Talk:History of As the World Turns (1956–1960)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Update: Articles now has navigational box included. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:20, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason for this article not to be part of the original "As the World Turns" article. There will probably never be images under this article, and the history of the show is obviously the heart of the original page, rendering that article useless. Juppiter 00:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm alarmed that you are not talking about this issue, instead petulantly insisting that it should be on the original page. The original As the World Turns page was approaching 32k in space, and to alleviate loading problems, the history was moved to different pages. See the All My Children article for similar spacing. I have since renamed the page to History of As the World Turns (1956-1959) for the sake of uniformity in the soap articles (the AMC articles are named the same way). I vote Keep, as well as to keep any other ATWT history article, or AMC history, or any soap history. Mike H 01:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as a perfectly acceptable way of keeping the size of the main article down to a reasonable length. Mike H. did the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote Keep for a clear and obvious reason. When I began to edit the ATWT page, there was a clear sign at the top of the page which said the contents had reached 34K and that something had to be done to ratchet the content down to 32K. If you look at what was done with Saturday Night Live, you will see that putting the history into separate pages preserves the record of past entries as well as frees up room on the main page. Why does this deserve to be deleted? How does doing what the site ASKS us to do grounds for deletion? This is very odd. --JamesB3 02:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - see Wikipedia:Article size for guidance on splitting large pages. -- Cyrius| 02:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would suggest merging the history pages to one History of As the World Turns. Chopped up like this, it is too hard to get an overview. Fredrik | talk 02:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - and I agree with Fredrik's comment, one big history page would be better than 5 decade-pages. -- Sander 08:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to keep the information in the article, but the way it's currently named suggests that there's too much to say about the history of As the World Turns, which doesn't seem to be the case. Merge the pages to History of As the World Turns. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • As it existed on the As the World Turns page, the combined history was 23 kB. When splitting pages, the recommendation is to get the results under 20 kB so that future splits are not necessary. -- Cyrius| 02:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The main reason I split it into different categories is because every decade of the show is/was unique and if everything is bunched into one page it will be laborious to add new information, or to avoid the 32K limit. I will admit that others know more about this than I do, I was just trying to follow the guidelines as I saw them, and the history of 50's-04 seemed pretty massive to me. --JamesB3 02:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: There should probably be links between the various decades to make navigation easier. DCEdwards1966 02:20, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. DCEdwards1966's suggestion is apt. Samaritan 02:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aesthetically and in terms of information flow I preferred to have it all one one page, but as space became a concern I think creating separate pages for the decades was as good a solution as we could hope for. I disagree with merging the decades into one section, as I think each decade has its own flavor and this would make it more difficult to know where to add information. I agree that navigational links between the decades would help make the split-up article more useable. Sterntreiber 04:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I just finished creating a bridge between each of the decades. I know it's not perfect, but what do you guys think?--JamesB3 04:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think: Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep. Should be de-listed. Everyking 07:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per article-size guidelines. A shame guidelines are not consulted more thoroughly before some VfD listings. Dan100 09:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the various decades into a single History of As the World Turns article. 23k isn't really bad, certainly not bad enough to make a more or less random cut. - Andre Engels 09:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it can't go back in the main article, it shouldn't be deleted, but I think some navigational boxes could be useful. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The histories can get very long, and a single history page probably is not feasible. See History of All My Children (1990-1999) for a page that got quite long. If it's grouped with other decades, it'll be yet another long page. I made a template box to navigate. Mike H 17:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: there's a reasonable case for more than one article. There's good evidence of continuing and sensible work on the suite of articles. This is a short article, but not a substub. Exactly how best to refactor the article into separate articles is best left to the editors, not VfD. My judgement is based on my belief that this particular topic is not only potentially but is actually growing, that the work being done is of good quality, and that this particular soap opera is notable enough and the work on it is thorough and encyclopedic enough to merit more than a single article. It does not mean that any soap opera automatically is entitled to multiple articles about it simply by virtue of being a soap opera. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think any show that has been on for at least thirty years deserves extra articles if there's already history written (in the case of ATWT and AMC). Obviously, not to just start an article with things branched out, but there was a reason why they're started in the first place. Mike H 19:21, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - With the nav boxes it's perfect. --Key45 19:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Atwtbw.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Atwtbw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I believe that the existing title is misleading, as it implies that the history of the series in the real world (i.e., first airing, creators and talent arriving and leaving, etc.), is covered, when it is not. Maybe a better title would be "Plot of AtWT (1956-1959)?" John Carter 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]