Talk:Cops (TV program)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

COPS 2.0

shouldnt something about G4's cops 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Was COPS ever filmed in Canada? I thought I remember seeing an episode based in Toronto. --209.226.183.16 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge.  Denelson83  02:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

They did have episodes in the United Kingdom. I do believe that their was an episode in Toronto once.

I did add constables to the list as they did have a couple of scences with one of the Tarrant County, TX preceints Constable's Office.

There's a version called "To Serve and Protect" that films in Seattle, Vancouver, and Edmonton, and maybe some other locations. Bobanny 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Constables

Constables...is there a part of the United States where this term is used to describe police officers? If not, should this word be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.82.69 (talk • contribs)

Some depts in the U.S., such as in Texas, use the term constable.--TruckOttr 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Look here for more on the title of "Constable" and how it's used in the US and elsewhere. -Maverick 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, when a constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, a copper's lot is not an 'appy one. Wahkeenah 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In Pennsylvania, local circuit courts refer to their uniformed officers as "constables", whose duties include transporting prisoners to courts from county prisons and serving criminal and traffic warrants on defendants. Kepiblanc (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song

Does anyone know what theme song Cops used before Bad Boys?

4:35pm, 6 March 2007

• Car 54 Where Are You? Wahkeenah 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Release / Consent?

Does anybody know about forms for release or consent forms suspects sign to appear in episodes? They must sign something, as their likeness is being used in a 'for profit' format, so I imagine criminals agree to be shown on TV, and likely are paid for the appearance.

Seems pretty obvious to me there must be a release form, considering that some episodes have suspects with blurred faces, plus, if I were being arrested, I'd love to have an extra bill to post bail with.

Anyways, wondering if somebody knows more about this, it would be nice to include this in the article. TotalTommyTerror 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the book The Jump-Out Boys, written by COPS producer/soundman Hank Barr, all subjects appearing on the show generally need to sign a release form. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. If they don't, the clip usually isn't aired, and if it is the subject's face is blurred out. In any case, nobody gets any money out of it, except for the police officers doing their job and the COPS crew doing theirs. -Maverick 09:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's something I've always wondered, too. HOW do they get suspects to sign releases, especially when some of them are in extremely embarrassing or humiliating positions? Is there any evidence that the producers pay off families and suspects? -76.4.52.247 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Methinks some people will do anything to get their fifteen minutes of fame, including having their sorry, half-dressed asses arrested on nationwide television. In some cases, I suppose it's the kind of thing that could actually gain some "street cred."

I also have to wonder why more of these people don't take a swing at the cameraman. If there's a call to my home, I can see the cops having a right to enter, but I'm going to toss a chair at the trespasser with the camera.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost everyone 'featured' on that show eventually pleads, or is found, guilty. There is wide leeway for photographing crime scenes/arrests/etc of the guilty. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk for e.g. Marteau (talk)

Article assessment

I've rated this article as start class. It contains some of the information you would expect but is missing some sections (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs). I've rated the importance as mid because of the high number of other shows influenced by this one. To improve the article start adding some more sources.--Opark 77 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode Numbers

In the infobox to the right, it says that there are nearly 2,000 episodes aired (circa April 2007), and then in the introductory paragraph, it states a "milestone" of 650 episodes (circa 2006). There is surely a mistake one way or the other, or one of either of those numbers need to be specified. Thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. Mattygabe 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay...

So this article contained a very large amount of unreferenced material. I have removed the gibberish and hid the stuff that is useful. I have also fixed all the messiness in line with the manual of style. Any new stuff, or any attempt to bring the hidden stuff back in, will need references. See WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:NOR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is crap?

It contains almost no information about the show and is 80% a list of parodies. Rubbish.

Agreed. Feel free to add sourced material to improve the article instead of complaining, eh? --Edward Morgan Blake 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've split off the material noted above (including a list of shows influenced by COPS and a rundown of references to COPS in popular culture) unto their own article, COPS in popular culture. --Edward Morgan Blake 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the harassment, brutality, attempted murder, & assault by the cops?

Atleast half of each show is chock full of cops committing all sorts of crimes - mainly assault and attempted murder. Where's the mention of that in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.229.240 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but I always wonder why they never show the criminal getting away. -Rolypolyman 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because the actions that you see are not crimes because they occurred during the course of their duties. Equinox137 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More than half of the time the police officers are right to do what they do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.239.163 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the episodes do start with the cautioner that everyone is proven innocent until proven otherwise. My guess is that the police officers just do their jobs and try to get control over the situation and then get the suspect(s) and the situation under control. Not every arrest ends in a conviction... 84.48.92.217 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cops Logo.JPG

Image:Cops Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

mardi gras

I think a something that is notable about this series is that from the eighth season to the seventeenth season, the first two to three episodes those seasons were episodes regarding police enforcing the law during Mardi Gras. Since Katrina, the show has not covered Mardi Gras. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have no specific claims or facts to dispute, but I'm curious as to this article's sourcing. I go onto the official 'Cops' website and click on 'History' and it links here. It seems rather circular.Lord of the Ping (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3/9/2009 cops

COPS is an American documentary television series that follows police officers, constables, and sheriff's deputies during patrols and other police activities. It is one of the longest-running television programs in the United States and the second longest-running show on Fox. Created by John Langley and Malcolm Barbour, it premiered on Saturday March 11, 1989, and has aired 700 episodes as of November 10, 2007. It won the American Television Award in 1993, and has earned four Emmy nominations. [1] On September 30, 2007, COPS began its 20th season with a highlight episode called "20 Years Caught on Tape".

COPS is broadcast by Fox , and follows the activities of police officers by embedding camera crews with police units. The show's formula follows the cinéma vérité convention, with no narration or scripted dialog, depending entirely on the commentary of the officers and on the actions of the people with whom they come into contact.The show has followed officers in 140 different cities in the United States, and also has filmed in Hong Kong, London, and the former Soviet Union. Each episode is approximately 22 minutes in length, and typically consists of three segments, with each segment being one or two self-contained police incidents. The show is well known for its theme song, "Bad Boys", performed by reggae group Inner Circle.

History and background COPS was created by John Langley and his producing partner Malcolm Barbour. In 1983 Langley was working on Cocaine Blues, a television series about drugs in which every one seemed to enjoy South Florida. As part of his research he went on a drug raid with drug enforcement officers, and was inspired to create a show focusing on real-life law enforcement. In the late 1980s, after producing a series of live syndicated specials called American Vice: The Doping of a Nation with Geraldo Rivera, Langley and Barbour pitched the COPS show concept to Stephen Chao, a FOX programming executive who would one day become president of the Fox Television Stations Group and later USA Network. Chao liked the concept and pitched it to Barry Diller, then CEO of the FOX Network. As fate would have it, a Writers Guild of America strike was occurring at the time, and the network needed new material. An unscripted show that did not require writers would be ideal for FOX. The first episode aired in 1989, and featured the Broward County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. The original concept of the show was to follow officers home and tape their home lives along with their work. After a while this concept was deemed too artificial by Langley and was abandoned. Eventually, the format of three self-contained segments with no narrator, no music and no scripts would become the show's formula. The first segment is usually an action segment to hook the viewer, followed by two unrelated segments. It should also be noted that COPS ends each episode on the credits screen, using the line "132 and Bush, I've got him at gunpoint... Okay, gunpoint, 132 and Bush, cover's code three." This is a sound clip from a conversation between a Portland, OR police officer and the radio dispatcher during the arrest of a suspect in the 13200 block of SE Bush St. Along with Florida, other early episode localities include the Pacific Northwest cities of Portland, OR and Tacoma, WA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.41.25 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article titled COPS (TV series) instead of Cops (TV series)?

"COPS" isn't an acronym. Shouldn't the title of the show be Cops instead of COPS? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was always shown in all caps and perhaps people distinguish the show from it? - ShootinPutin109 ^Talk. 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While Cops is not an acronym, and you are correct, it should be lower cased, the show title from Fox is COPS, in all Caps, so the article name matches the show title. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 06:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is (or was) taught in most Police Academies that the origin of the Term COP comes from the 1800s in when British "bobbies" patrolled the streets. They, it is said, were actually Constables and the term was a short version of "Constable On Patrol or COP". So it actually could be considered an Acronym. Another more colloquial explanation was that about the same period the Police Officers, or Constables wore "COPPER" buttons on their Jackets. So the local hoods might call out "here come the 'COPPERS'" which was truncated to "here come the 'COPS'" at some point. This folklore of course does not support COPS being an Acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.62.88.94 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's great disagreement about where the term "cops" comes from, but in any event it's moot: We don't do all-caps for company names, titles, etc. (It's Time magazine, not TIME magazine) per WP:MOSCAPS and WP:ALLCAPS. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to tape in certain cities

In the article, it is quoted "Police departments in Austin, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Honolulu, Orlando, Fairfax County, Virginia, and San Jose, California have refused requests to tape in their cities". With no citation or reference. I have been a faithful watcher of COPS for almost 15 years and know for a fact they've shot in Honolulu, and I seem to remember them in Detroit as well early on. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 07:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, "refused" is a bit strong and POV. More likely, it would be accurate to say these places "declined" to have COPS film with them for whatever reason. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that statement 100% NECRAT^{Speak to me} 11:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The Criticism section is not supported by references, and is pretty clearly POV. The one single reference refers to a single comment by the Chicago Deputy Director of News Affairs that has little or no connection to the rest of the section. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode list

Is it possible to create an episode list? -- 91.66.20.249 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Score: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/cops/listings/

Total of episodes

How many total of episodes from March 11, 1989 to now? Well, I am not sure and I make it clear. Thanks! —Sheenmeister (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

End Credit Audio Clip

This has been a constant source of "bickering", and article editing and reverting. It was totally unsourced, wasn't worthy enough of a point to be it's own anyways. So it has been removed and a single line blurb was added to the production section. Please don't revert this beyond this, or else I will get the article locked again. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"The series is currently one of only two remaining first-run prime-time programs airing on Saturday nights on the four major U.S. broadcast television networks..." Arcanicus (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cinema verite verification

Most other sources state Cops to be filmed "as it happens," that is, it is not reenacted as would be the case with cinema verite. If there is some reliable first source to discount this, please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.80.115 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Vague Article

I came to this article to understand more about the filming art/process of COPS and why the suspects never look directly or approach the camera. The article does not go into detail as to the legality of being filmed if it is in fact real life non-actors being filmed. Maybe this is edited out, but it does not seem so. I am very disappointed that I do not know if COPS is just another so called "reality" with amateur acting TV show or true real life. Most of the police officers on the show always seem to use excessive force, are overly vigilant, and excessively violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.63.39 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wendy's shooting

I would guess the COPS employee killed was not killed by the "gun" but by an officer's bullet, right? Thanks, 66.25.212.112 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Our guidelines typically call for ambiguous titles to be fully disambiguated, but solid arguments were made here in favor of the status quo. Specifically, that any confusion is likely to be among the (relatively few) readers looking for COPS (animated TV series) who are sent here by accident, rather than readers looking for this much more prominent article being sent the other way. As such, I find no consensus for a move, after over two weeks and a relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Cops (TV series) → Cops (reality TV series) – due to the ambiguous nature of the naming, and rather poor distinction with capitalization, since the stylization of this TV show is allcaps "COPS". There is little distinction between TV shows -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless and until we need to distinguish this television series from another titled Cops. The animated series is called COPS (all-uppercase). The reality show's logo has all-uppercase styling, but this merely means that someone seeking the article about the reality show might accidentally find information about the cartoon. The inverse (someone seeking the cartoon's article arriving at this one) is unlikely, particularly given that topic's relative obscurity. But in case it does occur, that's why the hatnote is included.
  This is the primary topic for the phrase "Cops (TV series)" by leaps and bounds, so redirecting it to a disambiguation page would be highly counterproductive (because it would merely add a navigational step for the overwhelming majority of readers seeking this article, while doing nothing to improve the experience of the few people seeking the cartoon's article), and redirecting it to a renamed version of this article would be pointless.
  Note that this is covered in policy:

  The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.

  —David Levy 14:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This TV show is usually stylized as "COPS" allcaps, and frequently appears that way, so using lowercase doesn't really show which show this is about since people expect this show to be capitalized, thus adding the "reality" will show which show this is about. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I addressed this claim above. Did you read my comments? —David Levy 03:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY That this show is using "Cops" is not the way that it appears in the world at large to a large portion of the readership, so it is not recognizably distinguished from the All-Caps TV show link COPS (TV series). It clearly is not a primary topic, as they do not use disambiguators, being primary topics, they reside at the undisambiguated location. This topic therefore is not a primary topic, because it uses a disambiguator. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY That this show is using "Cops" is not the way that it appears in the world at large to a large portion of the readership, so it is not recognizably distinguished from the All-Caps TV show link COPS (TV series).
You're conflating recognizability and ambiguity.
Regarding the former, are you suggesting that "Cops" is unrecognizable as the program's title? In other words, do you expect readers seeking the article about the reality show to see "Cops" and not recognize it as that topic's name?
Regarding the latter, I'll reiterate that the cartoon's title isn't formatted as "Cops" in any normal context; it's an acronym, not merely a stylized logotype.
Because the reality show's title sometimes appears as "COPS", the word's all-uppercase form – either alone or with "(TV series)" appended – realistically could refer to either program. That's why additional disambiguation ("animated", which just replaced "1988") is used in the title of our article about the cartoon. The inverse, however, isn't so; "Cops (TV series)" refers strictly to the reality show, so no further disambiguation is needed.
It clearly is not a primary topic, as they do not use disambiguators, being primary topics, they reside at the undisambiguated location.
No one asserts that the reality show is the primary topic for "Cops". In my reply to Andrewa, I addressed the issues of disambiguation and primacy separately. If both television programs were titled "Cops", the reality show would be the primary topic for "Cops (TV series)" (which probably would serve as a redirect, due to the ambiguity issue). But again, the cartoon isn't titled "Cops", nor is such formatting used in any normal context. So the reality show is the only topic for "Cops (TV series)". Nonetheless, if someone seeking the obscure cartoon's article accidentally arrives at that of the reality show, a hatnote points him/her to the correct page. —David Levy 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is ambiguous to the point of being misleading. Neither series can claim to be the primary topic. Suggest a two-way DAB. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Firstly, the other series is titled "COPS" – an actual acronym (not merely a logo's styling). It isn't called "Cops" in any context, so no such ambiguity exists. (As explained in the policy quoted above, a capitalization difference is an accepted point of differentiation.) It's reasonable to assert that the reality show's logo might be taken to mean that the program's title is "COPS", but that only justifies additional disambiguation of the title used for the cartoon's article (which contains "COPS"). "Cops (TV series)", conversely, refers to the reality show alone.
  Secondly, on what do you base the conclusion that "neither series can claim to be the primary topic"? How, in your view, does a current, internationally distributed TV program with four Emmy Award nominations and 950 installments televised in a 26-year period (during which it became the longest-running series in the Fox Network's 30-year history) lack primacy over a program with a single 65-episode season broadcast over a 5-month span in 1988/1989? —David Levy 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  See discussion [1] [2] below. Andrewa (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  See my reply. —David Levy 17:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. On one hand, I agree that capitalization vs. no-capitalization is not a sufficient disambiguator, and is at best a minor reason to endorse the current title. However, the difference in importance of the two TV series isn't even close; "Cops" is easily 100x as relevant as COPS. Page view stats largely bear this out: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/COPS_(1988_TV_series) , http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/COPS_(animated_TV_series) (the sudden recent spike for the animated show is illusory because there was a parallel RM there which brought traffic to it). There was a similar failed move request for Dynasty (1981 TV series) & Dynasty (Australian TV series); while the gap isn't quite as calamitously huge in general importance in this case, "Cops" is still sufficiently more important that it has priority on the simple (TV series). SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I can understand the reasoning for the "oppose" side of this discussion, but "(TV series)" is not distinct from "(animated TV series)" in my mind. Furthermore, we didn't consider relevance with certain other shared names like Angel (1999 TV series) so I don't see how relevance can be used as a defense for keeping the page where it is. ONR (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  The title of the cartoon's article contains "animated" because the reality show's title sometimes is styled as "COPS". Conversely, the cartoon's title never appears as "Cops". "COPS (TV series)" might refer to the reality show, but "Cops (TV series)" doesn't apply to the cartoon.
  The reality show's overwhelming predominance absolutely is relevant. If the proposed move were carried out, it wouldn't change the target of Cops (TV series), which would simply become a redirect to this article. That's what we do in cases where an overwhelmingly predominant subject actually does share its exact name with other entities of the same type. In the example that you cited, Angel (TV series) redirects to Angel (1999 TV series). This reflects the existence of an obscure TV series sharing the exact title Angel. In another example, Thriller (album) redirects to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), despite the Thriller disambiguation page listing seven other albums whose exact title is Thriller.
  In this instance, we have zero articles about other TV series titled Cops or commonly referred to as such, so there isn't even a semantic reason to append additional disambiguation (let alone a navigational one). —David Levy 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'll remove "1989" from wikilinks of this article. Meanwhile, "reality" isn't necessary. At first I was in favor of further disambiguation, but significance and recognition of the series is greater than the other series. Therefore, let's leave the title as is. For what it's worth, I did add "1989", but it was removed. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I fixed the typo for you. (id est realty → reality) Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

From the survey above: It isn't called "Cops" in any context, so no such ambiguity exists. (my restyling of existing emphasis) False and easily disproved. Have a look at this ebay listing which reads Cops Vol.1 Animated Series - (DVD Animation) Used - Free UK P&P. I'm sure it won't be hard to find other examples, this particular styling is so easily omitted. Similar to The Man from U.N.C.L.E. which is often referred to as The Man from Uncle (need I really give examples?). Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

After I wrote that, it occurred to me that someone might take it literally and find examples of someone referring to the animated series as "Cops". To eliminate that technicality, I wrote "any normal context" (emphasis changed) in subsequent instances.

There's no need to debate whether an eBay listing constitutes a "normal" context. It isn't a reliable source for the determination of normal usage, which is the concept that I'm attempting to convey. I'm not suggesting that no one ever has or ever will mistype the cartoon's title as "Cops". I don't doubt that persons seeking the article about that program occasionally reach this article accidentally. That's why a link to COPS (animated TV series) appears in the hatnote. How, in your view is this insufficient (and how would the requested move improve the situation)? —David Levy 17:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big issue, but it's completely unnecessary to have these people reach the wrong article and then need to click on the hatnote (which should remain). The requested move improves the situation by significantly reducing this risk. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A redirect from Cops (TV series) to Cops (reality TV series) would have no impact on navigation. Changing its target to a disambiguation page would cause everyone (both the vast majority seeking the reality show's article and the small minority seeking the cartoon's article) to fail in their initial attempt, necessitating that they follow a link. I don't regard this as an improvement.

If our top priority were ensuring that no one ever reached the wrong article, every page title with the slightest known chance of topical confusion would lead to a disambiguation page. Instead, we prioritize readers' overall navigational experience. Sometimes, that does entail sending them to a disambiguation page. In other cases, when the likelihood of confusion is relatively low, a hatnote (pointing to a disambiguation page and/or one or more other articles) is more appropriate. This instance falls squarely within the latter category. Readers seeking the cartoon's article via any title – of which those accidentally reaching Cops (TV series) are a small subset – compose a segment that doesn't approach the quantity of readers seeking the reality show's article. —David Levy 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken about eBay not being a reliable source. It is however quite sufficient to demolish the claim made (and this is not a matter of splitting hairs, as your suggestion that someone might take it literally might suggest - your emphasis on any made my interpretation the only possible one, in my view). You have now toned it down, and I think that's good. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not implying that your response was pedantic. I'm saying that my statement's initial wording was overly broad and failed to properly convey the intended concept. I haven't toned down my claim; I've expressed it with greater precision/clarity. It would be preposterous to assume that no one on the planet ever styled the cartoon's title as "Cops" under any circumstance at any point in time. The same is true of every instance in which capitalization differentiates multiple subjects' names, so an assertion to the contrary (as conveyed by a literal reading of my sloppy wording) would be absurd on its face. —David Levy 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also from the survey above: How, in your view, does a current, internationally distributed TV program with four Emmy Award nominations and 950 installments televised in a 26-year period (during which it became the longest-running series in the Fox Network's 30-year history) lack primacy over a program with a single 65-episode season broadcast over a 5-month span in 1988/1989? Interesting question. But the onus of proof is on those who wish to assert primacy. Lots of old short-running shows are now considered classics. This may not be quite in that category, but it does seem to punch well above its weight. Andrewa (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the onus of proof is on those who wish to assert primacy. That's what I'm doing. So is SnowFire. Obviously, you wish to counter this assertion. I see no evidence that the animated series "does seem to punch well above its weight", but you're welcome to provide some. —David Levy 17:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the arguments you have provided to date do not establish primacy in terms of guidelines. There is no case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I disagree, but I'm certainly not demanding that you address arguments that you see no need to rebut. —David Levy 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stylized form as article title

I was woundering why French, German and Spanish versions of Wikipedia (COPS (fr), COPS (es), COPS (de)) have Cops stylized as COPS in the article title, and here instead it is Cops. --Giacomo Sarrocco (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Impact of filming on the Dalia Dippolito case

this section is outdated. "Her retrial is due to begin with jury selection on December 1, 2016."

this date already happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.120.61 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Camera crew involvement" - 1st paragraph deleted

The opening paragraph of the "Camera crew involvement" section has been deleted. It had long been flagged (since 2010) as being unsourced, and (as of May, 2017) no one had ever fixed that problem -- leaving this paragraph without any indication of a valid, independent source.

Furthermore, the paragraph appeared very much as if it were written by a corporate public-relations office, or as a legal disclaimer by the production company's lawyer (either of which would be a violation of WP:NPOV) -- rather than an independent editor's summary of information from any neutral third-party, secondary source, as called for by WP:NPOV and other elements of WP:STYLE.

It originally read:

The camera crew that follows the officers are instructed to maintain a fly on the wall position, not interfering or making their presence known on camera unless otherwise necessary for the safety of officers and civilians on scene. However, there have been multiple instances where the safety of the officers has necessitated their involvement.

In particular, the last sentence makes a very subjective, and potentially litigious, claim:

there have been multiple instances where the safety of the officers has necessitated their involvement.

Such a serious claim needs a substantial source.

This section could, concievably, benefit from a similar opening paragraph -- IF (and ONLY if) it is from an independent source, citing appropriate third-party, secondary source(s) (preferably major-media or academic sources) as called for by WP:NPOV and other elements of WP:STYLE.

~ Penlite (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cops (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103084545/http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-fox-cancels-americas-most-wanted-show-helped-solve-some-local-cases-20110516%2C0%2C5549397.story to http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-fox-cancels-americas-most-wanted-show-helped-solve-some-local-cases-20110516%2C0%2C5549397.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is it always the IP editor who loses edit-war reports?

Drmies, why is it that every time there's a battle between an IP-based editor and an account holder, not matter which one originally reports, even if the improvements were made by the IP instead of the account holder, you admins always go after the IP by protecting the article instead of blocking the warring account-based editor, which only hinders the IP making the improvements instead of the auto-confirmed or higher account holder, rather than placing the same value on IPs as you place on account-based editors like WP rules tell you to do? 2600:100E:B10A:2C45:BD2E:9AC6:5122:4098 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't edit the article either. It's locked for everyone except admins. Nobody "won" or "lost", it was basically a stalemate. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you can't? Haha, I'm so used to those saying "semi-protected" that I didn't read that summary this time.

OK, ha, never mind then, Drmies. 2600:100E:B10A:2C45:BD2E:9AC6:5122:4098 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)"

Thank you for answering that question, TomCat. IP, you were both edit warring. If I had played it by the book, I probably would have blocked one of your IPs, semi-protected the article, blocked TomCat, and then gone after every article you edited to protect it and to block any IP I see you use. So take your pick. [OK. Saw your note.] Drmies (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Drmies. Haha, okay, you just made me smile. Thanks for that. And thanks for your comment too, TomCat. 2600:100E:B10A:2C45:BD2E:9AC6:5122:4098 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)