This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Deleted racism/stereotype section: clear original research
I deleted the stereotypes section again (someone else originally did) as that seems obvious original research. Please see
WP:NOR which states
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.
I realize the section was written in good faith. However it was written (stylistically and content-wise) like an editorial, while citing a "community input"/message-board type opinion piece as a source which cannot be used per
WP:RS. If the opinion/analysis was published by a
WP:RS-conforming source, then it's a keep. However as-is it was obvious synthesized original thought borrowing from a non-reliable source, and must be deleted per
WP:NOR. Cheers.
Tendancer16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Barring a miraculous appearance of reliable sources for that section, I'll delete it wholesale (again) in the next few days. For now, I'm commenting it out. -
Mdsummermsw19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)reply
But what does it have to do with the "needs sources" template you've added? 99.99% of the plot descriptions in Wikipedia have no sources. I don't say 100% just so you won't pull out an exception out of nowhere. And do you know why is it like this? Simply because Wikipedia is the source for plot descriptions.
Right now there's no other site in the entire world (well, at least in English) with detailed plot descriptions. None. Nada. Well, I know one spoiler site (and suprisingly there aren't a lot of those sites either) that occasionly gives whole plot descriptions, but its total list of movies takes just one page.
Yes, Wikipedia became not just the primary but about the only source with detailed plot descriptions of movies. If your plan is to eventually delete every single plot in Wikipedia - even the short ones (since they have no sources), then the entire world would lose its only source for detailed plot descriptions, simply because one person out there likes deleting stuff. Again, you may got the rules right on how long can a plot be, but if you demand sources, you'd end up deleting just about every plot description in Wikipedia. Just something to consider. -
Kumarules20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The plot length has NOTHING to do with the needs sources tag. It does have to do with the plot length tag you ignored.
"Right now there's no site..." So what? There's no site that is this one thing that wikipedia is NOT. Life is like that.
Interesting that you suddenly appear out of nowhere and your first three edits are hitting me here and on my talk page, referring to what I've done elsewhere. By "interesting", of course, I mean
suspicious.
Yes, it must require a whole conspiracy to take a quick glance in your history. Anyway, what about the requirement for sources for plots? Is there such an official policy? -
Kumarules18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah yes. Brilliant work, that. It's so rare these days to see a brand new editor decide that their first edits should be on various talk pages.
Seeing as you seemed to have sprung as a fully-formed wikipedian, with strong policy opinions and an understanding of how to search user histories, contact users and discuss edits on talk pages, I naturally figured you would have an in-born knowledge of
original research policy, particularly the aspects dealing with
sections relying on a primary source. My mistake.
How would you know if I edited anonymously or not? Anyway, this is a talk page to improve the article,
not a forum to your opinions. So I suggest you cool down and get back to the point - I didn't ask what a reliable source was but where does it say even a plot needs one. It sure does not say it in these links and 99.9% plots are indeed original research as there's no such thing as reliable sources for detailed plots. -
Kumarules14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)reply
"where does it say even a plot needs one" "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.
" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
"
"99.9% plots are indeed original research" "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.
"
"there's no such thing as reliable sources for detailed plots" "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
" and "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words.
"
I have always said you were right about the length. But even brief plots (not that 700 words is too brief) are original research in 99.9% of the cases here.
Kumarules17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The whole section is jam-packed with unsourced speculation (a.k.a. original research), made all the worse by sloppy wording and slang.
Considering the amount of ink put to page (real and virtual) about this movie, I consider it rather telling that the twelve sources that are cited are for:
- Critics' opinions (1)
- Box office (1)
- Synthesis/original research about White Castle locations (4)
After a long while, we now have a third party source for the plot. While you would think that a few basics would be easily established, a number of items in the plot have bounced back and forth between differing opinions. This source can be checked without firing up your DVD player or poking around in the cobwebby corners of your brain.
With this in mind, I have repeatedly reverted the claim that Doogie was on X, in favor of the claim it was crystal. Please keep in mind
WP:3RR and
WP:V if you feel the need to change this again.
I am again reverting the return to the old, long, unencyclopedic, slang-filled, "Dude, like, you 'member when that guy got totally wasted and did that stuff with the thing to the other guy? That was sooooo funny" plot outline. As previously discussed, it was loaded with POV and OR, was far longer than guidelines suggest and generally sucked. The newer version -- while not as chatty and full of all your favorite moments -- is encyclopedic, sourced and within guidelines in every way. -
Mdsummermsw (
talk)
16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Apparently this title was used in some locations, likely because White Castle is limited geographically to portions of the U.S. with a few in other countries at various times.
An editor has been trying to add that it was released "on Netflix" under this title. The only cite offered so far is an unofficial site that says it used that title on Netflix UK at some point. The source does not say this title was for Netflix (or Netflix UK). It is not a reliable source for the claim. The ...Go to White Castle title is certainly being used by Netflix in the U.S.
We need a reliable source discussing either where the alternate title is/was used to say where/when the alternate title is/was used. A weaker version would be a reliable source that clearly discusses the same film with the alternate title, which we could use to then list it as an unspecified alternate title.
(Various possibilities exist, including but not limited to: It is a somewhat different film. The title varies by location. The title varies by location and date for whatever reason. Some sources may have an incorrect (earlier?) title. The title varies by release method (e.g., UK DVD vs. Netflix UK vs. U.S. VUDU vs....). Unless we know what the determining factor is we shouldn't say.) - SummerPhDv2.013:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)reply
ETA: There is some earlier discussion of this issue in the talk archive, but it's all guesses. The only other source I could find was a
forum posting saying it was the "European title", though I would think there would be titles in other languages and locations other than Europe using variant titles. - SummerPhDv2.013:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)reply