Talk:Blenheim Palace in film and media

Merge proposal
It's not necessary to have a separate article, merge with main. Gryffindor (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected the merge proposal tags between these two pages. All responding editors please use the following to vote:


 * Merge -  ~
 * Don't merge -  ~
 * Don't merge - There is too much here, if it were included it would be a classic case of WP:PROPORTION and would need to be floated again. ClemRutter (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing! Don't forget to Be Bold! Operator873 CONNECT 04:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Don’t merge. As it stands this article is poorly referenced. Merging would only clutter the better done main article. Then, if this article was properly referenced we’d have an incredibly long ref section. – S. Rich (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing problem
Per User:TompaDompa: "We're not supposed to construct lists like this based on WP:Primary sources, as has been done here. See MOS:POPCULT (which User:Piotrus referenced in the edit summary) as to the kind of sourcing this should have. I fully agree. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So fix it or take the article to AfD. However, the article was recently ruled as "keep" so an AfD is not on. Expressing displeasure by tagging the article would be disruptive. The trick is to find a topic where constructive edits can be performed rather than conducting a battle. Regarding the issue, surely you can see the difference between the topic of this article and the typical "pop culture" list? Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixing the article would mean removing the TV Tropes-style list and all unsourced content and rewrite the article in prose form based on sources that actually cover the topic. Which I did. And then I was reverted. TompaDompa (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq "surely you can see the difference between the topic of this article and the typical "pop culture" list". No, I don't. Mostly unreferenced (to secondary sources that discuss this in context) mentions of which works this entity appeared in are one and the same. Do tell me what is the difference between the content we have here, and content effectively deleted during rewrites from articles like, let's say, United Nations in popular culture (compare to User:Pilaz/United Nations in popular culture, pre-AfD), or similar treatment of Earth in science fiction and many others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Blenheim Palace is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a page explaining its influence on literature and other media is perfectly justified and reasonable. I moved this information during the rewrite of the main page because while it is interesting and useful, that page is already very long and this information does not relate to the palace in a tangible way, but more in an influencing, abstract way. Giano  (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If this were actually a page explaining its influence on literature and other media, we would not be having this conversation. But the article doesn't explain this—i.e. contain properly sourced analysis of the overarching topic—it just enumerates examples. That's not a proper encyclopaedic article, it's a TV Tropes-style list. That you moved this information during the rewrite of the main page because [...] that page is already very long and this information does not relate to the palace in a tangible way is really just a tacit admission that the content does not belong. This is precisely the kind of thing the essay WP:CARGO talks about: Fiction is not fact., Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis., and Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But you are completely overlooking the raison d'être of Wikipedia, by allowing such a stubby, poor page to exist (as we used to say in 2004) “From little acorns mighty oaks grow.” Or do you think the project now so grand, fine and intellectual only those capable of providing a reference for every verb should be allowed to edit? If so, we are losing track of the founding principle and ethos of Wikipedia.  Giano  (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No amount of assembling examples will ever produce properly-sourced analysis. The only way to get properly-sourced analysis is to locate sources that do the analysis and summarizing that analysis. Again, this is a point the essay WP:CARGO makes: What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. This article has existed since 2010 and produced not one iota of properly-sourced analysis of the topic at hand in that time—it's still all raw data and WP:Original research. And when I added some actual analysis, cited to sources on the topic (as per MOS:POPCULT), you removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Goodness me! You are well versed in WP laws. In eighteen years, I’ve never read one page that begins with WP. You also seem very clever with {s. I’ve never bothered with those either. As for the MOS, I doubt anyone of any interest has ever ploughed there way through that. As I see it, we all know what’s there is factually true, there’s nothing there that’s ridiculously false (eg: Micky Mouse married Minnie Mouse in the palace chapel), so leave it and see how it develops. You can’t delete and judge all pages by one criteria, no more than you can people. Giano  (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. This is a poor article, and no amount of adding extra examples is ever going to fix that. It has been, as you might say, "left to see how it develops" for 12 years and it's still a poor article. If you want to simply list examples (with or without your personal analysis), the place to do that is TV Tropes rather than Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)