to being simply decorative without solid purpose for their presence, they also have the effect of slowing down page load for users on slower machines (someone else told me about this, since I have a T1). The images in place a bit much, but for the most part, help describe the article. The DVD images simply do not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete this section. The weapons used by the main characters has very little relevance to the series, whether sourced or not. If you can find a similar sections in other Wikipedia articles, then I would change my tune. But as it stands, this section is too long and overpowers the rest of the article. Does no one think it's odd that this section is just as long as, or longer, than the characters section? Bulbous 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Weapons were an integral part and VERY relevant to this series even more so then the standard cop show. In fact the Bren-Ten was an unknown gun until it's connotation with Miami Vice. Another reason guns were so important is that Michael Mann is a gun instructor and takes very painstaking steps in the authenticity and usage of weapons in his movies and TV Shows including Miami Vice in which he was an executive producer. Also, you're not going to find other articles with this section because IMHO Miami Vice is such a unique TV Show. Also to answer Bulbous question: the article is not finished and thus still evolving. I have now doubts that the character section will expand and be longer the the firearms section. FrankWilliams 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
How about either integrating this section into the "Characters" section, or splitting it off into it's own article? There can be no doubt whatsoever that the existing section is not relevant to the main article. And the suggestion that Miami Vice is somehow unique amongst cop shows, or any other TV show where firearms were central to the theme is over-the-top ridiculous. Bulbous 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your humble opinion; and yes there can be doubt. That's why we're discussing it in the first place. I also think Tim Cole would disagree with you as he wrote a whole article on the weapons of Miami Vice [2] Tish Janeshutz would also disagree with you as she had an entire chapter devoted to Firearms in her book "The Making of Miami vice".[3]

I don't think *either* of them would disagree with me. I wouldn't protest if you wrote an article about weapons in Miami Vice, as did Cole. I wouldn't protest if you devoted a small amount of space to the subject in the main article either (such as Janeshutz did, writing one chapter on the subject in an entire book). But the amount of weight given the subject in the main article is way out of proportion. Cut it down, integrate it into the characters section - or, if you would prefer, expand it by starting a new article. Didn't any of the bud guys use firearms? Bulbous 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FrankWilliams 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a new article would be terrific, actually, maybe "Technology of Miami Vice" or "Firearms of Miami Vice". Since Frank appears to be a gun wonk (going solely from what he's noted on his User page), he seems to be the ideal candidate to write this article. As well, he is the one who has added most of the material from the section, it could be ported over to the new article. Either way, it shouldn't really remain here, due to UNDUE issues. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (originally: 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Premature deletion of material

Editors should give other editors time to fix and repair existing paragraphs. If a citation is needed use the citation needed tag. El Greco and I have been busy adding many references to this article and there have been other editors who have been quick to delete material, talk about ownership problems. Fact is this article is chock full of citations more then the majority or articles I've read on Wiki. Thanks FrankWilliams 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How much time were you looking for, Frank? The material I deleted regarding the various characters' arms has been uncited for over a year. As well, the picture of the SigSauer supposedly used by Johnson has been in place, gathering dust in all its crufty little corners since early August of last year. Whoever does have OWNership issues with this article should have been sued for neglect. Um, that was a play on words there. No one is talking legal action here. I think the point has been hammered quite cleanly through home all the way to the center of the earth.
That you and El Greco have been working on the article is fantastic, brilliant even. I am not faulting you fellers for doing the cite/construction work. If I kick in every once in a while, suggesting out how things might be better, and what stuff is going to cause you more problems, then I don't expect you to get all uncivil and snippy about it (directed towards Frank).
You should seriously consider writing a separate article about the firearms used in the series. It's great that someone wrote about it, and a few books/articles/whatnot were written about it, but the fact remains that keeping it in the article presents the appearance of undue weight being given to the subject of firearms in the series.
When Star Trek was televised back in the 60's, tons of articles came out about the science of warp engines, phasers and all the tech of the series. However, if you notice the wiki article, there isn't a lot of mention on that. However, there is a related article, Weapons of Star Trek that focuses on all the weaponry seen/used/alluded to in the series. The same goes for the Next Generation incarnation of the series, which ran in many of the same years as Miami Vice.
Granted, Star Trek wasn't Miami Vice - nothing was. I am using one to show how to better illustrate the other. I hope I have helped to illuminate the territory in which we find ourselves. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD images

Frank, please stop adding in the DVD images. You have attempted to add the DVD covers to at least two different articles now, and on each one, you have been told by at least two experienced editors that it isn't allowed. When El Greco asked about it, you complained that it was me, having a "hard-on" against the allowing of DVD images, when in actuality you had been told by another experienced editor the same thing you have been told in this Discussion page, article page, and on the Non-Free Content discussion page. You have now been told by no less than five editors and admins what the rules are in regards to the inclusion of DVD images. Please stop and abide by the consensus of the community as to fair-use rules. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We are all currently having a discussion on this topic at: [1]. Please contribute to this section prior to making any changes to the DVD section of this article. As it stand now the general consensus is: that one image is allowed and more could be allowed as an exception. Thanks FrankWilliams 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the page, and it appears that six editors there (myself included) do not feel that these images are encyclopedic. I understand that you thought that there might be enough fair use to allow for one, but the edit you offered seems to suggest that more might be forthcoming with consensus. As I don't see that many admins changing their tune on Fair-Use rationales in regards to the inclusion of DVD images, I think you should switch it back. There is no consensus to make the change as of yet, and you should not "jump the gun" in this regard. Please self-revert the changes, okay? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ SOF Staff (October 1986). "Hollywood Heat in Miami:New Hardware Muscles in on the Action". Soldier Of Fortune: pgs. 40-43. 
  2. ^ Cole, Tim (May 1986). "The Machines of Miami Vice". Popular Mechanics 152 (5): P. 90. Heartst Corp.. 
  3. ^ Janeshutz, Trish (1986). "The Making of Miami Vice". New York: Ballatine Books, P. 12. ISBN 0-345-33669-0. 

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Two Miami Vice Ferraris.jpg

Image:Two Miami Vice Ferraris.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 07:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. El Greco(talk) 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Guide

I've seen in a lot of other articles where they create a sub-page for the episiodes, and simply place a link to it in the main article. This avoids a cluttered look. Do you think that would work better here? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DJ&GGL-Miami-Vice.JPG

Image:DJ&GGL-Miami-Vice.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 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed El Greco(talk) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.JPG

Image:DJ-GF-Miami-Vice.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 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed El Greco(talk) 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters Section

Will User:206.125.176.3 please stop adding the entire Lt Martin Castillo article in the page. It serves no purpose. Too much information is given. If you really want to help out go find real world sources and bring back the Martin Castillo article. There was more on Castillo than on Crockett and Tubbs. El Greco(talk) 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted him/her again, based not on the edits but his behavior (which, judging from his/her user talk page, is apparently not a new issue). He needs to come here and seek a consensus. if he doesn't he needs to know that he will likely be reverted as a disruptive influence, POV-pushing unduely-weighted material. I've advised that he's at his 3 edit limit. I hope he comes here to discuss matters, but I am guessing he might need more stick than carrot in this situation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the cruft and uncited

Wow, where and when did all this cruft re-enter the article? the end of the series stuff was almost entirely uncited, and is at risk for getting bounced. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to clean it up. This is one of the more harder sections to cite. El Greco(talk) 20:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Martin-Castillo.jpg

Image:Martin-Castillo.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 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. El Greco(talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of the Article

This page has gone from excellent to worse. It should be renamed "EL Greco's Page"; what is it with this dude. There was very good information in pages past like the name of the characters that celebrities played and that's all gone now WTF? These pages are really becoming quite worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Way to vandalize the page. If you notice sections like the celebrities, cars, and firearms are summarized and given their own section. Next time don't revert to a very old version of this article. El Greco(talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting back to a "better version" is NOT vandalism; newer versions are not necessarily better, as in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're telling me you don't like a page that much more sourced, than the version you reverted to? El Greco(talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the added sources are good but that many of the deletions are bad and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The deletions are necessary to keep the page in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If a section gets too big, you create its own article page and summarize it on the main page. It's not like any information was deleted, it's just moved to a different article. The main article page can not keep everything in its entirety. El Greco(talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, when you created the Castillo article some other editors removed it and forced you to condense the article and put it back on the main page. Many of these editors are so full of it. The policies are a serious joke. They just keep pointing editors in a giant circle jerk.

Also what about the Guest appearances. The article included the name of the character's name that each of the celeberties played and that got deleted. How is that better????????? These were all good references. There is probably a specific policy that says you can't include character names that guest stars played right? Or no, maybe somebody's opinion or interpretation of some general policy took presidence and got re-enforced by a few other editors in this insane Wiki notion of Mob Rule; this whole thing is preposterous.

[edit] MTV Cops

I'd like to start a discussion about the rumor regarding Vice starting from the idea "MTV Cops". As I'd previously stated, the show's creator, Anthony Yerkovich states outright on the Miami Vice Season One DVD that this was just a rumor that's developed into a legend. The show was originally conceived around the idea of cops using confiscated goods, and was to be set in LA. Michael Mann came aboard and moved the production to Miami. Yerkovich states he doesn't know where the MTV Cops thing came from, because it was him that went to Brandon with the idea.

I know a Time article from 22 years ago seems like a pretty valid source, but at the same time, there were lots of magazines that treated The Blair Witch as being true to life. What avenue do I have here to include the actual statements from the show's creator without violating copyright issues and uploading the interview? There's scores of web references that refer to the "MTV cops" thing as legend as well.

I think it's pretty important, as the "MTV Cops" thing, when looking at the timeline of the development, really makes no sense. The only relation to MTV is the cutting of music to video. That was something not in the original development of the show, and something else Michael Mann brought on board, as part of him wanting to make it cinematic, along with location shots and single camera filming. It's doubtful that "MTV" was ever mentioned. -- BubbaStrangelove (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't find any websites that flat out debunks the Tartikoff memo, all I do is find websites that reinforce (restate) the Tartikoff memo. I've also seen the DVD commentary and it can be integrated into the creation section. El Greco(talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How would I go about doing that? I guess it's not really a big deal. It just sort of stuck with me, because for nearly 2 decades I had that MTV story in my head, then when I heard the commentary, it was almost like being told Santa Claus didn't exist (or at least being told he did exist, but doesn't come from the North Pole...) BubbaStrangelove (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tubbs's Car

Will the IP user please stop changing the ref. The source provided states that he drove 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible. Unless you have a source that states otherwise, please explain your edits. El Greco(talk) 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Per quote from Popular Mechanics "Crockett’s partner, Ricardo Tubbs, played by actor Philip Michael Thomas, gets to pilot a pristine ‘63 Cadillac DeVille convertible. It may not be the wheels of choice for an underworld overachiever, but it passes as the mark of a hard worker who has managed to cut out some kind of turf." - Popular Mechanics, July 1987 (Cliff Gromer). Popular mechanics is much more verifiable than IMCDB. El Greco(talk) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "verifiable"? Do you mean reliable? Or easier to verify? Kafziel Take a number 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant more reliable. See, the reason that IMCDB link was orginally added was to provide an image of the vehicle not to reference it. The Popular Mechanics reference was to source the information that it indeed was a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. El Greco(talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
While I do agree that Popular Mechanics is more reliable than a bulletin board-type site, that doesn't necessarily mean that the guy who wrote that article was a Cadillac expert, and even magazine writers make mistakes from time to time. If it's this disputed, I'd say at the very least this calls for some more investigation and another good source. If another one can't be found, then maybe there's a way to mention the possibility of both years? Kafziel Take a number 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
From Forbes auto: "While the Crockett character has driven Ferraris before, Tubbs’ luxury-brand choice has changed, according to the scuttlebutt on various Internet fan sites. In the original Miami Vice television series, Crockett first drove a Ferrari Daytona Spyder, and later a Ferrari Testarossa. Tubbs, meanwhile, tooled around in a 1963 Fleetwood Cadillac Deville convertible." from [2]
From Winding Road: "Among the coolest shows, and cars of the decade though, were the classy rides rocked by Crockett and Tubbs of Miami Vice. Yeah yeah, we all know that the Ferrari Daytona Spyder was neither a Ferrari, nor a Daytona, but it certainly looked the part on the small screen. Plus there was still a Testarossa, an achingly cool 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville convertible, and a rotating cast of other sweet metal to lust after." from [3] El Greco(talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are good. Not to say it erases all doubt or need for discussion (since, for all we know, those articles used Popular Mechanics as a source) but citing those sources in the article would certainly make for a stronger case. I'm going to unlock the article now; you can make the necessary changes, but if the controversy resumes please discuss instead of reverting. Kafziel Take a number 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Should I just state it as it is and add the refs: "Crockett's partner, Ricardo Tubbs, drove a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible.'[1][2][3][4]"
Or "According to Popular Mechanics, Forbes Autos, and Winding Road, Ricardo Tubbs, drove a 1963 Cadillac Coupe de Ville Convertible.'[5][2][6][7]" El Greco(talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just adding the refs is fine. Kafziel Take a number 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. El Greco(talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg

Image:Miami vice don johnson.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 ensure 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) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. El Greco(talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] SPAM

This "article" contains an excessive amount of links and references to commercial products. This is not coincidental. This is spam.

In addition the article is appalling quality. It's mostly POV, has lots of exaggeration and hyperbole that overhypes the effect of the show.

Dreadful, dreadful article that is mostly marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.234.40 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? The DVD links are allowed by Wikipedia policy. "Appalling"?? huh? You mind pointing out your POV and exaggerations and hyperboles? El Greco(talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)