Talk:It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

TV show, same name

There is also a Discovery Channel show with the same title:

It Takes A Thief (Discovery Channel)

Which means a page for the new series has to be made, and a disambugiation page to seperate this series and the Discovery Channel series needs to be made.

Something, I am afraid, is beyond my understanding of Wikipedia at the moment.

--Ihmhi 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too difficult to move this article to It Takes a Thief (1960s TV series) or whatever, but I'd rather wait until someone actually creates an article on the Discovery Channel series before going through the bother. 23skidoo 02:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how would I name the article on the Discovery Channel series? I have no qualms about making it, I like the show enough. Hmm... now that I think about it... in these days of recycled entertainment, there must be plenty of examples on Wikipedia with remakes of shows and movies under the same name (such as MacGuyver and Ocean's 11). I shall look some of these up and find a consistancy, then I will make the article for the Discovery Channel series.

--Ihmhi 21:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sysops, User:K1Bond007, has been working on coming up with a name format that addresses this very issue. For now, I suggest just going with the title It Takes a Thief (Discovery Channel) -- assuming the series was actually produced by Discovery Channel. If it was just aired by them but produced by different parties, perhaps It Takes a Thief (documentary). As I say, we can always move it to another namespace later. PS. Looks like someone has already created the article. 23skidoo 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edits—the pilot, Throne's departure

First thing, I must say that my change of the spelling of Binns' character's first name from "Wally" to "Wallie"—which I forgot to mention in the edit summary; sorry!—is per TV Guide listings of the day. Please don't interpret it as vandalism. Everything I changed the text to about the pilot is exactly right. There may be a two-part version of it in the reruns being seen on Retro Television Network now, but not in syndication in the 1970s or 1980s, or on the satellite/cable version of Universal-owned WWOR-TV in the early 1990s. In fact, it is noticeably less light-hearted in tone. Given that the producers clearly just scribbled in the name "Wallie Powers" wherever 'Noah Bain" had been, and that Binns definitely took the trip to Europe, the story of Malachi Throne's departure is dubious. Certainly the claim—even if Throne actually said it—that the show did not last half a season after he left is patently untrue; the List of It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series) episodes proves that. Since the original description of the pilot was as unsourced as mine, and I did not contradict the claim of Throne's departure, please don't revert. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The White Collar item

The last item in the "Trivia" section reads:

The USA Network series White Collar, which premiered on October 23, 2009, follows a strikingly similar premise. After Universal Studios, owners of the It Takes a Thief copyright, acquuired USA Network, concerns about possible infringement of the copyright and/or plagiarism are believed to have largely faded.

As Wikipedia's article on USA Network states that Universal has had significant ownership participation in the channel since 1979, and has been full and sole owner since 2004, this is well off the beam. Furthermore, according to the Internet Movie Database the producing studio is 20th Century Fox, so such concerns would not be averted by Universal buying the channel even if they had not long since done so. On the other hand, I can find no acknowledgement of the existence of this show in that company's megasite; the only current TV series discussed there are those on their own network, regardless of who actually produces and owns them, and regardless of how many their own studio might be making that are shown on other venues. Can anyone come up with better information? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I caught the end credits of a replay of the WC pilot on USA, and the copyright notice goes to "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation" while the full-screen production company logo was for Fox Television Studios, the visual design a variation on the classic 20th C. F. logo. So Universal owning the channel would seem to have no bearing on the plagiarism question. Consequently, I'm revising it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface in quotes

Ckatz and I have been going back and forth with my use of boldface in the quotations of the three versions of the opening title sequence of this series, which he says should be italics (although he indefensibly expects the italicization of the first instance to satisfy all). Here they are, with parentheses around the words to be emphasized:

First two seasons—Malachi Throne as Noah Bain: "Hey, look, Al, I'm not asking you to spy...I'm just asking you to (steal)!"

Third season, whenever Fred Astaire appeared as Alistair Mundy—Astaire as Alistair: "I've heard of stealing (from) the government, but stealing (for) the government?"

Third season, otherwise—Robert Wagner as Alexander "Al" Mundy: "Let me get this straight. You (want) me to steal?"

In his last reversion's edit summary, Ckatz not merely claimed regulations required his version (as he had done previously), but linked in the regs. Unfortunately, what the links lead to does not support him. They talk about emphasis in text, not quoting spoken dialogue in which the actor put a stronger tone on a certain word for a particular dramatic effect. The latter is what we are dealing with here, and boldface is the proper way to handle that. I repeat, the linked-in regs are not about the sort of situation with which we are dealing here. Hence, I will revert again, with a link to this in my edit summary. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were free to extend the italics to whatever text you wanted it on; I've now mirrored your choices. Note that, per the linked guidelines, bold is not used for that purpose. If you disagree with the Style Guide, the proper course of action is to discuss or challenge the issue at that page, not to force it into one particular article. Also note that the Manual of Style for quotations explicitly states:

"Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Wikipedia to give emphasis to some words. If the latter, an editorial note [emphasis added] should appear at the end of the quotation."

--Ckatz^chat _spy 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entire guideline you linked in, and you'll see that it is not about reflecting an emphasis in spoken dialogue. It is simply not about that. And if you'll look at your current (for another few minutes, after which you'll have to go to the diff page) version, you'll see that italics absolutely fail to convey that effect. You might notice that they aren't doing too well for me here either. Finally, do not ever again accuse someone in an edit summary or on a talk page of something that they have not done. I was not "disagree[ing]] with the guidelines" but stating unequivocally that the ones you pointed out do not apply to this case. Never do that again. It's bad faith. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith" presumes that the editor is trying to work within the system. Your actions do not support such an assumption. I have given you three direct references to style guidelines that prohibit the use of boldface, whereas you have provided nothing that supports your claim. Unless you can provide proof that your desired version is supported by the Style Guide, it's coming out. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary. I have repeatedly explained that the guidelines that you have linked in do not deal with a situation such as we have here. It is you who have failed to support your edits, and furthermore, you have more than once falsely accused me of disagreeing with those guidelines despite my most explicitly phrased statements that they merely fail to apply here. That is bad faith on your part. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tbrittreid, I've given you three separate examples to demonstrate that Wikipedia's style guides do not endorse the use of boldface for emphasis of words, and that - when an editor wishes to emphasize a word - he or she should use italics. You insist that these guidelines do not apply to what you are proposing to do, but you have provided no proof whatsoever that Wikipedia's style guide endorses using boldface in such a situation. As such, I am removing the boldface highlights. I'll give you a chance to come up with some proof, by leaving it as plain text rather than italics, but you have to provide something to support your assertions. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You took it upon yourself to change the article, citing—initially without link, I might add—guidelines you claimed support your position. The fact of the matter is that those guidelines are not at all as general as you falsely indicate here, but instead are very specific about that to which they apply, and they do not in any way, shape, or form describe application to spoken emphasis, only to print, and print is not what we are dealing with here. You failed to support your assertions. It's not my fault that the guideline-makers failed to cover this possibility. Also, I fully intend to go to that guideline's talk page and point out the problem. By that I mean not only this hole, but also the fact that italics simply do not emphasize, do not stand out, not in a long, running paragraph as here, but instead get lost in the text. As the guidelines do not contradict, contravene or prohibit this use of boldface, I will restore it before doing that. I have on more than one prior occasion encountered you and your "You have to defend your refusal of my edits, but I won't recognize any defense you offer" B.S. attitude, and it is detrimental to the encyclopedia. (BTW, I took that "talk back" template off my talk page because this article is on my watchlist anyway. It's a good thing, however, and I can imagine using it instead of putting somebody's talk page on my watchlist. Thank you for letting me know about it! Sincerely, thanks. You see, I do not let having a problem with somebody about one thing get in the way of being fair with them about anything else.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Frankly, I don't care if the words are highlighted or not - that is your issue - but only that they are correctly highlighted. You've decided that you want boldface, you're ignoring the style guide and choosing to interpret it as you see fit, and yet apparently it is my fault. You reverted an IP who disagreed with your use of boldface, and I pointed out that you were in fact incorrect - and yet it is apparently still my fault. You refuse to provide any guideline, policy, or anything that supports your position - and yet it apparently remains my fault. Yes, I certainly think outside intervention is needed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Takes a Thief (1968 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/20160303220154/http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-08/275546060-23084846.pdf to http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-08/275546060-23084846.pdf

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) 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]