Talk:The Crystal Bucket

Notability etc
The tagging here seems excessive. It seems self evident to me, the nature of this article - a guide to the programmes reviewed in the volume and a taste of the acerbic James style. To tag it as unreferenced, an orphan, all plot etc.. seems to me an unthinking reflex tagging. Look at the nature of the article. Delete it, as not meeting the guidelines, or leave it alone, thats my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is tagged to death now
 * No, you can still read the article without paging down! To death, that's six tags plus a proposal to delete.  Don't give up! Josh Parris

I don't understand why it is an orphan, it links up to the Clive James page doesn't it?
 * "few or no other articles link to it." - the few part is where I'm coming from. There's a lot of TV shows Clive reviewed, could you not put in their article "In The Crystal Bucket Clive James said Flash was played with 'incomparable awkwardness' by Buster Crabbe"? Josh Parris

To say it's all plot is dumb, there is no plot, its a precis of a work of criticism with examples of the acerbic style.
 * That's my complaint - other than a one-liner saying James wrote it, the bulk of the article is precis.

If it doesn't meet the guidelines why don't you delete the article - I did something similar with Visions at Midnight, - it informs the reader of the article of the programmes reviewed and gives a flavour of the criticism.
 * Not my place to do so, and besides, I think this article on the book can be cranked up to a decent one, with some effort. At the moment it does a good job of giving a flavour of the book - I certainly enjoyed reading the article - but this is an encyclopedia, and the entries ought to be encyclopedic. It's not that hard: Josh Parris

To tag it as lacking references seems a bit unthinking to me, look at the nature of the article. If it doesn't meet the rules for inclusion in the encyclopedia, delete it, otherwise leave it, understanding the nature of the article, it isn't going to have a lot of references is it ?
 * Not so. Surely someone reviewed the book, and said "I say, it was a jolly good read"?  This would be a reference.  A few of these, and you're done asserting notability.  And again: I think this subject has promise, or else I would have tagged it otherwise.  Remember these references aren't required to be online, so newspaper clippings from the era would work just fine - check out the guidelines on WP:Citation.  Keep plugging. Josh Parris 12:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just came across this article. Certainly concur with the editor above who considers its tagging excessive. It's true that few if any articles link to it. This in itself is insufficient to make it a candidate for deletion. Didn't have to look far to find similar instances where the same applies, e.g. The Letters of Oscar Wilde.


 * Notability . . . James, as article now states in first sentence, was named Critic of the Year in the 1981 British Press Awards for his TV reviews, some of which are collected in this volume. Consists almost entirely of a plot summary . . .  since the article concerns a work of non-fiction, this tag may be regarded as a greater solecism than that which it purports to cure. Should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context . . .   the article, by dint of its unusually high number of internal links, may be said to bulge with real-world context.


 * I'd go so far as to say that the article - by dint of these links, covering as they do such a vast range of subject matter and multifarious aspects of British culture - almost constitutes a mini-encyclopedia in itself. Certainly an invaluable & very easily accessible guide to matters cultural way beyond Clive James or mere TV reviews. I'm accordingly leaving the orphan tag in place, and excising the other two. Wingspeed (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)