Talk:Melrose Place
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melrose Place article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1825 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Characters section or List of Characters Article
Seems that this article has a weak characters section. Most TV shows, especially long running ones, have a list or bullet point characters section, or even a link to another article "List of Characters On...". Melrose had a lot of well known characters and cast members and it deserves expansion. --96.49.117.96 (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The MOS and Arrested Development) and Lists in the genre (or at least higher-rated ones) rather than just "popular" or high-traffic ones. — TAnthonyTalk 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)]
- If I could add my opinion. I think it's merited for a soap opera that features a long and ever-changing cast. I think that a prose article for a long running soap opera is unwieldly. It's good for describing the characters and their histories, but sometimes for data purposes, you just want a tabular list. I don't think a list, put neatly in a table format, looks bad or is unnecessary. Melrose had a long list of cast members and it's easier for quick access to check the list to see who starred on the show and for how long.
- In a prose format, you have to read the whole article just to see what season a character left or joined the show.
- I know that Wiki standards hate lists and templates and prefer prose, but most other TV articles have it. I know it's not ideal, but when almost all of them have it and one show doesn't it stands out.
- That is all well and good, but just because a lot of articles do a "bad" thing is no reason to perpetuate the practice. I'm guessing that the "most other TV articles" to which you refer are probably, as I noted above, not "Good" articles or above. The new list in this article isn't overly long so I'm not going to strip it out immediately, but your argument about people needing quick access to coming and going info kind of enforces the idea that WP articles should be sources of trivia, which they are not intended to be. In general, readers looking for minutae are meant to continue on to IMDb.com or other sites. The "new" Melrose" has a list because it has yet to be expanded into a proper Characters section, which of course would be lame after only five episodes.— TAnthonyTalk 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Months ago, I proposed a merger of
WP:PLOT is against it. However, I wonder if there is interest to put effort into doing a bold thing. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
]
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. I give little weight to the opposes. The relevant question which no one addressed with any evidence but assertion, is whether this is the primary title, through evidence of
commonality. I suspect it may be, but I'm not going to guess and I'm finding myself far too often as a closer having to the do the research myself because it wasn't provided.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
]
WP:NCTV's disambiguating by year and stuff? What about Psycho (film)? Actually, maybe the show itself is more familiar to people outside the U.S. more than any other street with the same name, which inspired the TV show --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
]
- Slight Support - I lean in the direction of renaming to Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Oppose - the rules at WP:NCTV have been hammered out over many years of discussion and experience. No case has been made for changing them. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Oppose; disambiguated titles must be fully disambiguated. (This is contrary to my stance two years ago on the Psycho (film) discussion; I apparently have changed my mind.) That said, I would support a move to the base name, as this is, I think, the clear primary topic. We don't even have an article on the street! Powers T 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: 100 percent. There has no reason. ApprenticeFan work 02:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - to Melrose Place, any other shows are based on this one, the street is of little notability.--MrBoire (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Another requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:TWODABS, we do not need the disambiguation page. Furthermore, it is my opinion that when there are only two options, the threshold for primacy can and should be much lower than normal, to increase the number of opportunities to avoid a disambiguation page. Powers T 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
]
- Support - Is there a real Melrose Place outside U.S.? Anyway, as an original proposer of the prior request, at first I was unsure about its primacy because there is Melrose Avenue. However, I don't think any other article than the 2009 revival has the same name as this series, and the revival one is too short-lived to make itself primary. Therefore, the old series is our best shot. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support Pretty straightforward case. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The renamed article title (from Melrose Place to Melrose Place (1992 TV series) was moved by now-indefinitely blocked user (see log page). George Ho is right and the 1992 series is the original version. ApprenticeFan work 02:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support ~ per George Ho Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Have you noticed?
Have you noticed that one of the stars was John Newton born in 1725?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.177.6.62 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)