Talk:Freddy's Nightmares

Modified
I modified the entry, as it stated that Freddy's Nightmares spawned the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, while the opposite is true.

Updated
I updated the entry under "DVD release", making mention that sets are being sold online which were transferred from television recordings.
 * Is it a legal release? Is there an reliable source saying so?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What I added is a fact, that dvds are being sold, legal or not, and therefore that information should be included in the article. It is very important not to censor Wikipedia of information that is accurate. As it stands, the article is less accurate without the information I added, therefore I will add it again.


 * It isn't censoring. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, and if these DVDs are being sold (which you have provided no reliable source for anyway) then they are being sold illegally. We don't solicite illegal sales, and the only way to talk about it would be if it was in the news.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to market anything. I am a fan of the series and a fan of putting accurate information in the hands of the public. I do not know anything of the legality of these dvds, but even if they are illegal, it should still be included and noted that they are illegal. Plenty of illegal activities are discussed in wikipedia, and not everything in wikipedia is from a published source. Mentioning that disks are being sold by a third party is not an endorsement, but pretending that it is not going on is dishonest and diminishes the value of wikipedia as a source of information. Cianmatt 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a fan too, I have the original VHS of the series that were released. Doesn't mean anything. Where are they being sold? It can be quite obvious if it's legal or not. Illegal activites are discussed because they have news coverage. Do you have citations that show news coverage of illegal sale of these DVDs? Do you even have a reliable source that says they are being sold?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I originally included the websites that the disks were being sold on ( www.tvboxset.com and www.allmyfavoriteshows.com ) but someone deleted my addition. I did not include it when I reinserted the information because I did not wish to sound as though I was endorsing them. I purchased the disks from one source and stated that some of the episodes were bad quality and were transferred directly from tv. I found the websites online. Whatever your intentions, people have the right to know what I know about this article. I am disgusted that people out there would suppress information rather than find out whether it is true or not. It may seem like a small thing in this context, but on a larger scale it is what's wrong with the world today. If wikipedia only reprints news from "accepted channels" then it is useless and no more reliable than those biased sources. Cianmatt 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Generaly page linking doesn't help. It needs to be a link directly to the information. We shouldn't have to search a website to verify the existence of the information. Your opinion of the quality of the disks is original research. Wikipiedia is about verifiability, not truth.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also your opinion that the disks are being sold illegally. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that there is no copyright warning at the beginning of television broadcasts. As to finding the info, it isn't that hard to click the website and search "Freddy's Nightmares". If I don't include enough info for your taste, then you should add to what I inserted, not delete my insertion all together. I do not intend to be rude, but I am just trying to share information with other people, which is what I thought wikipedia was for.


 * I said they could be, because you haven't supplied me with verification that they are being sold period, let alone that they aren't some bootleg version of the show, which is what it sounds like by the way you are describing the quality.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You said enough for me. You said that Wikipedia is not interested in truth, but in having reliable sources. The truth is that the entire series of Freddy's Nightmares is available from two separate online stores, but the "reliable sources" give us a totally misleading and unreliable article leading people to think otherwise. "Truth" may be hard to find and verify, but I don't see how anyone can settle for less. (The direct link is http://www.tvboxset.com/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=freddy%27s+nightmares ).


 * Why is it that Amazon does not have this DVD listed? The reason I question the authenication of this release (i.e. that it isn't just some bootleg version) is that it makes no mentioned that New Line released it, it's "region free" when almost no DVDs are region free, and that when I run a search, the only DVDs for this series that pop up (which aren't from those two sources you mentioned above) are for the volume DVDs that were released in the UK. The reason I say Amazon is a clue, is because Amazon doesn't sell bootleg movies, there's an issue with copyright because of that. No one is listing a releasing house with this set. Look at [ http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000R9YLKY/ref=s9_asin_title_1/002-6352599-6613610?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1KQRC5AW80CGC3HGMYN0&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=288448401&pf_rd_i=507846 House Season 3]. Universal Studios is listed as the releasing house. Why isn't New Line listed for Freddy's Nightmares? I don't doubt it's being sold, what I doubt is the legality of the situation. What you are presenting is information that implies this is an official release of "Freddy's Nightmares". I found another place that was selling it, ironically they had a completely different cover art .   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Per notability standards, this information about the DVD release does not warrant inclusion because it has not received significant coverage from independent sources. There are also issues of verifiability since there is no clear-cut evidence about this film's DVD release. Also, the drive to mention potentially bootleg DVDs may qualify as borderline promotional, and without any significant coverage to back the information, it should be excluded until this becomes a topic in the public scope. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The info I attempted to supply was 100% accurate. I never attempted to supply information that I did not possess, such as claiming that this was an official release. I simply assert the importance of including the information that the series is available for those interested. I do not think you should be so selective about what information to include or not include, and it is clear that the article is misleading the way it reads. When articles on wikipedia are misleading, you have a serious flaw with wikipedia. Other wikipedia articles on tv series' include a notation of unofficial boxsets being sold (one includes a reference to the very same website); why the controversy here? You are wrong that mentioning it is promoting it if it is bootleg (which we do not know for sure that it is). I feel the same necessity to mention all official releases without promoting or endorsing them either. This is about freedom of information. State all relevant facts and let the reader decide what to do with the information. Anyone who goes to Thailand knows that fake Gucci bags are sold all over the place, does this mean that we are not allwed to mention that on wikipedia because we would be endorsing the purchase of fake Gucci purses? Your argument is erroneous. As far as this topic entering the public scope, do you seriously think that this topic will ever enter the public scope, whether they release official dvds or not? It is applicable only to the few who desire this information. Two companies have published content on their websites that they are selling this product that wikipedia claims does not exist and a simple internet search can establish the fact. What more do you need? It is not like I am making some outlandish claim like a cure for cancer. I am stating an easily established fact, that the disks are being sold, and your readers should be able to know that. Again, if wikipedia is verifiable, but inaccurate, what good is it? Cianmatt 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's bootleg, then it isn't an official release. If it is not an official release then it needs significant coverage in the outside media to warrant inclusion. There is not verification that it is official, but a good clue is the fact that New Line's name is no where to be found. The article is not misleading. No official release of the series has happened on DVD. These do not look official, and I've seen no coverage that says they are official. They can only be found on obscure Television DVD websites, and not on highly commercial sites like Amazon. If they were official, why wouldn't New Line have them released everywhere? Since the question of whether it is official is up for grabs, it needs to be notable. What makes this notable? The fact that some random person happened to burn the television show to a DVD and sell it? If New Line files a lawsuit, that would be notable. Other than that, let IMDb list the bootlegs. What you are doing is considered promoting because you are citing the website that is actually selling the product, instead of citing some news organization that is mentioning the sale of the product. No coverage means it isn't notable.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust didn't get media coverage in Nazi Germany; does that mean that it wasn't notable? Some people still deny it. The fact remains that people who would like to obtain copies of this series and turn to wikipedia for information may get the idea that it is hopeless and give up. That makes the article misleading. I found it through a separate source and am lucky that I did not depend on wikipedia for my information. The news is selective in their coverage and biased in their presentation. It is clear that wikipedia continues this tradition of being a poor and incomplete source of information. You are sticking to your principles on this, but at the same time proving the flaw in using wikipedia as an all encompasing source of information. It is absolutely inadequate, not to mention inconsistent. Cianmatt 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia wasn't around during the Holocaust, which gets plenty of coverage now. Why would someone come to Wikipedia to find DVDs to buy? Isn't that what Google is for, to search out things you want. There are 2 million articles on Wikipedia, you better believe there is inconsistency. We report official releases, not leaked or stolen releases. The only way those get added is if there is significant coverage of the event. People have been selling bootleg copies of Freddy's Nightmares for awhile not, and they do it for other shows, it doesn't change the fact that the show was never officially released.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point about the Holocaust, being that the principles you operate under would have not found that notable either until it was printed in a soure YOU trusted. You have an outdated concept of reporting and disseminating information. The people have been reliant on large reporting agencies who select which news to print and how to present it (according to their own business sense or agenda). This is in the process of changing as it is becoming easier for the common man to publish information. Next question: which newspaper published the officially released Freddy's Nightmares dvd release? Chances are, there are none, but you can verify that it was released because the company published that information to the web, which is the same process that I used to obtain the information that tvboxset.com and allmyfavoriteshows.com were selling their copies. "Who holds the copyright" and other questions that we do not have enough information to give a definate answer (ie. more than yours or my guess) do not change the facts that they are available and verifiable by published website content. Your reliance on what you consider proper channels is dangerous because it allows people to have limited information using censorship and propaganda, which curbs freedom and costs lives. Exceptions should not be made, even for information like this. I could go online today and create my own online newspaper, write an article about this and come back here tonight and meet the criteria you mention. Then you would be in the dangerous situation of creating your own guidlines for determining questions like "what constitutes an official newspaper" and "how should we descriminate on what consititues a viable source of information." If you don't see my point now, maybe you will in ten years. Things are changing. Cianmatt 02:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe what you will, I'm not discussing this any further. Unless you can provide a reliable source that says New Line has officially released this series on DVD, or some new coverage discussing the illegal sale of this show, then it's a moot point.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Officially released" is irrelevant to being noteworthy and you have made and are enforcing a decision on what constitutes a published, verifiable source. I beleive it has met that requirement. It is moot to you, but to me, it is important. You have decided that if it does not meet your interpretation and is not of interest to you, then nobody else can read it on wikipedia. My point is that that is wrong to do. You can create and adhere to guidelines for wikipedia, but those guidelines determine wikipedia's usefulness, and I feel that it is limited by the ones set relevant to this issue and are being strictly interpreted and enforced. But have it your way. The people who want all available information on Freddy's Nightmares and other topics of interest will have no where to go for that unless someone maintaines a private website, because wikipedia just doesn't cut it. Cianmatt 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Third opinion and request additional opinions. Two editors have disagreed with its inclusion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What a large scale argument. It is correct that wikipedia is typically unreliable, which is why academic sites such as universities will inform students not to base their work on it. But that is barely even relevant here in this argument, which could easily have been resolved by simply using the phrase 'although bootleg versions are commonly available' as a catch-all function. Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)