Talk:TV Tome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposal to merge and redirect into TV.com (defeated)

  • Entered by Lachatdelarue 12:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC). Request withdrawn 12:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC), following seven days of voting/discussion.
     
  • Oppose. In my opinion, the two articles should remain separate; while TV.com is partially derived from some of its content, the defunct TV Tome was a substantially different website. —Lifeisunfair 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They're seperate sites with seperate formats. Both existed simultanously for a while. The information from TV Tome is being ported to the new site with a new focus, look and style.--Sketchee 21:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a pathetic article, but merge TV Tome with it and we will have a good article. I tend to go for merging articles where possible, SqueakBox 21:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose TV Tome may have been removed from the web, now redirecting to TV.com (more like TV.con if you ask me), but that doesn't mean that the websites are currently the same, for they are not from the same creator. --Wack'd About Wiki 11:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose TV Tome had a totally different feel and use than does its current incarnation TV.com and therefore it is not right that the two articles merge.Jeeves5454 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose should be kept seperate for historical interest. NSR 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose TV Tome was clearly a "different" site bought out by a company to redirect its many visitors to their own site. There are articles on Wikipedia about countries, companies, etc. that no longer exist due to actual merges/splits, so for historical purposes this article should have that same right. --Kamasutra 15:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Along with the many cogent arguments already expressed any interested readers about TV Tome will want to read what it was, not about what it has become. TV.com destroyed the hard work of too many of its contributers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Support, this is a pathetic article, but merge TV Tome with it and we will have a good article. I tend to go for merging articles where possible, SqueakBox 21:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
We already have a good article — TV Tome. TV.com is a brand new article, and it will improve over time. We shouldn't merge disparate articles simply because one is inferior to the other (especially as a lazy alternative to adding new content). The TV Tome article contains very little information pertaining to TV.com, so this proposal is analogous to requesting that Apples be merged with Oranges.
And for the record, I'm a Mergist. —Lifeisunfair 09:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alright, already, I withdraw the proposal. Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to; it's been seven days. :-) —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue the Data!

A lot of the data is here at [[1]] and especially important is [[2]] the episode list. It maybe useful to copy the lists (since lists of information (facts and figures) are generally not copyrightable. --ShaunMacPherson 29 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

I check there occasionally as well. It is unfortunate that the most recent update there is rather old, but it is definitely refreshing to still use it almost as if it were still around many months ago. I just hope it stays up for a long time and doesn't suffer any data loss or is mirrored elsewhere before that happens. --Kamasutra July 1, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

I get a "Path Index Error" on those pages. Does this mean the data is gone now? --Laisak 16:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I get that error as well. It appears as though the newest archive that works is from May 20, 2004, but this may (hopefully) only be temporary. According the the FAQ from that page, "Path Index Error: A path index error message refers to a problem in our database wherein the information requested is not available (generally because of a machine or software issue, however each case can be different). We cannot always completely fix these errors in a timely manner." In the meantime, you can just enter the URL into the search at the top and choose the date from there. --Kamasutra 08:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I succedeed today to save the episode guide from Homicide: Life on the Street. Can I put its content on Wikipedia ? Is there a "standard" layout for doing that ? Lvr 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
One of the better episode guides I've seen is List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes. It is difficult to wiki raw data though at first until you've experience. If you've Microsoft Word then you can replace carrage returns (^p) with (^p|) to place a | at the beginnning of each line (but the first). with more playing around it is possible to Wikifi the lists. As well, I'd try to keep the columns the same length but that can be done after wikification and is easy to do. List of CMS software also shows some good layout techniques.
You can do the same with OpenOffice since they have regular expressions but I am more used to MS Word's expressions. OOo uses things like \t for tab and \p for carrage return if you want to try it.--ShaunMacPherson 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It's indeed a nice list. I'm good at writing some Perl file to process that, so I can reuse it for other lists. Thanks. Lvr 10:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I used the data found at the TV Tome archives to write the List of Homicide: Life on the Street episodes. User: khaosworks thinks that is not allowed and that there is a Copyright Violation. Honestly, I don't know. What do you think ? I relied on this talk here to do it ? SHould it be removed ? Lvr 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Can someone comment on this issue here ? Lvr 11:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can Anyone get a hold of or know the copyright statement at the old TV Tome? If it is under the same policy as Wikipedia, for instance, then there would be no problem porting the contents as long as one doesn't try to claim copyright over it. Whenever I try to click through to the copyright from the [Web Archive] I get redirected straight to TV.com. Any help on this? SecretAgent007 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Having no references or sources, the entire criticism section is suspect. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place to put your personal complaints about subjects. If there are no objections, I shall remove this entire section in a week's time. -- Perfecto 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OBJECTION- No offense, but it's rather suspect to do this to TWO pages at once. Especially when they're both about the same thing. The argument here is the same at the one at TV.com. And that one has pretty much been decided ont he count that they can't provide any info to discredit what's posted. I'll agree, it does need a rewrite, for the wording is messed up. I'd be happy to do it so that it complies with what's written on the TV.com page. BUT, to suggest it be deleted is nonsense, especially when it's been proven to be true on a seperate page. --GenuineMind--

Ridiculous. The purden of proof is not on the removed to provide sources to "discredit" the original research. The burden is on the adder to source it. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total rewrite needed

This article is hard to read, which usually calls for cleanup. However, with this original research situation, I believe that this article should be rewritten to remove the original research and become an actual NPOV article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment- I agree with you, but there is a problem. There is no real history to TvTome. Most of us know the general story, but no specifics until we started keeping track ourselves. About most anyone can tell you is the guide had a look overhaul in late 2003, ran like normal and grew over the next year and a half before selling out to CNET. Then we get really specific from every point of view. I can re-write it for you, but it will still be a jumble. There is no single storyline to this website. --GenuineMind--

May I recommend web.archive.org, from which many past versions of the site are accessible? Agent0042 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking of saying the same thing, but I guess you got here before me. Anyway here is the link to web.archive.org aka The Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tvtome.com This site lists all the versions of tvtome since it started archiving to the present. Each one is clickable and has a rather complete (if slow) archive of the website. Someone could in fact easily download the entire archive of the most recent version change the name from tvtome to something else and ressurect the entire website. Someone correct me if this is breaking copyright, as IMO if the name is different shouldn't cause much of a fuss as all of the information was user submitted. Ergzay 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Nestoriak

I'm going to redirect John Nestoriak here, as most of the information there is not about the man. I'm pasting the content here because it shouldn't be lost I'm unsure where to work it into this disorganized article:

John Nestoriak was the founder and head developer of TV Tome and Movie Tome. TV Tome was on the web around June 2000 and Movie Tome was added November 2003, with plans to make a Music Tome. These plans were cancelled when John Nestoriak sold the Tome franchise to CNET Games and Entertainment in February 2005, much to the dismay of the majority of members. The editors were the first to be told via an e-mail sent 22 April 2005. The TV Tome website was no more as of 6 June 2005, replaced by the new site www.tv.com.

Have fun with it, someone.... — Catherine\talk 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-Comment: That info is wrong, TV Tome was no more as of June 13th, not June 6th.


[edit] Demise

I think a decision needs to be made as to what's to be done with the Demise section, because people keep editing it out and others keep putting it back in. Personally, I don't see how it belongs at all. Delete Agent0042 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Demise section is informative of how the site itself met its match. It should stay in. Keep Green lantern40 12:45, 22 February 2006

But it contains a lot of references to individual members who may not want or do not even know that they're being referenced. I also strongly suspect it violates one-or-more of Wikipedia's rules regarding formatting and/or point-of-view. Agent0042 04:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, would a rewrite help? I don't think it should be deleted. Green lantern40 12:46, 23 February 2006 (Californian Time)
I'm not sure. I'd personally like to hear from somebody who's a site admin or has more knowledge on these sorts of issues. I'll bring it to their attention sometime later today and we can find out what they think about it. Agent0042 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this the TV Tome article or not?

Does anyone else agree that references to other sites should be removed or reduced to a short list, it's got to the point now where there is more information about what other sites are doing than TV Tome itself. If the websites are important enough to be on here in the first place, they should have their own article and if relevant to this one should be connected with Wikilinks. Anyone agree? Pete 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I have to disagree. Like it or not TVTome at its demise, created its on mythology of types from the tvtome hippies to the ones who stayed in tv.com for a while and left. this is all part of what happened when tvtome got sold... think of it this way.. if tvtome never gotten sold these new sites would of probably never existed so they must have a back story to their creation from who to exactly why they decided to create these new sites.

[edit] Remove references to TV Fans Online

Every reference to this site should be removed. TV Fans Online asserts itself as a TV Tome clone! They blatantly use TV Tome's graphics, the Webmaster was banned from TV Tome for advertising it, as stated in the site's description, and they don't even have Guides... It's a forum site, with stolen graphics and therefore it is not a TV Tome spin-off; it is a sham, plain and simple. It has 30-something members, and they are so desperate to get guides, that they are offering people money to work there. TV Fans Online is an embarrassment. It certainly does not warrant a mentions alongside the likes of TV.com, TV IV, TVrage, and Get Out The View. - Remove 84.91.30.128 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, it also happens to be my opinion, but we CANNOT use our own POVs to justify removing information from Wikipedia or writing speculative, non-factual information to it. If the site exists and is/was a spin-off (it's design being something of proof of that) then it belongs in this list whether you, I or any other Wikipedia user thinks it deserves to be there or not. You also cannot speculate as to whether it is breaking the law with it's website design. If there is an element of doubt then don't write it there. If the site is poor, find someone’s review and use it as a source but phrase it as though you're referring to a third persons criticism, not your own.
You say it has a small amount of guides, is basically a forum site (TV Tome had forums!, has 30-something members and pays members to help them out... if you can find internet sources to back up this information then add it and include a reference to it, this way it becomes encyclopaedic knowledge. If you really feel that the information should be removed altogether then it needs discussing fully and putting to a vote. Simply deleting the information saying you think it's a sham is not going to go down well with anyone here whether they agree with you or not.
These are all things documented well in Wikipedia's guidelines, if it was okay to ignore them as you have done, then we could all use our own opinions to justify the removal of anything we did not like from any article, or even the articles themselves. I don't wish to start an arguement or an edit war on this so all I can hope for is that you understand my view point on this and not assume I'm doing it out of any support for TVFans itself because I'm certainly not. ~~ Peteb16 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"TV Tome had forums!" You misunderstood. TV Fan Online ONLY has forums. Check it out yourself. Search for a show and all you'll find is a forum. I think it should be removed altogether. Let's vote it out and I'll supply my factual arguments, as none of what I've said is speculation.84.91.30.128 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You said that they could be breaking copyright. You weren't sure that they were and didn't attempt to back it up with any legal documentary evidence so it must've been speculation. So you can't use it in the article or use it to justify removing it from the article. No offence, but nothing you've said yet justifies its removal from the article, it only justifies adding a note to indicate it's limited effectiveness as a spin-off (which you've done). If you had proof the site doesn't exist or wasn't inspired in any way by TV Tome (you correctly insist it's design is a clone so it must be at least inspired by TV Tome), you can justify it's removal. Until then I can't see how your case will ever get this section removed. ~~ Peteb16 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a misunderstanding here. I'm not the dude who said they were infringing copyright. But how can that site possibly be on par to all the others mentioned? The episode pages are forum threads. How can that remotely warrant them a reference alongside the other sites that are in fact working spin-offs? 84.91.30.128 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a forum thread? It just looks like a fairly average TV guide to me... I agree it's one of about fifteen, but TV Tome had to start somewhere. If there was nothing constituting a TV guide on there it would be accurate to say it's not a spin-off. Now if were up to my POV I'd nuke the entire section because it's irrelevant to TV Tome. It's like having an article about the very first car and then listing every single car that's been made since then as a sub-section within that article. ~~ Peteb16
That is a main page of a show that is using TV Tome's old graphics and copying TVRage's Show Stars and Show Crew listing format. When you hit on the Episode Guide link all you get is a forum... This site has very little of its own. It basically assembles two other site's formats and graphics. That's my whole point. It doesn't qualify as spin-off, because aside from the main pages (which are a rip off TV Tome's graphics and TVRage's formatting), all it has are forums. 84.91.30.128 11:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I get your point I really do, it's a rubbish website, content wise it qualifies better as someone's home page, but the fact it wouldn't exist if TV Tome hadn't had existed means all of this does not detract from the fact it's a spin-off site. Now here's an idea, change the title of the section to 'Successful Spin-offs' and you may have a case. Major changes like that are technically justified because the whole thing needs a rewrite. Of course, I'd ask first but I can't see anyone objecting. ~~ Peteb16 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you when you say that this section in unnecessary, but my point is precisely that if you're gonna list TV Tome's spin-offs, then at least the ones worthy of being mentioned. Therefore, a 'Successful Spin-offs' section would be much more reasonable, as it would trim that unnecessarily long list down. Also, plenty of them weren't around for longer than a month... Does anyone remember TV Palace? I sure don't. Go for it. You got my vote. 84.91.30.128 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I believe it should be actioned anyway because the article needs a rewrite. How it's done is up to you as I can't tell which sites are spin-offs and which sites are related. I still believe however, if you remove a site from the list it needs to be readded in correct context otherwise someone will object to its removal or just readd it themselves anyway. ~~ Peteb16 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "readded in correct context"? Like a "unsuccessful spin-off sites" list? 84.91.30.128 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is'nt worth the hassle at all, but it's typical of Wikipedia to cause a fuss over nothing short of notice, plagerism is plagerism, and this article should'nt be giving them undeserved press, heck there's already been a grand total of three nameless RPG communities that have been "spun out" of Tvtome, this is in every way the same thing, an online community with no visible service to telivision fans except it links to forums for each show. -Dr. R.K.Z

Hey, brick wall! You can't use your own point of view to remove factual content from articles... Brick wall?... Hello? ~~ Peteb16 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic content

I've reverted Arthur Rubin's edit per WP:TOPIC, at best the sections are irrelevant, at worst they're promotional, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. They also contain no citations to establish notability, etc. (relevant: WP:TOPIC, WP:ATT and WP:V.) Matthew

Related sites (especially if really spinoffs, which most of them are) are on topic. WP:ATT is a problem, but it's more of a problem for this site, as the site isn't there any more. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I see no relevancy established. Sources are more then a problem, they are a non-negotiable factor, this article should probably be stub-ified, it's in a poor shape. Matthew
The unsigned comment around June 2, 2006 seems to be still valid. This comment includes OR, but the notability of the site includes the fact that it's still referenced (through archive.org) after its demise and that it has spinoffs. It's not required for the spinoffs to be individually notable (under, say, WP:WEB) for the collection to be notable or for individual sites to be somewhat notable in the context of TV Tome. We do need sources for the sites being spinoffs, but information from each site should be adequate to source that. If they claim to be spinoffs, then they are, in a sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole article requires citations, not just the spin-off section. Matthew
Agreed. But you originally only disputed the spin-off section, and self-citations would be adequate for that, IMHO. Perhaps an AfD would be appropriate (possibly merging appropriate content into TV.com, if such can be found). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/v/_/Talk%7ETV_Tome_d861.html"