Talk:Das Boot (2018 TV series)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Das Boot (2018 TV series) 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 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Deletion of 1981 movie references
editI've deleted the references to the 1981 move on here. The comments made by the New York Times and others about the film are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. The New York Times is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines.
However, the points are not pertinent here because: 1. these sources have been copied word for word from the 1981 movie article page, and 2. These sources would fit only on the 1981 movie page. It makes no sense for it to be on the tv series page either. It's like putting reception of an original movie on a remake page. That's not even good logic.
I think this needs some discussion, as we now have three opinions on the material: two for inclusion, and one for removal.
- As I said on my talk page: I reverted back to prior because it was well cited to RS source, was not POV pushing and is clearly relevant for background information and given the fact the TV series is a continuation of the movie events. And one can use wording and sentences from other articles, as long as they are not copied from the source itself, "word for word"; one only has to state attribution in the edit summary; otherwise your revert is of "pertinent" information for the reader. There needs to be some background information as to the original movie for storyline, if for no other reason. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- If the series is related to the movie/references in some way, should it not be included? If the word-for-word isn't good, perhaps rewriting/paraphrasing could be done? Omnipresent Eldritch (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)