Talk:Who Killed Tom King?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Not encyclopedic
To me, this article has gone too far from the WP mission/objectives. It is not very encyclopedic. It's really a "TV Afterguide" or Emmerdale Cliffnotes. Editing with a more removed perspective would help a great deal. Not only is the detailed play-by-play unencyclopedic, it's "insiderspeak". Starting with this conundrum: what is an "interactive storyline"? And the who's who of these episodes are just too detailed to be justified. WP cargos over even the Bible's "boring begats" to wikisource. This article really warrants pruning.Professor marginalia 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is encyclopedic afterall, no tv show has ever ddone an interactive investigation before and it seems worthy of an encyclopedic article. Cheers Thenthornthing 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- He wasn't suggesting to remove the article, nor that the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Rather, that its style is now far from encyclopedic, and that it needs a serious tidy up to come back in line with what should be regarded as an encyclopedia piece of information, which in my opinion it is far from currently. I agree with Professor marginalia's comments/suggestions. Bungle44 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:EPISODE#Content:
Extensive quotation from episodes and overly detailed plot summaries are a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
Excessively detailed plot synopses are currently epidemic on Wikipedia. They're unnecessary, often difficult to read for anyone but immersed fans, and lacking in information that matters to most readers. It is possible synopses like these may some day be purged on Fair Use concerns the way many images are currently being removed.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Guidelines has some suggestions for how this sort of article might be better formulated.
Also, too many pictures make the article slow to load for people on dial-up. / edgarde 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- i;m reverting to my edit a while ago, there is no need for other details about the episode on this article, which may i reminf you is named WHO KILLED TOM KING? not who killed tom king? May 17th!!! Read here for info as to why i;m doinmg this Who Killed Tom King? Thenthornthing 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a whopping 30 images here, often crammed into the text of one section. If i make my browser window a tad smaller, I can hardly comfertably read the text in some sections. I think this article can do more then well with about an image or 10, evenly and well spread throughout the article. but 30 and espcially in the manner they are included now, is just crazy. Add to that the Fair use implications that might result and you have a case that needs serious weeding. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree entirely, but some of the main contributors insist on putting loads in here! Thenthornthing 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well if these "main contributors" decide not to defend their decisions, then it would seem to be a majority vote against the current layout and quantity of imagary. Unless several come forward in defence of this, it would seem a majority vote to clean it up per suggestions above. Bungle44 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well I don't see what the problem is with the content. This is a major storyline and it's only fitting that there is plenty of information. The pictures are necessary as in the case of THE MURDER section, it shows each of the suspects main reactions towards Tom King. So for those who haven't seen it could gain more from the pictures aswell as the writing. Jameshdl 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] The state of this article
I've noticed over the past few days there have been a few disagreements as to the sort, amount and indeed quality of content this article provides. I don't think it's healthy to be changing/reverting/rechanging/undoing changes every day or so. I agree that it needs to be cut down, as alot of text can probably be summarised in a manner that still provides the same amount of information to the reader, without them having to relive every smallest detail since December. I've made a start and removed a couple of images which I feel certainly don't deserve a position on the article, especially when the text it is coupled with provides such information. Although maybe controversial, I personally didn't feel they added any value, not even taking into account the added loading time and overall exessive size of the article, which it has barely helped control.
Without specifying names, there are a few who seem to think they own all rights to it, and thus have the authority to control what can, cannot and indeed, should definately stay. When all is said and done, the article's aim it to provide a detailed, clear and uncluttered place for information on the topic, and with such excessive amounts of text and images, it really isn't fulfilling that as much as it could do.
Obviously, the edit-war method hasn't done anything to improve the situation, and my suggestion on one's talk page about discussing who believes what has a right to stay should really be considered as an alternative way of dealing with the article. Bungle44 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- For my part, obviously, I agree with Bungle. I apologize for my clumsy approach. From my point of view, as the AfD closer, so much concern was expressed over the plot summary that I thought it would be a shame not to try to address that concern right away. Articles don't have a deadline, though, so as long as the issue will be worked on, I'm happy. However, it's really the text of the article that needs cutting down. Right now it's way too long, it doesn't matter how complicated the subplots are, and it doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article. The bit about this being the first interactive storyline and such is interesting but it's being lost in this mammoth plot summary. I think my recent version [1] was a good attempt to cut down on the plot summary, yet retain the main points, so I hope it won't just be lost to history because it was reverted. Mangojuicetalk 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'll agree that The Investigation section of the article is too drawn out and should be shortened, BUT without taking away the importance of the investigation itself as it's been ongoing for over six months and I read that it will continue with DCI Grace Barraclough through. Jameshdl 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You're not getting the point. Let me quote from WP:NOT ("What Wikipedia is not"), which is one of very few official policies on Wikipedia that concerns the content of articles.
-
-
- Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance; such articles are not solely or overwhelmingly a summary of a work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
-
-
- This article, currently, is overwhelmingly (by far) a summary of a work's plot. That needs to change, and it needs to change soon, because this only escaped the ax because folks at the AfD thought it could be improved. The amount of plot summary that is reasonable is not clear, but as an article I think this could make do with a bare-bones plot summary: we only need enough plot summary to give the remaining parts of the article context. Mangojuicetalk 12:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Plot summary
Right now the plot summary comes in three sections: (1) Leading up to Christmas, (2) The day of the murder, and (3) The investigation. The first of these is completely unneeded: as far as I can tell very little of that is really a part of this plot, but since it's a soap opera everything is connected. There aren't many things in what follows that would be confusing if that entire section was removed, and what would be confusing could be cleared up by either a few extra words later, or simply removing the item, because not every detail is important. The day of the murder and the investigation sections are at least a summary of this plot, but they are far too long and need to be cut down. Particularly objectionable is language like "As Matthew walked away it could be seen in Grayson’s expression that he was concerned about his mother’s security with Tom." and "... who looked on in disgust", "... as both family members looked on begrudgingly", et cetera. It's overly verbiose for one thing, and for another, it sounds like the interpretation of the author. My previous cut down dealt with all these problems and should be improved on. Mangojuicetalk 12:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- However much of a fan I am myself of Emmerdale (my opinion and views will not be bias against it), I must agree with the statements made by Mango. Understanding its notability of the first interactive storyline means that it likely does deserve recognition in its own article, but by no means does it deserve a right to exploit this priviledge and go through every smallest detail. As such, I an in agreement with Mango, in that his revision should be improved upon and extended. Although I think it was cut down too much, it was still on the right track to being acceptable. All articles must follow guidelines set out for what is and what is not acceptable on wikipedia, and I agree the state of this article means that it must be heavily revised in order to obide by such regulations. Bungle44 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The King's in Court.png
Image:The King's in Court.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The King's in Court.png
Image:The King's in Court.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The King's in Court.png
Image:The King's in Court.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bob being arrested.png
Image:Bob being arrested.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
