Talk:Trailer (book)

February 2007
Can some wise Wikipedian advise me of the easiest way to ensure that someone who searches for the phrase "book trailer" is automatically redirected to the page labelled Trailer (book)?

Thank you.

Vidlit 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem was the %28 %29 codes. Help:Redirect says: "A code like %70 in a redirect disables it, although the link works from the redirect page." I've fixed it for you. --Tcsetattr 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Well spotted!

Vidlit 05:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to Whoever :

I realise that the format of this page doesn't yet measure up to Wikipedia's high standards but what I am trying to do is to pull together a comprehensive list of links and highlight the points that are being made in a variety of articles in the press and messages in forums and blogs. The purpose of this is to make it easier for anyone doing research on this new field to take it forward.

Please a lot me a bit of time and space to get this started and then I will start cutting it down to a more acceptable encyclopedia entry and can move some of the detailed content off Wikipedia into some form of online archive for those who want to explore the subject further. I thank you for your patience.

Vidlit 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

External links discussion
The external links section of this page continues to be removed because of strict adherence to Wikipedia policy. The external links existed to provide examples of the new genre which would otherwise be impossible to convey using words alone. There is a continuing problem with Wikipedia between providing a resource which provides useful information and over-zealous adherence to rules. I explained when creating this page that I hoped for some flexibility but this request seems to have been ignored. I have seen useful pages on Wikipedia destroyed because it was claimed that the material was copyrighted and where it was not copyrighted the excuse has been that the material was original work. So many of those who helped to build such pages simply give up on being contributors to Wikipedia again. Is this the future of free speech on the internet?

Vidlit 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In order for the reader to understand what constitutes the variety of book trailer they must be able to use the list of external links. If this does not exist then there is really no reason for this page to exist because the reader will have to wade through search engine listings as I have done to compile a comprehesive and useful list of links. This is provided not to hype the various examples of this genre but for the purpose of academic study.

Vidlit 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that many of the links are not appropriate - this includes the foreign language links and blog links. They need to be removed. Some of the links are definitely appropriate, and even required as sources for the article, but these would be better placed as references, rather than external links. I would recommend looking at WP:REF to see how to do this. Regards, CiaranG 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the section about foreign language links and agree that they are not needed. I have looked at the information about the Reference section and this suggest to me that I should simply rename the External Links section as a reference section. Is this correct?

Vidlit 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As an emerging genre there are as yet no definitive websites which deal with the design issues of the genre other than what are strictly classified as blogs but which are in effect acting in the role of forums. The Wikipedia guidelines do not prohibit all links simply because they are to content which exists on blogs. That is a distortion of the principle of free speech and demonstrates a very dated version of what constitutes the internet. It could be argued that Wikipedia itself could be categorised as a blog.

I have tried to be extremely careful to select what might be the best examples of the genre which would otherwise get an extremely bad name (which should be evident from the content of some of the reference links).

Vidlit 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A few comments:
 * Regarding blogs, see WP:EL, the section entitled Links normally to be avoided, item #11. If you're saying they're blogs acting as discussion forums, see #10 instead.
 * Regarding free speech, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for free speech.
 * Regarding the references, the point of the references is to show the source of the information in the article so it can be verified. Any information in the article should be backed up in this way. WP:REF explains how to do it.
 * Hope that helps. Regards, CiaranG 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the wording of the Wikipedia guidelines on external links. It is headed "Links normally to be avoided". I stress the word "normally".

This does include "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority". At this point in time, there is no one who could be considered a recognized authority for a genre which is still evolving. If this means that Wikipedia must lag behind the rest of the world and wait for paper publications to provide some form of authority then there is some serious disconnect between those who make the rules for Wikipedia and way that digital publishing is evolving on the internet. Some of the most important discussions will be taking place on what you look down on as blogs but which are enabling technologies for those who do not have the means to publish similar content as an "official" website.

Vidlit 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The point that needs to be made here is that there are no absolutes or objective opinions in an emerging genre. The links to discussion of the issues define the direction and establish the basis at an agreed definition. Taken to an extreme there is absolutely nothing which cannot be challenged as unverifiable. That can even includes the sciences. The detailed discussion of what constitutes the "book trailer" genre cannot afford to ignore what is being pinpointed with great intelligence and thoughtfulness on such sites which some Wikipedians look down upon. The best of blogs are themselves are becoming authorities in their own right and it is about time that the Wikipedia policies were updated to recognise this distinction. That is to make the publication medium more important than the content. It would be the same as saying that only documents written on expensive parchment constituted an acceptable authority. Those written on less expensive paper (which was more widely available to all) were to be considered low class and therefore unacceptable.

Vidlit 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the phrases used in the Wikipedia guidelines regarding "unverifiable links" is to prevent the representation of "a point of view as fact". This is not a charge that can be levelled at the serious discussion links. For someone doing legitimate academic research into the history and development of the book trailer genre they constitute vital bits of evidence.

When the Wikipedia policies were formulated it was realised that strict adherence and over-zealous application could reduce Wikipedia's effectiveness as an up-to-date digital encyclopedia. That is why the word "normally" was used instead of "never".

Vidlit 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:RS, particularly the section Using online and self-published sources. Surely nobody doing "legitimate academic research" would dream of considering a blog to be a "vital bit of evidence"? CiaranG 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for creating a nice article from scratch and for starting a discussion here about the external links. Please remember that this is a shared editing project, and you will often and frequently have people changing this article to adhere to standards, to add to the content, or to change information.


 * As for the links, which seems to be the problem of the moment, it looks like you had essentially four sections - articles, blogs, commercial examples, and industry associations.


 * The articles list should probably be converted to a reference list. As it stands, your entry is entirely "unreferenced", i.e. you have not cited where you acquired any of the information, which makes it impossible to verify any of the statements you've made.  You should link statement/paragraph/fact to the article you acquired the information from, ideally.  I'll add a sample to the article which shows the "internal codes" to do this - or you can read up on it at WP:CITE.  The rest of the articles can be listed in a "further reading" section, but it's usually best to avoid overusing external links.  If the articles are not used as a reference, and they don't provide any information other than what's already in the article, then there is not need to link to it.


 * Blogs are usually right out, unless they are very notable and provide a solid resource. I'm not sure I'd bother.  They cannot be used as references except in fairly rare circumstances.


 * Commercial examples are something I simply abhor. There is no need to use them, you should be able to create an article that describes the subject without links to the final product.  The list you added has no criteria for inclusion; i.e. it's going to be a spam magnet and it could be deemed as promotional.


 * Industry associations, assuming they're notable, real, and they add to the topic, I usually don't worry over them. There are many areas of interest where "industry associations" is very overused, and every single consulting firm has deemed itself "an association" (see project management for example), so there may still be issues here.


 * Hope this helps. I'll try to clean up the article and put that sample ref in, but be aware that the external links section will continue to draw attention until it is normalized.   Kuru  talk  23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but I somehow feel that your interpretation of the rules has prevented you from beginning to understand any of the points I was making about tracing the formative development process of a new genre.

Removing the links would cripple this piece. How can you honestly describe a piece of music or a work of art in any way which would do it justice? All I could do would be to give my own subjective opinion of it without allowing the reader to make their own judgement or draw their own conclusions. That is what you seem to be asking me to do. The readers don't have to follow the links - they are there for those who want to form their own opinions but who do not have hours to spend on the internet researching the material. Removing them would waste both the time that I spent in research and their time.

The examples are an integral part of this piece. The fact that the book trailer is by nature a commercial vehicle means that it is entirely right and relevant to link to examples of them as long as there is no intent to promote them. Why not also exclude IMDb links because they are links to commercial films? I see little logic in this approach.

The headings that you have used in your response demonstrate some understandable prejudices but I cannot agree that they are there for the wrong reasons. They were selected in good faith as the best examples that I have been able to find online. None of them point to crude, violent or inappropriate content. I have also avoided linking to the most amateur examples even though they tend to be in the majority of what is currently online.

I have been examining the current versions of other Wikipedia pages which I have visited in the past and find that almost all of them have been reduced to the lowest common denominator, more like Encarta than the Encyclopaedia Britannica in its heyday. Wikipedia through the over-zealous application of the rules is becoming frankly boring and uninformative. In an effort to enforce consistency (as if this in itself with the highest form of virtue) it has all the character, taste and goodness of a Happy Meal. Is this really what Wikipedia has become?

I would like some of this issues put to arbitration before this article is effectively dissected to death. As for the numerous edits. It would probably be easier for me to delete the entire article and them upload it afresh so that you don't have to worry about all the minor edits and can treat the piece as a whole even though it was gradually built up over the course of many days. Most of the edits were a minor correction of spelling or a slight change in wording. Regarding shared editing. I welcome the inclusion of new material and new viewpoints from other people who are making a useful and creative contribution. In contrast, it is hard for anyone to see the heavy-handed imposition of standards which can effectively strip an article of its meaning as in any way beneficial.

It bothers me that one of the consequences of digital publication would be that editors would be empowered to do the same kind of thing to the books in our libraries. That is a chilling thought.

I have made specific arguments as to the validity of some of the links in my article and the response I have received has been couched in generalities and the most bureaucratic fundamentalist interpretation of Wikipedian standards.

I began this article in good faith with a plea for some assistance and patience. Now, at this late stage, I find that the powers that be want most of it to be discarded. Why wait until you could do the most damage? A bit of advice much earlier in the process (when I asked for it) would have shown good faith and might have encouraged others to contribute to Wikipedia. I am beginning to regret this entire process.

Vidlit 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The prejudice against entire categories of web content
When Wikipedia was first created blogs were a rarity and shared content sites such as YouTube and MySpace did not exist. All of the published policies and guidelines appear to point to this.

But the internet is continually changing and Wikipedia needs to adapt to this evolution in a reasonable manner. All things being equal, genuine content should be far more important than the web packaging. More and more authorative articles will be appearing on sites which senior Wikipedians may choose to look down upon as blogs. It is already apparent that blog is used as a perjorative term among Wikipedia editors from the numerous comments that appear on talk pages. When is this kind of thinking going to be updated? I am not asking for a change or even a relaxation of the rules - just for some common sense to be applied.

Vidlit 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment, my common sense tells me that you don't need a directory of thirty-odd external links to describe what is, quite honestly, an almost self-descriptive subject. I'm afraid that I'm not really interested in a grand debate on the state of Wikipedia; there are many other places here where you can do that.  I've tried to assist you, if you need anything else, please let me know.  Kuru  talk  03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vidlit, what you are seeing isn't a prejudice against the category of web content. It's a prejudice against material that hasn't been studied in a rigorous and academic manner. The prejudice against blogs and youtube isn't because they are new - the essence of them isn't new. It's because they are simply an online version of that very old phenomenon, the vanity press. Vanity press material, regardless of the medium that is used to convey it, is not reliable. If what you are trying to convey has not yet been looked at by a source that publishes reliable analysis, it may just not be ready to write an encyclopedia article about. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Advertisement.
"To see an excellent example of what a large publishing house can achieve on a big budget then I recommend the animated/video book trailer for the Lemony Snicket series of books. The "12 Books in 120 Seconds" narrated by Tim Curry is extremely visual but as the images are created from the illustrations in the books the visuals are an enhancement rather than a distraction. This is far more effective than using a filmic style. Some of the film-school offerings in this genre make you want to see more of the movie rather than read the book and somehow seem to miss the object of the exercise. What makes a good book trailer is a suggestion of complexity, depth of the characters and sub-plots. A bad book trailer is too much like a film trailer and adopts precisely the opposite tactic, focussing on a strapline and striving to produce a simple, concentrated message. This method is suitable for channel-changing TV viewers but does not produce the goods when it comes to book promotion."

This should be rewritten or, better yet, removed. --208.127.64.231 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete outright?
User:Vidlit, who constructed virtually this entire article, appears to be either working for somebody with a sales agenda or else to have an unhealthy obsession with a trivial subject. It is absurd to call book trailers a "genre" or a "field": they are neither art nor scholarship except in a very fringe, derivative way. They are advertisements. The text has been changed to reflect this. But I rather think that this and trailer (film ought to be a single article, say trailer (advertisement), which might note that they can be directed equally well toward all kinds of mdeia. I assume therer is a trailer (video game) too. After all, are to have an article Trailer (play) or Trailer (vacation) as soon as some idiot in marketing realizes such-and-such techniques can be used to advertise other things too, and thinks himself clever and insightful for it?

What I'm always astonished at is how transparently bad self-promotional wikipedia articles are: as though people advertising things are psychologically incapable of even trying to make their product look like a serious subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.22.96 (talk)

I vote NOT DELETE outright. I have never heard of such a thing, but did see the video trailer for the latest Bill Bryson book some time back. I guess I just categorized it as an advertisement but didn't give it much more thought than that. This article does need a lot of outside help though. It does read like an advertisement of its own but I think the idea of the article is interesting and informative. Anyway, my 2¢. JohnCub 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't out and out calling for a vote, since I'm happy to leave that to people with more administrative background here. I was just adding two cents as well. For what it's worth, I wasn't suggesting the content be banished, but rather that it's doubtful it needs its own article. (There's honestly not more than a few sentences worth keeping in what's written there. Again, my pennies.

Cosproductions 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I find "Music Video" here in the Wikipedia, and feel that "Book Video" is just as relevant. The biggest difference is that music videos are already an acceptable media/advertisement/entertainment and book videos are a new concept. The problem with working with a developing media or advertising idea is the learning curve of the general public. Though I've seen numerous book videos on television and in movie theaters as well as all over the internet, I still find many people who have no idea what they are, even after viewing one. And, it is in that fact that I find Wikipedia to be such a wonderful resource. How long will it take before the term ever shows up in the Encyclopedia?

I agree that no article should be totally self-promoting, though as a writer of articles and owner of a company that make Book Trailers, I can see how it might be difficult to write such an article and not refer to your own products. This especially holds true when the article in question is on a topic that is so new, and there are so few companies out there making them.

The term Book Trailer, even though it is a US Registered Trademark, should appear here. People are curious about them. Perhaps, in the interest of neutrality, the term should be changed to Book Video and the article written in a less promotional manner. I would rather see a shorter article with stronger reliable sources, than a long one that no one trusts. Either way, I hope this is cleared up and would be happy to work with VidLit to co-author the piece. Cosproductions 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)COS Productions


 * This topic strikes me as very dubious in terms of notability. I would support a nomination for deletion. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just discovered this page and frankly I am surprised and dismayed at the sheer hostility that has been expressed by the Wikipedia foundation against the person or persons responsible for this article.

Is it really necessary to make such unfounded and unhealthy personal comments about someone who has tried to make a contribution - however misguided?

I have looked back through the history of this page and see that the author was new to creating Wikis and had asked for help.

This is a very bad example of how to manage a collaborative resource and I think you owe the author and the originators of Wikipedia an unreserved apology.

Shame on you!


 * I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this comment was added by the same person or persons from Cosproductions who created this article as an advertisement for their product. They have in common that neither is willing to go to the trouble of finding out how wikipedia works, or they would realize that tha hostility comes not from the Wikipeida foundation but from readers who are rightly offended at seeing a project like this perverted to serve people's personal money-making interests.

Short Films based on books are not a new genre in and of themselves, since filmmakers have been making films inpsiried by the written word for quite some time, just like feature filmmakers. What is new however, and what COS Productions, VidLit, and BookShorts production companies are doing, is to contextualize shorts inspired by books with the books themselves. Music Videos were originally marketing for new albums, and became an art form. Similarly, movie trailers were marketing for feature films, and now, there are "movie trailers" made for feature films that don't exist - they have become a genre of media in and of themselves. Book Videos, Book Trailers, VidLits, BookShorts -- these are all trade names for what is quite legitimately a new genre. Speaking only from my own perspective, BookShort films have been curated as *art* in half a dozen film festivals in the US and Canada. The films are juried by experts in the field of filmmaking - not by ad agencies or promotion marketing firms -- which seems like a very strong argument for recognizing the genre. Not all productions are artistically worth of the moniker, but we are all trying to be entertainment first adn foremost, which is how we bring value to directors, authors, composers, and the many artists we support by making this media. BookShorts 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)BookShorts

If you haven't checked out book trailers, or if you want to see some really cools ones I've found a few places that are really good. My favorite is on (deleted), but I also like the new ones on the (deleted) site at (deleted) and go to the (deleted), and I love the (deleted) site too. VidLits are pretty cool (deleted). (deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.155.206.122 (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I helpfully removed the linkspam/advertising from your comment.

--Cosproductions (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC) As to the above - COS Productions did not create the article as an advertisement. Nor were we accused of that. Nor did we submit something that you needed to delete. Perhaps, because this has gone on for so long, it is unclear where the problems originated. But, at no time was COS Productions using the article as self advertisement. We came across the article and added in our two cents, but there were already problems before that. We have offered to work with VidLit or any other interested party to help get this article cleared up. Hopefully we'll find someone who can figure out how to properly re-write and re-submit this article.