Template talk:Msp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Example
In The Weather Man, {{msp|weatherman}} gives:
- Template:Msp
[edit] Problem
This is a horribly written, advertising-ridden site. We shouldn't be linking to such poor resources when our own articles are superior... (ESkog)(Talk) 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is well written, perhaps you mean it is a factual plot description, and not review style. For most films it seems to be the most detailed description available. Your mass deletion is very inappropriate.--Patrick 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Movie Spoiler is certainly not great literature, but it does provide a quick and easy way to get the details of a movie. I certainly wouldn't put the spoilers on Wikipedia, but how much harm does a simple link do? This template provides a simple and easy way to do that, so let's keep it. And thanks to Patrick for making it. Scottanon 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean, you "certainly wouldn't put the spoilers on Wikipedia"? Articles on films contain plot summaries, as they should. Linking to this crud provides nothing, and only discouranges people from writing decent plot summaries.--Sean Black (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia can contain spoilers. You are welcome to expand the plot sections. When a plot section is as detailed as the linked page, we can dispense with the link.--Patrick 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- What I meant was I don't consider the Movie Spoiler text to be an example of "brilliant prose", not that spoilers should not be on Wikipedia. I agree with Patrick when he says "When a plot section is as detailed as the linked page, we can dispense with the link". If you don't want to go to the Movie Spoiler then don't click the link. Scottanon 00:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The intention of our policy is to generally deny linking to things with should be but are not directly included in our articles. Wikipedia is a not a link directory... we want people to add free content to our site, not merely link to unfree content elsewhere. When we allow such links we reduce the incentive to improve Wikipedia.--Gmaxwell 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- What I meant was I don't consider the Movie Spoiler text to be an example of "brilliant prose", not that spoilers should not be on Wikipedia. I agree with Patrick when he says "When a plot section is as detailed as the linked page, we can dispense with the link". If you don't want to go to the Movie Spoiler then don't click the link. Scottanon 00:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia can contain spoilers. You are welcome to expand the plot sections. When a plot section is as detailed as the linked page, we can dispense with the link.--Patrick 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean, you "certainly wouldn't put the spoilers on Wikipedia"? Articles on films contain plot summaries, as they should. Linking to this crud provides nothing, and only discouranges people from writing decent plot summaries.--Sean Black (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Movie Spoiler is certainly not great literature, but it does provide a quick and easy way to get the details of a movie. I certainly wouldn't put the spoilers on Wikipedia, but how much harm does a simple link do? This template provides a simple and easy way to do that, so let's keep it. And thanks to Patrick for making it. Scottanon 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This is spam, plain and simple. Check out the site - it is more than 50% advertising garbage and my Firefox popup blocker stopped 3 popups on the main page. It's making a ton of advertising revenue for someone, and not adding anything useful to the articles, all of which already link to the superior IMDB pages. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is not true at all that IMDB provides as many plot details.--Patrick 23:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is, however, true that IMDb has some semblance of credibility. Others have found very poor information on this site (see the Tfd discussion). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not even a single specific error is mentioned, just hearsay of errors on an unspecified page.--Patrick 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- In the Tfd discussion, concerns of this nature are voiced by Gmaxwell, Sean Black, and Cvene64. The problem is that it does not appear to be peer-reviewed or allow any way for mistakes to be quickly corrected. All of the credibility problems of Wikipedia without the {{sofixit}}. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Only Cvene64 mentions errors, but unspecified and not even observed by himself. If have no indication that there are more errors than on average on external pages linked to from Wikipedia. Even if a particular page can be found containing disturbing errors, that is only reason to dispense with linking to that page. --Patrick 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just specific errors. The writing is truly, truly awful. For instance, this expert from The Movie Spoiler's summary of Batman Begins [1]:
- Only Cvene64 mentions errors, but unspecified and not even observed by himself. If have no indication that there are more errors than on average on external pages linked to from Wikipedia. Even if a particular page can be found containing disturbing errors, that is only reason to dispense with linking to that page. --Patrick 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- In the Tfd discussion, concerns of this nature are voiced by Gmaxwell, Sean Black, and Cvene64. The problem is that it does not appear to be peer-reviewed or allow any way for mistakes to be quickly corrected. All of the credibility problems of Wikipedia without the {{sofixit}}. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not even a single specific error is mentioned, just hearsay of errors on an unspecified page.--Patrick 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is, however, true that IMDb has some semblance of credibility. Others have found very poor information on this site (see the Tfd discussion). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Back in Asia: Bruce undergoes a series of training techniques, where Ducard basically becomes his mentor and drops little pearls of wisdom, all the while kicking the tar out of Bruce. During a final test, Ducard crushes up the blue flower, and makes Bruce smell the aroma. This causes Bruce to trip out a bit, and he must fight Ducard with a blurry vision
-
-
-
-
- Notice the way it focuses on trivial unimportant details, the confusing language, and overall the terrible style that sounds as if it were written by an barely literate third grader. If I saw anything of that sort on Wikipedia I'd remove it or fix it as soon as possible. Note also that the summary is very confused and innaccurate, having seen the film. This is indicitave of most of the writing on the site.--Sean Black 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The style is better than sentences like "Note also that sumary is very confused and innaccurate, having seen the film." Blue flower is referred to before. I am not very familiar with expressions like "kicking the tar out of someone", and "trip out", but I think I understand. I have not seen the film so I cannot judge the accuracy. I do not know which detail you think is unimportant.--Patrick 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Since you seem to have abandoned all logic and sense in favour of insulting my writing style, I've no interest in discussion with you. I shall await the template's deletion happily.--Sean Black 01:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I know that on talk pages the standards on style can be lower, but don't you even see that your sentence is wrong?--Patrick 07:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since you seem to have abandoned all logic and sense in favour of insulting my writing style, I've no interest in discussion with you. I shall await the template's deletion happily.--Sean Black 01:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The style is better than sentences like "Note also that sumary is very confused and innaccurate, having seen the film." Blue flower is referred to before. I am not very familiar with expressions like "kicking the tar out of someone", and "trip out", but I think I understand. I have not seen the film so I cannot judge the accuracy. I do not know which detail you think is unimportant.--Patrick 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Notice the way it focuses on trivial unimportant details, the confusing language, and overall the terrible style that sounds as if it were written by an barely literate third grader. If I saw anything of that sort on Wikipedia I'd remove it or fix it as soon as possible. Note also that the summary is very confused and innaccurate, having seen the film. This is indicitave of most of the writing on the site.--Sean Black 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] From WP:EL
Under "Sites to normally avoid", see especially...
- 2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
- 5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
This site is a stellar example of both. I don't really understand why you are so insistent that a low-quality link be included. The only person benefiting is whoever's making money from all that advertising. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Obviously, people who like to read the plot details (like myself) benefit from the links.--Patrick 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- For example, the spoiler for Mission Impossible 3 has no less than fifteen distinct ads on the page, including popups. To me, that's about 5 times the level I'd call "objectionable". (ESkog)(Talk) 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. If you want to avoid the link, please make the plot section as detailed as the linked page.--Patrick 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the site's content is neutral.. most of the descriptions contain opinions on various aspects of the plots. Also, the site's excessively retelling of the stories would likely be found to be copyright infringement, and our policy also forbids knowingly linking to infringing material. --Gmaxwell 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- At least you agree that it contains lots of details. Some other people bizarrely deny or ignore that.--Patrick 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd vastly prefer to link to reviews (or, more accurately, use them as references), because they contain opinions and analysis. This is just a spam-riddled garbage dump filled with horrendously poor plot summaries. --Sean Black (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree that the site's content is neutral.. most of the descriptions contain opinions on various aspects of the plots. Also, the site's excessively retelling of the stories would likely be found to be copyright infringement, and our policy also forbids knowingly linking to infringing material. --Gmaxwell 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. If you want to avoid the link, please make the plot section as detailed as the linked page.--Patrick 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TFD
As our main concern with the template is the alleged spammy nature of the site, can we agree that the current TfD is also a referendum on the site's inclusion? In other words, does a "delete" consensus also reflect a consensus to not include the site on Wikipedia, while a "keep" consensus would also reflect a consensus that this site is appropriate? I'm inclined to think it does... (ESkog)(Talk) 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
