Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 26 February 2012

Television B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Columbo speaking Italian

Does Columbo really speak Italian? There was an episode where he solved a murder with the help of a maffioso. When this guy asked him in Italian, Columbo pretty much seemed that he didn't speak any Italian at all, despite his Italian ancestry. How comes this statement then? Chery 07:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Columbo speaks Italian. In the episode with Rip Torn as the uncle who murders his lottery winning nephew he speaks Italian to the old lady. He also speaks quite a bit of Italian to Mario, the young waiter, in "Murder Under Glass". I've never heard him speak Spanish, however.---B- 02:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And a great deal of Italian with Vito Scotti, for whom Patrick McGoohan writes the speech that destroys his alibi, in "Identity Crisis". He speaks some Spanish in "A Matter of Honor", although mostly of the phrase book variety. -- Signinstranger 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Columbo's Family

It's very difficult to say for certain what his family structure is or what they do. He refers in almost every episode to a nephew, brother-in-law, or other family member but it's never clear if these people actually exist or if they are just an invented device that Columbo uses to gain the confidence of the suspect or to convey some idea or information in a non-threatening way. His wife we can be certain exists because she is seen by other characters (though not by the audience of course) in "Troubled Waters". He apparently does have at least one niece and one nephew since he flashes a picture of them in "A Friend in Deed" and if he has a niece and nephew then clearly he must have at least a sister/brother or inlaws.

If he really does have all of the family he alludes to throughout the run of the series he'd have to have a fairly large and diverse family.

As to children, there is no evidence that Columbo and his wife have any children.---B- 08:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database

As there is no single series entry on the IMDb, and there aren't separate Misplaced Pages pages for each episode, would it be worth linking each story title to its IMDb page? --Whouk (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has objected, I'll go ahead with this. Any preference for format? We could have...

• Dead Weight (10/27/71)
• Dead Weight (10/27/71) IMDb
• Dead Weight (10/27/71)

Should the date format be wikified for user preferences at the same time? —Whouk (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gun

I was reminded tonight that Columbo does, reluctantly, carry a gun in one episode. In "Undercover" he is ordered to carry a gun and so he does -- even pulling it on Mo Weinberg early in the show. ---B- 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Indented line

Just saw this comment, having already amended the text (with reference) Philml (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Episode Details

I'd have to look it up to see who the actor actually was, but it certainly was not Anthony Edwards from ER playing Elliott Blake in "Columbo Goes to the Guillotine." ---B- 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's Anthony Andrews from Brideshead Revisited. —Whouk (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Forgotten Lady" : simple question: I wonder if this is the episode where Coloumbo "arrests" the husband of the killer instead ? - because she was suffering from some sort of senile disorder so she didn´t know that she had killed people - and futhermore she was dying so she would not stand trial anyway, and then her husband (with Colombo´s approval/knowledge) would admit the crime and then change testemony after she was dead

Probably not, since in "Forgotten Lady" the murderess killed her husband. It would be kinda hard for a dead man to admit to his own murder to cover up for his wife.

Answer to the "simple question" -- essentially, you're correct, although you've got some characters mixed up. In Forgotten Lady, the murderess killed her husband, but forgot about it because of a progressive neurological disorder (which IIRC was also fatal, although I'm unsure of that detail). The murderess's long-time colleague and friend (dance partner, they were both performers) confessed to the murder for the reasons you stated. Although it was never explicitly stated, it was made clear that Columbo knew that this confession was a sham, that he tacitly approved, and that he wouldn't try to expose the sham until after the murderess was dead ... As for how it relates to the content of the article, it might be worth making some reference to this to qualify any statements that "Columbo always gets his man"; in this episode, he kinda got the killer but not really. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.148.92 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts. The talk page is not a public social forum to discuss minutiae about the subject of the article, it's an editorial forum to discuss changes to the article itself. Canonblack 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc

The existing page contains an error, it says that "No time to die" is the only time Columbo carried a gun. This is incorrect. Columbo also carries a gun in "Undercover." I have all 69 movies and have watched all of them many times. I realize that any edit I make to Misplaced Pages will immediately be "disappeared" by some hall monitor with a paper badge, so could one of you please correct the information on the page? Otherwise Misplaced Pages will continue to contain incorrect information. Also re Shera Danese she played an important role as a blackmailing law partner in "Murder in Malibu."

I changed the description of Shera Danese's roles from "small" to "various" because she actually had some moderately substantial roles; including playing the scheming wife in "A Trace of Murder" and the greedy Art Gallery owner in "Columbo Goes Undercover." She gets killed in "Columbo Goes Undercover" but since she's not really the primary victim I'm not sure that counts for our purposes as a "victim."---B- 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ida Lupino is listed as a murderer and victim, she was never a murderer. As far as I can determine, only Shera Danese and Robert Vaughn have played both roles. Since Shera Danese, if memory serves, was only an accessory... Robert Vaughn is unique. Cave Draco 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is way too long...

Would anyone object to creating a separate page to house the list of Columbo episodes?

Agreed, especially as I'm seeing warnings about the page size when I try to edit. I have created the List of Columbo Episodes page, and linked it in the spot on this page where they appeared previously.MArcane 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Neighborhood

If he's of Italian decent, and from "a neighborhood near Chinatown," can we assume he's from Little Italy, which abuts Chinatown? --♥ «Charles A. L.» 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Books

Would it be useful with a list of the books written by Harrington? -- Kms 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added book information from MCA publishing, see Columbo Books

--TonyinJersey 15:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Columbos' first name

From the article:

"Columbo's first name came under more speculation by the release of the first series on DVD. In the episode Dead Weight where Columbo introduces himself to General Hollister, the audience is shown a close-up of his badge, complete with the signature that appears to say "Frank Columbo". Since this is only a prop and the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's 1st name has never been revealed it looks as if this issue will always be a hot topic of debate amongst fans."

I'm confused by the phrase "Since this is only a prop...". Obviously it's a prop - just like his car, his raincoat, and practically everything else in the show. Why does the fact that it's a prop make it less likely to be genuine within the fictional context of the series?

I agree - it was shown on screen and therefore is canon. This paragraph was originally more definitive, but it was edited a month or so ago to imply that "Frank Columbo" is merely a working theory rather than anything factual. Marwood 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence, it's clearly nonsense. Anyway, whoever wrote it could only manage to spell "first" as "1st" so I guess it's to be expected. 172.188.35.109 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-worded the start of the sentence to fix poor grammar - but it looks like someone has reverted it. Marwood 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed it back, but I'm wary of this becoming a reversion war. Marwood 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After some toing and froing, this bit now reads: "Since this is only a prop we can't assume that Frank is in fact Columbo's real name. It may have been a joke from the prop department, after all the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's first name has never been revealed. It looks as if this issue will always be a hot topic of debate amongst fans." The following note was added to the article by user 88.105.183.62 in response to a comment that I inserted to the effect that the sentence made no sense:

"How can it not make sense. The badge is a prop. The guy who made it probably just made it up. If Columbo's real name was Frank then why isn't it common knowledge. Surely when asked the creators of the show would say "oh it's Frank, didn't you read the ID badge in Dead Weight?" They don't say that, they say it's never been revealed and they should know, they created the character."

Reply by me (Matt). The phrase "since this is only a prop" does not make sense because everything in the show is obviously a prop. You might just as well say that since the cigars Columbo smokes are props, we can't assume that Columbo does in fact smoke cigars. The suggestion that it may have been a joke from the prop department needs to be supported by a reference. Otherwise, all we know for sure is that the show's creators say the name has never been revealed, but apparently it was revealed. Matt 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Does anyone have a citation from Levinson and/or Link saying Columbo's name was never revealed? Dead Weight was a series one episode when Levinson and Link were actively involved in the production of the show - they would very likely have seen the rushes with the name "Frank Columbo" obviously visible. "It's only a prop" means nothing - the props department isn't autonomous. They would have been briefed and their work checked by the director and/or producer; especially when creating a prop as important as Columbo's police badge which is going to be seen in every episode. It was on screen and unless there is anything else on screen to contradict it, then it is a fact. 80.93.170.99 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please listen to this radio interview Dawidziak Interview It's with Mark Dawidziak, author of The Columbo Phile who many people believe to be the most comprehensive Columbo book ever written. Columbo's first name is discussed about 11 minutes 30 seconds into the interview.88.105.183.62 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That interview was conducted in 2003, before the series was available on DVD. On the VHS release, the name "Frank" is too blurry to make out. On the DVD it is very clearly "Frank", irrespective of what Dawidziak says. Irrespective of what anyone says, the only first name given for Columbo on screen was Frank. 80.93.170.99 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The episode dead weight has been out on region 2 japanese DVD since 2002 and how can you say irrespective of what Dawidziak says? The guy obviously did his research. He must have interviewed everybody involved so spoke to the creators. Why, after the episode of dead weight aired do the creators still say he doesn't have a first name? Peter Falk says Columbo doesn't have a first name and he must have looked at the ID badge while filming.88.105.183.62 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest the following wording for this paragraph:

"Probably the closest thing to a definitive answer came to light following the release of the first series on DVD. In the episode Dead Weight where Columbo introduces himself to General Hollister, the audience is shown a close-up of his badge, complete with the signature that appears to say "Frank Columbo". However, the creators of the show have always insisted that Columbo's first name has never been revealed, so its apparent disclosure on the badge may have been unintentional. Whatever the case, the question of Columbo's first name is likely to remain a hot topic of debate amongst fans.

Any objections? Matt 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

I have no objection to that, it's perfect. I just think it's important that people know that the creators of the show never intended Columbo to have a first name and they never gave him one.88.105.183.62 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What "the creators" think does not matter - what appears on screen is what matters. Sydney Newman (creator of Doctor Who) did not intend the Daleks to appear in the series - they still did. Joe Straczynski (creator of Babylon 5) did not intend for Sinclair to leave at the end of series one - he still did. Stan Lee (creator of the Incredible Hulk) did not intend the characters name to be David Banner - he still was. You show me something that occurred on screen - within the continuity of the programme, that contradicts "Frank" and I'll believe you.80.93.170.99 09:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Levinson and Link were the writers/producers of the episode dead weight so had a great deal of control over that episode. I agree with you 100% that the name on that id badge appears to be Frank but my arguement is, it's not Columbo's first name. That prop was created at the start of the series and a name was needed to go on it. When asked what the characters name was the reply would have been he hasn't got one. Thats part of the Columbo gimmick, just like we never see his wife. So now the prop maker chooses his own name or maybe the name of a relative, who knows, and puts it on the ID. I don't think anyone involved with the production would have thought that in 30 years people would have DVD clarity and the ability to zoom in and enhance the image.

Now you say it is definitely Frank because of whats written on the ID and above you wrote "the props department isn't autonomous. They would have been briefed and their work checked by the director and/or producer." That means Levinson and Link would have been involved in this stage of the production so would have agreed that the characters name is indeed Frank. So why, to this day do they say that the character was never given a first name? 88.105.186.68 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We do see his wife, though. She had her own series, remember? Guv2006 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how I see it. In my opinion we need to distinguish between guesswork and uninformed speculation, and facts that can be backed up, or at least informed opinion that we can give a source for. The appearance of the name badge is a fact. I'm assuming that the creators' consistent position that Columbo's first name has never been revealed is also a fact. The problem, then, is how to make these two statements compatible. The most neutral and non-speculative wording I could think of was "its apparent disclosure on the badge may have been unintentional". Matt 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

My arguement is that what Levinson, Link and Falk believe is irrelevant - it is what is shown on screen that counts. Indeed, what the creator of any TV series believes should not rank above what is shown on screen. If David E. Kelley put our a press release tomorrow saying that throughout the series Ally McBeal, Ally was actually working for an architect not a law firm, that doesn't make it true. It blatantly contradicts what was on screen. From on-screen evidence, Columbo's name is Frank. Nothing shown on screen contradicts that. Dawidziak can say it was never revealed in as many books as he likes. He is wrong - it was revealed, in Dead Weight. 80.93.170.99 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It should perhaps also be noted that the same ID badge is seen several times in the first season. Yes, "Dead Weight" is the only episode in which it is shot in close up (so that we can clearly read the 'Frank Columbo' signature), but one can also clearly see the very same ID card being shown in "Murder By The Book". It is also shown very briefly (and less clearly) in a few other episodes as well. Interestingly, later (post-1989) episodes have Columbo showing a police ID card that gives his actual name as "Lt. Columbo"!

You can also see "Frank" on his badge in episode 4 of season 5, A Matter of Honor. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:%27%27Frank%27%27_Columbo.jpg ) --NoiZy 08:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a clearer picture than the one currently on the main page. Why don't we swap them out? MArcane 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else notice that the rank and badge number on the ID card (that says "Frank") don't match with the gold shield? Not that it affects the name debate, just interesting. ---B- 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would a police detective be shuffling around with an ID card saying Frank Columbo if that wasn't his name? If indeed Frank wasn't his name, surely Columbo, on producing his ID, would say "Uh, by the way sir, my name isn't Frank - the police department screwed up," or words to that effect. Whatever the show's creators say, there is obviously evidence that his first name is indeed Frank. Therefore, this evidence should be viewed as fact as there is nothing within the show that contradicts it. The show lives within its own universe, and writers, producers etc cannot alter what has already been created by attempting to pretend something didn't occur which clearly did. Guv2006 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just another thought... Prior to the DVD-release during the original tv run, were there ever any appearance of this famous badge that made it possible to read the first name? Following the 'just a prop' line, could that have been placed there as a filler, instead of just scribbling, but never intended to be legible on screen? And in fact, as shown on TV, never were revealed? Of course, this entire argument falls apart, if it actually were readable during original broadcasts... In comparison, if Peter Falk, while making "notes" from a murder scene, actually wrote down his groceries, and only a still image from a digitally enhanced image would reveal it, doesn't really make those groceries a part of the story... I'd say the same goes for "unreadable" names... Loial (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway

Is listed as one of the murderers but doesn't seem to appear in the list of episodes. Anybody know which one? SmokeyTheFatCat 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

She appears - she was in "It's All in the Game" in the 11th season. ---B- 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Columbo Episodes

Per a recommendation made above, and due to the overly lengthy size of this article, I created the List of Columbo Episodes page. I have moved relevant talk items to that page's talk section. MArcane 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Added the TV show infobox to help this match the style of other TV articles. The non-standard nature (ie. movie of the week) of this show makes me wonder about the show's run info, though. Not sure if it should only include NBC airings or the latter ABC movies as well? I included both for now, but am open to suggestions.MArcane 05:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Guest Stars

The List of guest stars was so long and clunky that I decided to make it into a table showing murderers and victims. I added the blurb about the victims, because I don't recall an episode in which Leslie Neilson is murdered, but I recall one where he was a witness. I left the miscellaneous guest stars section alone, since it has so much unique info that would be hard to put in a table. Suggestions welcome.MArcane 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Still seems clunky to me. I want to add that Dean Stockwell has appeared in two episodes, being a victim in one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.5.147.1 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Denny Columbo

I've removed the reference to Columbo's full name possibly being "Denny" Columbo -- sounds like a mondegreen to me, as what's clearly being said (abeit quickly) is "Lieutenant" Columbo. Which sort of sounds like Lieu-tenny is said quickly, which is where the misheard Denny comes from... 141.117.210.191 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbo As a Parole Officer?

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the section on his family, his biography (after the comment about becoming a police officer to make up for his youth), or whether it didn't even belong because it's too speculative. Part of the problem is I forget the episode, but it was one of the last ones, though it could be in others. The comment would go something like this: "It is possible that some of tghe "cousins" which Columbo mentions are actually youth for whom he served as parole officer." The reason for this is because in (one of the last episodes) someone asks how often he sees this cousin he referred to, and Columbo says "Once a month."" Feel free to discuss or add if you thnk it belongs; again, someone who knows the episodes would have to check where.Somebody or his brother 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds totally speculative to me. I've seen every episode, most of them many times, and I don't recall even much of a hint that he was ever a parole officer. He wouldn't be a parole officer AND a homicide detective at the same time so it would have had to be something he did before he became a policeman or after he retired. Either way it couldn't be a "present tense" thing. ---B- 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of thought one couldn't be both at the same time, but truthfully, I'm nto as familiar with American police and how they handle paroles and stuff; it must be a full-time position then.

Yes, in a big city like Los Angeles it's definitely a full-time position. Perhaps some small-towns might have officers who also do Parole duties, but I'm not sure. ---B- 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Raincoat

OK, this might just be my own "fetish", and I may have been exposed to too many urban legends, so please set me straight... Didn't the prop crew spend a lot of time and effort trying to create the worn-out look? I remember something about having the coat dragged around behind a moving vehicle. I also seem to recall it having been auctioned off for some ridiculous amount of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.74.30 (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Actually as I understand it the raincoat was actually Peter Falk's own raincoat and was already sort of old and worn. ---B- (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I remember of his autobio (which i don't have to hand) the first raincoat he used was his, afer that it was a prop. And in the pilot episodes, he's considerably smarter than the show proper. Ged UK (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

fame of guest star

"In many, but not all, of the new episodes, the guest villain is relatively unknown to the public and not easily recognized by the audience." - I don't think this is correct. I'm a Brit and some of the guest stars may be less well-known here than there, but most look like well-known actors to me. Some are Brits and more well-known here. 82.69.1.202 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of the first Falk pilot

The first Falk pilot is called "Prescription for Murder" once on this page. All the other times on this page and on List of Columbo episodes it is called "Prescription: Murder". Is the naming of the pilot ambiguous or is the former just wrong? --88.69.214.18 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's wrong. My DVD box has Prescription: Murder. Ged UK (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

24h format for airing times

People from all over the world edit this page to give the airing times. The 24h format is easier to understand by anybody than the am/pm format. For example many people do not know/understand that 12pm is in fact after 11 am. The 24h format is totally clear for everybody, even English speaking people, and among them, americans.

This is not vandalism. I took time to make this change and I would like it to be respected. Thank you. Chtito (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not your decision to make. English WP respects the conventions of the various nations involved. Since this is an article about a US-produced show, it is to follow US conventions. The same goes for changing US Customary units to metric-first or -only in US-related articles, which you have been doing. It may not be vandalism, but it is disruptive, and against WP guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, wikipedia isn't a listings magazine. I don't honestly know why we even have the times listed. We don't even have them for every channel, so it just makes it look sloppy. They are liable to go out of date very quickly, and unless an editor is willing to watch over online listing lists every day for all the channels it shows on, I can't see the point of having them. They don't add anything to the article. Ged (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I had wondered about its necessity too. Seems like a good idea to take them out. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Character

Richard Levinson and William Link undoubtedly conceived the character of Lt. Columbo under the considerable influence of writer Frederick Knott, who created the character of Lt. Hubbard for his play "Dial M for Murder". It should not be overlooked that the course of Inspector Hubbard's investigation, immortalized in Knott's adapatation for Alfred Hickcock 1954 film, artfully utilizes the postmortem reconstruction of the crime that would become in a few short years Columbo's signature (if not his syle) in solving a criminal conundrum for that 1960 episode of the Chevy Mystery Show. —Preceding Frederick Louis Richardson comment added by 65.242.68.36 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source for that, it's just Original research i'm afraid. Ged UK (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.travolta.com/image/travolta_r5_c2.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.99.48 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dog

At the end of Columbo's biography, the author says that Columbo "acquires as a companion in the ABC shows." Actually, Columbo's dog is first introduced in the second season of the original NBC series. (Incidentally, it seems pretty far-fetched that the same dog is still alive during the ABC revival--nearly two decades later--but as far as I know, the show never distinguishes the ABC dog from the NBC dog.) Chalkieperfect (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only in the second season, but in the very first episode of the second season, 'Etude in Black'. - johandav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.66.98 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Columbo in popular culture

One point is missed in listing tv shows that gave tribute to Columbo. In the Magnum, PI episode, "A.A.P.I" (Season 7, 1986), Magnum is receiving an award from a private investigators association. There are many pi's there, some deliberately paroding tv detectives. And at one table is a Kojak look-alike sitting with a Columbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.226.215.18 (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the section is junk really, it needs a heavy pruning. GedUK  12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea the character was so popular in Japan, especially in manga. I don't recall the name of the series, but I saw a Columbo type character in one episode of an anime, it was drawn to look exactly like Peter Falk and sounded the same, though in Japanese. Another one, the coat worn by Tyler in "Irresponsible Captain Tyler" is obviously an homage to Columbo, as are some of Tyler's mannerisms, especially acting totally clueless when he really isn't. Bizzybody (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DVD Releases

Whoever put in the line "Unfortunately, some of the DVD releases are syndicated versions rather than the versions that were originally aired with many interesting scenes simply missing or heavily edited." needs to clarify the statement. Which versions are incomplete and what is your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.120 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDB Shows Season One Episode One as airing on 15 September 1971 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.247.127 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No Picture!?

Come on guys get one up! 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

File:Falk-Columbo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Falk-Columbo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard

The Sunset Boulevard article tells its readers:

The season five premiere of Columbo, titled "Forgotten Lady", also drew heavily from Sunset Boulevard with its storyline of a former star involved in a murder in the midst of a vain attempt at a comeback which her husband, a physician and the murder victim, would not permit because she had a terminal condition that was destroying her memory and would kill her if she continued her attempt at a comeback. This time, the role of the aging diva was played by Janet Leigh.

Can anyone provide a source for this? If so, please do. (NB I'm not watching this talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Columbo whistling aways a song... what song?

I always was wondering what song it is that he whistling...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUDI1969 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• All you have to do to answer this question is read the article. (From the article): "In almost every episode of the ABC revival he is heard whistling the children's song "This Old Man". If he does not whistle it, it appears somewhere else, such as in the underscore. Its significance comes from the line "knick knack paddywhack, give a dog a bone" in the lyrics, since Columbo's standard tactic is to gnaw at a case like a dog would to a bone." Fish Man (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Guest stars, murders, victims and miscellaneous guest stars

This section is filled with a very large amount of wp:listcruft. There are no sources or episode numbers listed for any of the actors listed. This information is not encyclopedic, and actors who appeared in only a single episode should not be listed. Additionally, the table is a poor format to use for this section since it is filled with comma-separated data and a narrative paragraph to the right. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This list also falls under Misplaced Pages:Listcruft#Meaning criteria: 1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list; 2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people; 3. The list is a violation of Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and 8. The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree.

The following is the list of criteria regarding what constitutes listcruft

• • a) The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
  • b) The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
  • c) The list is a violation of Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  • d) The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
  • e) The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms
  • f) The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
  • g) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
  • h) The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.
  • i) Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.
  • j) Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
  • k) The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.

IMO: b,c,d,e,f,i,j,k do not apply; so that leaves a,g, and h.

IMO, further, a is debatable since the motives of whoever created the list (years ago and it wasn't me, although I have contributed to it) requires speculation on our parts.

IMO, g is untrue as the overwhelming majority of names included are wikilinked except for a few redlinks pertaining to marginal actors

Finally, h: well, there's the rub, as the Bard would say. That is always subjective and at a minimum some sort of consensus should be required before deleting this entire section. Quis separabit? 18:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Listcruft do not state all eleven criteria need to be met to be labeled as such by another editor. It's simply a term used to refer to indiscriminate lists of information. Other articles which include lists of guest stars (List of The Simpsons guest stars, List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents guest stars) include the episode number or some referable information related appearances by celebrities. This article contains no sourcing information for the data listed.

Also, the table format looks ridiculous. There's no benefit from listing giant blocks of text in a table like that, and it's difficult to read comma-separated lists rather than bulleted items.

This is subjective reasoning and also comes under WP:IAR. Quis separabit? 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Listing actors who appeared in multiple episodes or more than once as either a murderer or victim is entirely appropriate; listing actors who appeared in a single episode is not, and those appearances should be removed from the main article and referenced in List of Columbo episodes if they are not already discussed there. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing "Guest stars, murders, victims and miscellaneous guest stars"

As per The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category (above), there is also the possibility of categorizing the actors in question (i.e. Category:Actors who appeared on Columbo, or Category:Columbo), but I don't know how much enthusiasm there is for that. Quis separabit? 19:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements

The following statements, fact-tagged for +1 years, have been removed. Please do not re-add them without providing the necessary source.

• Falk once stated during an interview on Inside the Actors Studio that he was not truly sure how many relatives Columbo had aside from his wife.
• A spinoff featuring Mrs. Columbo was opposed by series creators Levinson and Link, as well as by Peter Falk. In an interview with Columbo Phile author Mark Dawidziak, published prior to the 1989 Columbo revival, Richard Levinson joked, "If there was ever another Columbo we were going to have him say, 'There's a woman running around pretending to be my wife. She's changing things. She's a young girl. I wish my wife was like that. She's an impostor.'"
• "Nonetheless, a spin-off TV series, Mrs. Columbo starring Kate Mulgrew, was aired in 1979, but it received a dismal reception and was canceled not long after." changed to "Mrs. Columbo, a spin-off TV series starring Kate Mulgrew, aired in 1979, but it was canceled after only thirteen episodes."

Sottolacqua (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Separating character from TV series article

Do any other editors feel sections of this article discussing the development/characterization of the main character should be split into another article titled Columbo (character)? Most of this article discusses the television program, but there are two large sections that discuss the development and storyline of the main character. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That crossed my mind as well, I think it would be a sensible split. The development content - i.e. the section headed "Creating the character" - should stay here though in my view, as it in essence concerns development of the TV series as much as the character.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is to hold that thought a moment. It seems silly to divide the character from the T show, since there is no character without the TV show- notwithstanding the original play. This article should be slightly rewritten, reviewed a bit more carefully, before someone tries to divide it in two. Doesn't sound practical to me.--Djathinkimacowboy 14:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some editing which I hope made the article look a bit more reasonable. I do agree now that the television data should be separated into a separate, closely linked article.

One example of cleaning up: does this article need (under the 'external links') these sections: Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Miniseries (1973–2000), Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama (1969–1989) and Steven Spielberg filmography? Really? This is too much. I'm removing the Spielberg info. This is about Columbo, not Spielberg's career.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OR and POV

There is no OR here, only following the article's own stated protocol that the information is taken from the shows themselves. I won't remove the tag and would appreciate all the help anyone can give. I usually have episode titles to back the statements. No opinion or personal observation POV or original research OR has been added by me. Wanted to correct myself as to one point: of course I have added personal observations whenever appropriate, per the rules that seem to apply to the article. I try to cite the episodes when I can.--Djathinkimacowboy 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section

Proposal: Deletion of the "International broadcast" section. Unless we can do it a bit more neatly or a sort of streamlined history, I think this is excessive. An article such as this doesn't need an international broadcasting schedule like that. The section doesn't seem appropriate for Misplaced Pages, and I refer editors to WP:TRIVIA. My opinion, anyway, and I'd like discussion if anyone would care to take part. If I see no responses here, I will delete the section. Of course I'd like to see it remain if a separate article can be created that is about the television statistics, etc., but I don't really see that happening.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that details of initial network broadcast, particularly for major markets such as the UK, Germany and Japan, is encyclopedic and useful and actually would like to see ratings info added if possible. However details of the international broadcast of mere repeats - which isn't even provided for the U.S. - seems completely unnecessary and unmaintainable, particualrly in view of the profusion of television channels and regularity of repeats.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that view and I sort of see it that way, I suppose. But I was thinking, this is a massive list, with the countries' flags, taking up a big box with all that space. Why can't this be a simple list? I know Misplaced Pages sometimes frowns on lists, but I don't think that is the case here, if it were to be changed. It seems to me that it would be nice under its own subsection, only not in the form of a big, illustrated box.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Then again, viewing that box and the other lengthy lists, it seems to me it would serve the purpose to simply state Columbo was and remains popular worldwide. With a citation, of course. That entire section has no citation- not a single one. Worse, it has no dates or anything of interest except that it lists the countries and says Columbo was shown in those countries, under the title Columbo. And that article has far too many lists already: the guest villains and other guest stars- many admins have told me Misplaced Pages is not for lists.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have selected a few articles at random from Category:English-language television series and, from what I have gathered, most articles do not have such a section. My first choice would be to remove it entirely as unsourced triva. However, certain particularly successful television series, such as Doctor Who, have a short section devoted to international viewership, so, as second choice, I'd have no objections to a revamp of the table you mention. Salvio 14:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sal, yes, thank you very much. It also seemed to me the table was really a burdensome space-filler. And I myself haven't yet found authoritative sources for international viewership. There are sources that say it was world-famous, and of course Falk was interviewed and spoke of the way people called him "Columbo" whenever he traveled to foreign climes. The rest, I'd say, is trivia. What I must ask is this: should I streamline it into text if I find a citation, and delete the table? I am AGF from the other editors here on this matter. They seem like good people.--Djathinkimacowboy 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this a bit more I am willing to lose the table. I would however really like to see some info about original broadcasts in markets such as the UK (eg station, ratings etc). Of course we need to find some sources (that is a general problem with this article though, although the content is almost all factually 'correct' it does need more citations). Rangoon11 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with anything that is brief, well put-together and cited when it comes to TV broadcast history. One thing I think we need to keep out of this article is listing the entire award history just because Columbo won an award. It's information already listed in the article, and entire lists like that are unnecessary.--Djathinkimacowboy 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How major a network is is irrelevant and open to huge argument as to what fits, and leaves us open to accusations of western bias. My view is, if we can't source it, take it out. We can record in prose that the show aired in # countries if necessary, which will shorten the article and not really take out any verifiable information. GedUK  20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times do we list Golden Globes?

Columbo awards are well laid out and available already. Please stop adding the entire Golden Globes listing, which has nothing to do with this article, unless you have some citation or justification for keeping all that there. We don't need that. It is repetitive and silly.--Djathinkimacowboy 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing and misleading behaviour. The template was not added - it has been in the article for a very long time and is relevant and appropriate - and you removed it. Its removal has been reverted for good reason. And then you have simply just deleted it again. And again. This is not acceptable behaviour. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):: 1st: I don't care, time length has nothing to do with propriety and you know it. This on the other hand is edit warring as long as you refuse to actually talk about it on the talk page, and you appear to be doing that. I'm not getting into an edit war over this- but you're wrong and that thing is not staying in there. Also, I'd appreciate you not accusing other editors of actions such as 'disappointing', 'misleading' and behaviour that is 'not acceptable'. You're the one not discussing issues when they are raised here. Please see WP:OWN before you make further assumptions of bad faith!--Djathinkimacowboy 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

'that thing is not staying in there' - that is a clear declaration that you have no interest in the opinions of other editors, or of following proper process and policy. Again highly disappointing. I suggest you rapidly re-think your attitude. I am discussing this, what do you think this is? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are discussing it now, yes. Not days ago when you were originally asked. I apologise for any untoward behaviour. Keep the list in if you like. Just know that I'm not overjoyed with you, either.--Djathinkimacowboy 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So when exactly was I asked? You did post a message on my Talk page today on a wholly separate issue relating to this article, and I did in fact reply in the thread above this one. As you say on your talk page 'Blessed are those who are flexible; they shall not get bent out of shape.' Perhaps we can now get back to more productive issues.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, I don't understand the huge awards section. Is it really necessary to list every award that the show was nominated for? It seems like this page is getting near overflow of info already... Is this the norm of other television shows/actors and I'm just missing it? Ckruschke (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

More recent TV series have vastly more coverage in WP, with articles for every episode, plus for individual characters e.g. see List of House episodes and the vast amount of linked articles. Coverage of Columbo is actually extremely sparse by comparison, being just this article and a list of episodes article. And yet the main focus here currently seems to be on gutting this article, rather than adding cites and improving it. Since the Columbo character has appeared in a number of different TV productions, and on stage, a separate article for the character seems appropriate, which would immediately reduce this article substantially. A separate article for people who appeared in Columbo also makes sense, and would also reduce this article considerably. That seems a better way of going instead of continually deleting content from here.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply I agree that there are several pages like List of House episodes (I watch/add to several of these like the Bionic Woman/$6M Man, Xena, Hercules, and several of the Star Trek shows), however the intent of my comment was the actual Columbo page and I thus would point to the parent House (TV series) page which while being very informative, is also much more scaled down and cleaner (IMHO). I'm not implying or even saying that the page should be gutted - I'm just asking if there is a better way to skin the cat. My two most recent edits, taking the single-column list of guest stars and turning them into a simple multi-column list, is but one example. I also agree that keeping the different Columbo appearances intact makes sense, but this section is VERY small in comparison to the huge tables on the awards, half as big as the "Guest Contributions" section, and as large as the "Musical Score" section. Just trying to put it all in perspective and it seems like we could all work together to improve the page. Ckruschke (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Reply to Ckruschke (new post): Since we are doing this in this manner... I agree with a lot of what you say, but then you said, 'I also agree that keeping the different Columbo appearances intact makes sense...' and I was wondering which 'Columbo appearances' were ever removed. I didn't remove any. As for the view we are 'gutting' the article: there's gutting and there's clean-up. This article was almost half nonsense. What work I did was to the benefit of the article. Since no one would talk it out here except to complain and make inaccurate statements, well....! And may I add, it is improper to insert posts this way, fellow editors. Take it to the bottom of the discusison thread per the rules, please. I have accomplished that by removing my last two posts on this thread, but please don't shimmy around the correct order of posting on a thread like you have both done. You know better, I know you do.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Djathink - I'm not sure what you thought you read in my post, but I was trying to be helpful. I was not saying that anything was deleted or that anyone was gutting the page. I was trying to be a neutral party between you and Rangoon. Also I wasn't inserting or shimmying around anything - I was replying to Rangoon's reply to my original comment - therefore my further indented reply was in the correct place. I was not replying to you so therefore I did not put it at the end of the post (which would have been after your post and therefore would have made zero sense). I'm sorry if you felt slighted, putout, or crossed - this has obviously not been my intent. I also appreciated the Barnstar - so I'm not sure how we got from there to here. I also have some further ideas about how to tighten up the page so I'd like to suggest we focus on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke: I apologise for the confusion!- because I was addressing common problems in my post to you. I should not have done that. None of that was directed at you at all- I saw and appreciate in full what you've tried to do here. Again, I'm sorry about that error in expression. One final word: it is unadvisable to stick in posts willy-nilly no matter what you are addressing. You should know that by now. Anything new goes at the bottom of a thread. As to the rest, I hope no hard feelings. It was really my being disappointed with someone else here- I was addressing issues they raised, and certainly not anything you did.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool - Maybe its the engineer in me - putting comments at the end of the line that only relate to something in the middle seems... imprecise, but I can play nice too. Ckruschke (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Of course. C., my post was fuzzy and it clearly affected you. I am sorry for that, I never aimed that at you. I think I started to address you and ended up venting at no one in particular, but it shouldn't have happened. Very glad to have you here, it's a breath of fresh air and a fresh pair of eyes.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The television series and character Columbo has been round since the late 1960s. We have heavy data even when streamlined, about both the character and the history of the series. Added to that we have international status of this program/character. Do we divide the article in half? Secondly, what should be considered WP:TRIVIA to the subject?--Djathinkimacowboy 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot depends on where you make the split. I personally think the biography section is too long, and even leads with the fact it's cobbled together from snippets from different episodes.

The awards section is rather overpowering, but I'm not sure that there's enough to split into another article. A collapsible table would probably do the trick.

Guest stars, both murderers, victims and others would probably work quite well, and would give us space to expand a little and make it more readable.

Pulling the broadcast and DVD sections together, or at least consecutive, would help the flow and perhaps ease the information's presentation by helping people skip over a section that they may not be interested in. I could also see a case for taking all the broadcast and DVD etc release info and moving it to List of Columbo episodes.

For me, trivia is where the character's been referenced in other shows in a minor way (a walk-on, reference etc); is Columbo's appearance or reference integral to a notable episode of a notable show (or whatever). We got overloaded with crap in the past, and most of it was just rubbish. GedUK  20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers a lot, Ged UK. I agree with you right down the line. It also troubles me that Columbo's character and the M.O. of the character has to be cobbled together with information lifted from the episodes, but then I kind of see that as a 'forced source'. Aside from perhaps one or two books, where else would we get a comprehensive character biography? However, I think that biography should be pared down- feel guilty since I added to it, but I did try streamlining the article and was accused of 'gutting' it. I wonder if this will work. Other than reverting me, there is one other editor here who does fine work, then there's me doing what little I can....--Djathinkimacowboy 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: You know, we have List of Columbo episodes already- why not move most of the data about the COLUMBO EPISODES to the article where it belongs? I'll have to double-check but is this article even mentioned here in the main Columbo article?? It should be more prominent and if we move some of this data, it will have to be more prominent, like maybe up in the lead. ("For information about the series and its data, see List of Columbo episodes.") This thing needs some attention and work. This is so disorganised.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That article already does have the information about the individual episodes, what else do you propose moving there?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, you can read. I propose moving to that article all the data that belongs in that article that is presently here. If the data is repetitive, I propose to remove it from here. I don't appreciate your edits and Salvio has advised you about participating on this talk page. You are starting to look like you are edit warring, . Please prove me wrong.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly after reading all of the dross which you have been posting about me behind my back on the Talk page of Salvio giuliano, and the comments which you have posted there in the past few hours, and the way in which you have selectively copied my comments on that Talk page below, I no longer feel discussing anything with you particularly constructive.

To address the point in question 'I propose moving to that article all the data that belongs in that article that is presently here.' is so vague to me as be meaningless. Please be clearer.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I'll overlook that... because we've basically frazzled each other's nerves. It's not surprising your trying to find a way not to respond here at all. It should not have come to this. Frankly, you are not helping as much as I was hoping you'd have done. You began by trying to shunt me to the talk page here, but you wouldn't talk. Then you responded by making accusations here and in edit summaries- and you've been warned about both activities, but I understand how you feel. Not too long ago I was doing the same things. If you're serious, let's actually fix this and cooperate. If you have problems, discuss them on the talk page, start a new thread, you can even yell at me on my talk page. Just do something more, something positive!--Djathinkimacowboy 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Suggestions 1) The separate page List of Columbo episodes already contains the whole table with the DVD releases. This should be deleted from the main page. 2) Throw the second table, "Broadcast History", on that "List" page as well. 3) The DVD Table in "Home Video Release" section seems to be an almost direct duplication of the DVD release info on the table I reference in the #1 above. One of the two tables should be deleted. 4) Since the awards section is so large, why don't we simply create another page, entitled "List of Columbo awards" or something, cut and paste the whole section and then colaborrate on a short lead to this new page so that it's more than just a stub. I think that all 4 of those suggestions would slim the page down nicely enough to make Djathink happy while retaining all the great content that Rangoon has put his time into. What ya think? Ckruschke (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

C., I am in agreement 100%, as long as we drop repetitive stuff and move what needs to be moved. I'm not sure Misplaced Pages will tolerate a new article for Columbo awards since that can be streamlined into a simple paragraph and set inline. Other than that, I agree with you. I've been trying to examine the DVD release info to see what needs to be deleted. I want to be careful so I don't delete anyone else's hard work.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I can broadly support that, with a few caveats. 1. I support moving the whole 'Home video release' section to the 'List of Columbo episodes' article (or perhaps keeping the section but collapsing the table in the section). 2. I do feel quite strongly that the first table in the 'Seasons and episodes' section should stay as a useful summary of the series and dates etc, however it should be combined with the table currently below it (the 'Broadcast history' table), and the DVD release info should be removed. 3. The awards table has now been collapsed and I therefore see far less reason to move it to a separate article as in the collapsed form it takes up only one line. I'm not completely against the idea, but don't see it as making much difference to this article. 4. I still think that a separate article for the character of Columbo would be helpful, the character has appeared in a play and a number of different TV series played by different actors. In my view this article should just be about the series with Falk in the lead.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What if we cut the following from here and paste it at List of Columbo episodes: 'Home video release' and 'Awards'? We can then just insert the link to the Episodes as a reference. I think the other stuff is very informative and should remain. I think the character biography can be slimmed down a little bit, and so can the lead. We do not need a separate article for the character- this article is for the character. We don't have enough on him anyway, what's there is just 'purple prose'. Thoughts?--Djathinkimacowboy 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment for clarification: I want to clarify, it looks like we're in a sort of agreement. I agree the other stuff aside from DVD releases and awards should stay- maybe we can collapse those, I find them useful and helpful. The only point of disagreement we might have is I do not think a new article about the character should be created. If another article is about the character, and we have List of Columbo episodes, then what is this article supposed to be about? Just the series?- I can't agree with that.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I read your post (it's very good) and I noticed you just added to it- no problem. What I wanted is to encourage you to just post something new. It's hard to see what you're thinking if you just continually update one post.--Djathinkimacowboy 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think splitting off the character of Columbo into a new Wiki page is a good idea. Yes, there is a separate page of "List of Columbo episodes", but this is very, very common when it comes to television programs - the parent is where you go to look about info on the show as a whole and then you can follow links to specific facets of the show - the Lost (TV series) page is a perfect example of this in which certain facets of the show were split off into separate Wiki pages as they got more and more verbose while the page retains all the links and a short summaries of what are on all those pages. Or did I miss your point Djathink? Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, good point. Seeing that as an example, I can see the merit of having a character page - more pictures and some better sections than we have here, yes, I can envision that. I suppose there's no danger of someone coming along later and saying we ought to merge the character page back where it was.... Only thing I wonder is, wouldn't we have more of a stub than an article? Look at it from the perspective if this article here had only the character bio- which is what we're kind of suggesting with a separate character article- would it be enough?--Djathinkimacowboy 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article - section break

In giving this more thought, it seems to me we should think about some things:

1. Columbo should not have a separate character bio or profile article. This article, if it lost Columbo's biography AND we moved the television data, would be a bare cupboard. It doesn't seem productive to split it 3 ways for no reason.

2. This article is supposed to be generally 'about the television series'. The series was mostly about the character, so we cannot separate the two things. People coming to this article would be put out, having to link to another article about 'Columbo, the man'.

3. The data about Columbo the character should be pared down, a LOT. I can see the value of having a section addressing his car, but not a section about the dog. This is about Columbo, not the dog. It is enough if we say, "Columbo had a Bassett Hound." That section looks silly.

4. We must be careful and bear in mind that the series itself seems to be our main (only?) reference source. In the past editors including me have 'geeked out' too much about Columbo. We need to be careful of that.

If no objection, I'll try to streamline the article a little. I will not be moving anything. That's all I can think of now ... please comment.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. - I'm fine either way. I don't worry about this page becoming a stub, but I can see your point.
2. - Again, I'm fine with that. I don't see this as an issue, since one would come to this page read about the show and then decide to click the link about more info on specifically the character "Columbo", but either works for me.
3. - Again I agree in principle. However, your specific point about the dog is pretty negligible - it's 3 sentences and if it were to be completely deleted wouldn't affect the overall size of the Bio one bit. However, some of the trivia content needs to go. One problem that we do have is that 90% of the information is not cited so an independent "Wiki Policeman"-type editor could come in and start chopping because most of the info is not referenced. I think that there is fat to cut, but my suggestion would be take each of the sections one at a time and cooperately work out edits/additions/references to tighten up the whole page.
4. - Agree (see above)

So that we can all give our okey-dokey, I would suggest putting in a small "this is what I'm going to do" comment in the Talk section. IMHO, this can work to head of any future disagreements. I think if you, I, and Rangoon11 (and GedUK  plus any other joiners) work together, we can really improve the page. Ckruschke (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I noticed that there is a huge change right now, many contents are removed and many are added. But someone pl combine Seasons and episodes & Home video release. too much repetation.B3430715 (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the topics of the thread above. Ckruschke (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

OK, I'm in agreement thus far ... and I hope I made it clear, I would do a little and nothing major. My edits so far haven't been minor, but they're darned close. One issue I would raise is this article could do with a simple list of episodes and corresponding data, nothing more. I think awards etc. belong at the List of Columbo episodes but I am not going to do the heavy lifting. I know I'll mess it up. We need help- but will we get it? Even Rangoon so far hasn't done anything to which he agreed some time ago; I'm not holding anything against him, just saying I think no one's going to initiate the heavy work.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

what? i mean combining this two tables:

1. ^ Both pilots are included in the Season 1 DVD.
2. ^ Both Season 6 and Season 7 were released on the same DVD.
3. The Mystery Movie Collection 1989 DVD released in Region 1 covers all the episodes that originally aired in 1989: All 4 episodes from Season 8 and the first one from Season 9.
4. The Mystery Movie Collection 1990 DVD released in Region 1 covers all the episodes that originally aired in 1990: The last 5 episodes from Season 9 and the first one from Season 10.
5. The Season 10 DVDs released in Regions 2 and 4 cover the last 14 episodes.
6. As of 2025, episodes airing from 1991 to 1993 can be found for Region 1 on DVD in "Columbo: The Mystery Movie Collection 1991–1993", while the 1994–2003 are available in "Columbo- Mystery Movie Collection 1994-2003"
7. In Region 2, Season 10 was released in two volumes: Of those final 14 episodes, Volume I covers the first 8 while Volume 2 contains the last 6.

B3430715 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the character bio is excellent- I want to add my support for really cleaning up that whole thing and maybe getting it down to half its size. I think we can do a couple of lines about his style of investigation and leave it at that- now there is a whole subsection and it really doesn't deserve that. I think viewers are interested to read about his family, background, and the car is of some interest but I agree this needs to be cut in half.

As to the data about guest stars and contributors, etc.- it seems we should keep that but move it to the episodes list article. Later we can see how to trim back the article page, but I have to say I am fond of that article and think it should remain as-is.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Columbo in its turn in Monday Night Mysteries was broadcast on NBC- obviously on Monday nights- so I am removing this broadcast history until someone finds a better way to present it AND a citation. For now it is among the WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA that we need to remove.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with reviewing the Bio and cutting where appropriate, we need to be careful about cutting to a size goal. Although some of it is trivial minutia, obviously alot of time has been put in to the material and we need to review it in as neutral manner as possible. If at the end of the day only two sentences are removed, then so be it, but the goal shouldn't be cutting for cutting's sake.

To your previous point, If you could restate what we've already agreed to, I can do the changes. This has gotten awfully long and with threads and answers being moved and edited, I've gotten lost... Ckruschke (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

e/c All that is happening with this article at present is that large amounts of uncited (but factually correct, uncontentious and longstanding) content is continuing to be deleted. I oppose the the bulk removal of the content about the Dog, and the removal of the useful and relevant Broadcast history table. Djathinkimacowboy makes it pretty clear that their intention is to delete as much of this article as possible - whilst adding not a single new citation - and I am strongly opposed to that approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a section break per Misplaced Pages rules simply allows us to continue the thread and edit and comment more easily- nothing has been "moved". Now I wish to quote and answer with clarity. First is Ckruschke:

Although I agree with reviewing the Bio and cutting where appropriate, we need to be careful about cutting to a size goal. Although some of it is trivial minutia, obviously alot of time has been put in to the material and we need to review it in as neutral manner as possible. If at the end of the day only two sentences are removed, then so be it, but the goal shouldn't be cutting for cutting's sake.

Yes, it is exactly what I have been proposing so we're agreed. I never advocated a slash-and-burn attitude toward this- and it does contain lots of interesting detail.

C., to restate about what we've discussed, it seems any data related strictly to television issues should go to List of Columbo episodes. Later that article can be streamlined- I can help with some of that.

Now Rangoon:

All that is happening with this article at present is that large amounts of uncited (but factually correct, uncontentious and longstanding) content is continuing to be deleted. I oppose the the bulk removal of the content about the Dog, and the removal of the useful and relevant Broadcast history table. Djathinkimacowboy makes it pretty clear that their intention is to delete as much of this article as possible - whilst adding not a single new citation - and I am strongly opposed to that approach.

Yes, amounts- not large- of material are being deleted, per Misplaced Pages policy and you know that. You can clearly see the diffs and edit summaries for everything I have done. Time makes no difference if material is inappropriate, excessive, repetitive or undue weight being given to trivia. You can oppose the removal of the data about Dog, but other than just putting it back, how do you propose we fix this article if nothing is ever to be removed?

R., I removed that table because it is uncited, it is bulky and it isn't necessary. As I have said, anyone coming back with a citation and streamlined material can put it back in- but we hardly need a big table with that info. Finally, I'm afraid you're wrong in saying all I want to do is cut this article and add nothing further. You are clearly not studying what we have discussed here and what we're trying to do to make this a more user-friendly and informative article. You need to understand what an encyclopedic entry is.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As ever, your focus is purely on removing content.

You say 'it seems any data related strictly to television issues should go to List of Columbo episodes. Later that article can be streamlined'. That is (1) unclear and (2) in no way agreed.

We are going round in circles on this Talk page. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Djathink - I actually agree with Rangoon on the table. It was not discussed that we should ditch it (unless I fell asleep somewhere) and therefore no major changes should have been made w/o at least discussing it here. That was the implied agreement - right? I have therefore reverted this and put in a tag that the table needs citation. If no one can come up with corroborating references to the info, it can rightfully be deleted per Wiki reference rules. Also if the info is incorrect, per your deletion note, then we can also work on making it so.

Rangoon - While I agree that this current discussion has gotten to be quite long, I actually thought we were getting somewhere. We have discussed possible fixes and outlined what COULD be done to remove some of the original research and minutia. I was going to suggest that we went through the Bio a section/para at a time and highlight the parts that should stay and parts that should go. After we have narrowed it down to specific bits, we discuss the validity of each sentence or sentences. None of this should be willy nilly and although Djathink frequently remarks that the article needs to be slimmed down, I can also see many sentences that appear to be fluff inserted by anonymous editors. This process isn't easy, but I'm not willing to give up yet as I think the three of us can still work through this. Ckruschke (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I made my reasons perfectly clear for the removal of that table under Misplaced Pages rules. I do not like to go this route but I must insist you stop and consider edit warring if you will simply revert something because I didn't come here asking permission first. C., no one has ever been able to approach this article with acceptable citations and it is a miracle we get to use the original series as a reference.

Now that you've spoken up about that blasted, silly-looking table, I won't get into an edit war or a violation of 3RR- but I think you guys both need to bone up a little on what it is I'm doing instead of crying that too much is being deleted. As for Rangoon, I thought you and I were in agreement on most issues, as you told an admin a couple of weeks ago.

C., you said you saw "fluff" in the article inserted by anon. editors. Though I am not arguing about this, I just can't see what you mean. I myself admitted and I admit again, I have added details to the article, seeing that it was in the spirit in which the article was written.

You make a sound point, we are making progress here and I think we all need to step back and consider whether we are falling into a WP:OWN pattern of doing things.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, one last thing: we won't go in circles here if you'll quit taking us in circles like you have been doing. All you do is fight almost every suggestion that is made. C., one last thing: I hope I did not misunderstand you, but you seem to be complaining about the length of discussions here. Am I wrong? If you are complaining, you should note that discussions take as long as they take. If anyone gets tired of discussion, then take a break. That is what I do.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Djathink - I honestly don't understand your stances or your lightning fast turnarounds and out-of-the-blue attacks. You state that you want to work together to improve the article. You state in agreement that we should discuss things before making any changes. Then you delete a table (although I agree it was 100% on justifiable grounds) and when I rightly point out that you did it w/o discussing it on Talk, you attack me, accuse me of WP:Edit warring (which no third-party editor would agree with since I was simply following the discuss part of the WP:BRD cycle), then get your back up and suggest that I "bone up" and "quit crying that too much is being deleted" which is pretty ironic considering how thin skinned you are and repeatedly jump to the wrong conclusion regarding my innocent comments (such as talking about the length of this discussion). Finally, when I said I thought "we were in agreement on most issues", I didn't mean I was going to blindly support whatever you wanted to do.

My intention all along has been to honestly try and improve this page and the edit process by bringing in a tone of WP:Civility between you and Rangoon. I am taking my own time to try and do this. But I'm tired of being WP:Shot At and all the WP:Drama that has been inserted into these discussions. So in the immortal words of Han Solo, "No reward is worth this" and I think I'll just throw in the flag and move on to other things. Sorry I couldn't help more... Cheers - Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, as usual some of those remarks were not necessarily directed at you- some are aimed at P and some just venting- but I do stand by what I said to you. But you know what really tires me? False accusations of personal attacks etc. You should not have complained that the discussion is too long; that does not help.

Please stop accusing me of "attacking" you whenever I suggest something or make statements. The truth is not an attack, so please ... stop trying to make this into an personal attack issue, which it is not.

If you had a problem with that table, well, it's back and I don't see what the point is in being so thin-skinned yourself! Nor did I ask you to blindly agree with me- and THAT is a personal attack, which I think you do more often than you are aware.

It is very unfortunate you choose to simply storm off instead of cool off- because you can't take the general solid criticism regarding the article's needs.

I do sincerely apologise if you felt attacked, but then again, that is your imagination. The discussion is here for all to see. I for one am sorry to see you go- but you go if you must. Me, too: I am through with this article because frankly, I'm tired of you and P. finger-pointing and then accusing me of all manner of weird stuff.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The heavy lifting no one else wanted

The data has been moved - whole - to List of Columbo episodes, where it belongs and per consensus reached here. Had I not done it no one would have done it--Djathinkimacowboy 21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted - no consensus for those changes which are still under discussion.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean you do not approve, and don't want it that way. You are edit warring. You said nothing about this - nothing - when C. and I were talking about moving it. C. clearly said he'd do it before he stormed off; now you are also encroaching on 3RR territory. Either disucss further here, or it will be moved without your consent. If you won't input except to complain, that is to be ignored. And it did look better until you reverted me.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually read other editors' comments? I stated above quite clearly the following: "You say 'it seems any data related strictly to television issues should go to List of Columbo episodes. Later that article can be streamlined'. That is (1) unclear and (2) in no way agreed."

Can I also ask why you have been deleting content from this Talk page, including the comments of others? (i.e. ) Rangoon11 (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rangoon, I see it here. This kind of removal can be done when something is so unproductive and useless that it should be gone - and my edit summary is extremely clear about it. But if you think it shouldn't be missing from here, then revert it and make a note in edit summary. I won't remove it again if you're so hot to have it restored.

Secondly, if you'd care to read, C. even offered to move the material from here to List of Columbo episodes before storming off.

Also may I point out you are edit warring by consitently violating WP:DNRNC and other rules which I tried nicely to ask you about a while ago.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will let Ckruschke speak for themself, if they wish to still be involved in this discussion, but for me a list article which is specifically about the episodes of the series is not the right place, or a remotely logical place, for moving details such as you just attempted to. Your overwhelming focus seems to be on removing content from this article. I'm unsure why as at present the article isn't even that long. Since the current series of edits began a reasonable amount of content has already been removed. Most of those deletions I support. However I do not wish to see this article suffer death from a thousand cuts, nor to see content moved from it to less suitable places purely in order to reduce its length. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No one asked you to speak for anyone else. You have absolutely NO grasp of what has been attempted at this article. Which is typical since you only want to edit, revert others and yell. You know what, you do your screaming and then I will try to reply to all of it later. You're edit conflicting with me and I cannot get any information on here now.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I will try to spell this out carefully: I felt the sections '6 Home video release' and '7 Awards' should have been placed in full at List of Columbo episodes. C. offered to help move those sections, which I later moved and you reverted. I won't move them again because of you. The objective was to make this article here a more pure and slimmed-down article for people to enjoy it more. You'd know this if you had participated properly at the beginning, instead of edit warring and throwing tantrums.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database and blogs are not allowed in Misplaced Pages pages

Rangoon. I'm drawing your attention here, where you reverted my edit. Look at the external links. I think you already know, blogs and the Internet Movie Database are not allowed on Misplaced Pages articles. If you revert this again, I will open an ANI about your edit warring and other rule-breaking.--Djathinkimacowboy 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "Tvshowsondvd.com". Tvshowsondvd.com. Retrieved June 27, 2011.

• B-Class television articles
• High-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles