Talk:Pinks (TV series)

Please sign your comments!

Title of Show

The reason I cam to this wikipedia article was to know why the show is called Pinks. I have never seen this show, nor heard of it, and nothing in the article tells me why it is called Pinks. Can somebody please add this info? 130.76.32.19 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the title section. Pinks is slang for "pink slips", meaning vehicle titles/registrations. The concept is that you're giving up ownership of your ride (pinks) if you lose, and gaining a pink if you win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.111.83 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MUSIC

DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHO PERFORMS THE MUSIC PLAYED IN THE TV COMMERCIAL, FOR THE NEW SEASON OF PINKS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.100.102.237 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-09T19:52:43.

Are you talking about The Nadas song 'Walk Away' that plays at the end of every show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-02T11:06:35.

Christensen not a soap actor

He's not, nor was he ever, a soap opera actor. He appeared in 1, once only, briefly. I've removed that statement. --Bdoserror 05:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Skepticism on Validity of Post-Race Submission of Pink Slip/Vehicle

I'm on the production team for this show - I've seen the winner of one of the races drive away with the loser's vehicle in tow. There is no fabrication in the catch phrase "Lose the race, lose your ride." I suppose that in some instances the losing team might offer a worthy enough sum to buy back their vehicle, but the initial handover of the pink slip is non-negotiable; any side deals that are made are made off-camera, away from the race track, and outside of public scrutiny. Salva 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Host's demeanor

Why isn't there anything about the host crashing the Gixxer? Much of the show is based around the don't-take-no-guff attitude of the host, and pretending to know how to ride a motorcycle definitely goes against his credibility with the audience. See http://bikerpunks.com/videos/the-host-of-pinks-crashes-a-gsx-r1000.html Agnamus (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this defeat Rich's credibility? One doesn't have to be a racer to enjoy racing, to know how to race, or to know about cars. Pinks is about cars, not about motorcycles. That the show has had an episode or 2 dedicated to motorcycles doesn't change that. Likewise, this accident is no evidence of Rich's knowledge or ability inside a car, on a bike, as the host of a show, or anything else for that matter. In fact, Rich is a quite proficient rider having riden motorcycles his entire life. What happened then? Simple. He got on a bike that is MUCH more powerful than he's used to (It should be noted that the bike was not a stock GSX, but rather was heavily customized to be a racing bike). The tires were cold, he did not warm the tires up, and he underestimated the power of the bike by far. It could easily happen to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.8.237 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issues regarding host

The overall neutrality of the article seems suspect, but particularly those comments regarding the show's host. I have absolutely no knowledge of the host or his background--haven't even heard his name prior to reading this article--but whomever made these statements is dangerously close to providing a direct attack without anything to back it up. Considering the fact that this is a living person, that the motives for his behavior on the show are intrinsically unknowable, and the fact that the host's personality is secondary to the main concept of the show (and therefore the article), I would argue that there's really no reason to have these comments included in the article. I strongly recommend a rewrite of the entire section dealing with the host. --Bdmccray (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Be BOLD and try rewriting it yourself. -Drdisque (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal?

"Pinks is a franchise series of television programs on Speed Channel based on illegal street racing," Definitely changing this. If there was anything illegal about Pinks they wouldn't be able to air it on television. (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Let's try "TV series" for a disambiguator first, and see if that works. The original title is redirected to Pink (disambiguation). BD2412 T 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinks → Pinks (TV series) – DAB from Dianthus/Dianthus plumarius, Pink and Fox hunting. Although per WP:PLURALPT the colour isn't a strong contender for "Pinks" like with Oranges its probably likely enough but the flower is more relevant like the fruit is with the plural form since plants can be referred to in the plural form. A Google search returns most results for the plant but the singer and colour WP articles do come up on the 1st page of results but the TV series doesn't. An images search shows most results for the flower but the colour is also there, again the TV series isn't. A Books search again mainly shows the flower but the singer is the 1st result. "Pinks" should probably redirect to Pink (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE and PLURALPT (similar to the Paper/Papers example) but a separate DAB page could be created. site:wikipedia.org Pinks does return the TV series 1st but the singer, colour and Shades of pink are next. By views[[1]] the TV series gets 694 but Dianthus gets 7,517 (which would probably be primary if anything by PT#2), Dianthus plumarius gets 789, the colour article gets 14,874 and the hunting article gets 7,947 but that's probably not a strong candadate since the meaning is only mentioned there, only appearing once. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Adding disambiguation will clarify what the topic is about, and the plural should redirect. -- Netoholic @ 11:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is Pinks a TV series? The first sentence in the lead says Pinks is a franchise series of television programs on SPEED TV, if that is the case "TV series" is not the correct disambiguation here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Pinks (franchise series)? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its its own series, but this article includes a spin-off series called "Pinks: All Out". This doesn't really change this move request. There is only one series called "Pinks", so Pinks (TV series) the right title for the original series, and the spin-off can either be left in as a section or split to its own topic at Pinks: All Out. I don't see this as a franchise article, but it does need some work, including rephrasing that first line. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect to Pink (disambiguation). If anything, the flower is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.