Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture

FYI. Ikip (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result of this thread was merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture underwent an AfD discussion, and there was no consensus, largely due to an attempted article rescue amidst discussion. The article contains some useful content which has since already been copied over to this film article in its "Impact" section, so this content is not lost. This leaves that content as well as indiscriminate trivia in the popular culture article. Since the merge has already been done, I request a redirect from the popular culture article to the "Impact" section of this film article. The film article is hardly large, and per WP:SS, there does not need to be a sub-article spun off. So with the redirect, the useful content is here in this film article, and we can dismiss all the inane instances of the film ever being mentioned, even in a single line of some TV episode. For what it is worth, the closing admin for the aforementioned AfD noted an interest in merge, hence this discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect, the scholarly content is already located here. Mintrick (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as separate articles. Some users found the list of examples useful and we should humor our fellow editors. No reason not to have both articles just because of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as separate articles. There is enough information to fill its own article, so might as well have them separate. Dream Focus 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge As I suggested late in the AfD. All the scholarly content is at the main article which renders the other article useless. The only difference between the two is that the latter also contains a clear violation of WP:TRIVIA. ThemFromSpace 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge - trim the trivia and merge the notable content back into its proper context on the main article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep them separate. Quistisffviii (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Save Ferris Quistisffviii (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, trivia article with a fancy title.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge Nothing (besides trivia) that can't be covered here. Ferris Bueller's Day Off currently has 23kB of article size, a far cry below WP:SIZE's "May need to be divided" 30kB mark for readable prose size. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge this is a content fork filled with trivia. This works best as 2-3 graphs in the main article on the movie.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Develop a section within the article comprised of a few paragraphs and keep the most notable occurrences which are sourced. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I don't see how this could not be presented (in prose form) in the film's article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• either merge or not, but keep most of the content-- one article or two doesnt matter. The content does. Add sources where needed, of course. Personally, I think there's enough content that it would be better separate. DGG (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - As per sgeureka, and not per DGG. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all content and merge. Important movie in pop culture. Whether its notable or not is just a matter of opinion, NOT a matter of fact. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect - Developed content already present in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Notice: Dream Focus (talk · contribs) engaged in excessive cross-posting to notify all editors from the AfD for the popular culture article even when the discussion already attracted enough attention (though the attention may have been considered so far unfavorable by the editor, who opposes merging). —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And you are the one who nominated this, so perhaps object to more attention. Stop guessing the intent of others. Its pointless and assumes bad faith. When an AFD ends, if you try to then merge everything, then everyone who participated should be notified. And lets try to keep this on topic, shall we? Dream Focus 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer community notifications to talk page spamming. I mentioned the discussion at WT:FILM#Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture since it was a film-related topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect - valid, sourced content has already been merged; nothing else to keep. Unsourced stuff doesn't need to be moved over. Redirect old list to the Impact section. In general, an "in popular culture" section shouldn't be split from the main article, and this article as a whole is certainly not so long or unwieldy that it can't support this content, leaving no reason for such a split to exist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge Length of the film article is not long enough (yet!) to necessitate a separate article for the pop culture influences. Not all of the influences on that page are appropriate to be listed in the depth of detail given (many are mention-in-passing). --MASEM (t) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Either merge everything from the other article (which has not been done, content has been selected on a seemingly arbitrary basis) or keep. Probably best to keep, as it seems at least some editors on this page don't want the content here. JulesH (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge: Trim out the unsourced stuff and don't transfer the bits of info that mention when the film was simply parodied or name-dropped. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion Why not edit the article back and forth and determine what should be kept, before deciding upon a merge or not? Otherwise its kind of a mute discussion. You can't make a decision without knowing exactly what information is going to be merged. To merge means most of the content will be lost. Edit the article to be what you consider an appropriate amount of information, get people to agree upon that, and then decide if you can merge that much information over. If there is enough valid information left, then there is no reason not to have a side article for it, instead of doubling the size of the main article. Since I see nothing wrong with having a long article on this, there plenty of information about to demonstrate just how influential this film was, I still say Keep, no matter what, not delete most of it and merge the rest, to trim down and eliminate over time because you consider it pointless trivia. Dream Focus 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Why not edit the article back and forth and determine what should be kept … "

"I still say Keep, no matter what, … "

You seem to have answered your own question. pablo_hablo. 10:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For those who say merge, they need to be aware what they are voting for. Do they realize that most of what is there now will be deleted, or do they believe every bit of information will be merged over? Even if every bit there was proven valid, it'd still be too long to fit, and thus would be trimmed down. Dream Focus 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There will be information lost if it is merged, yes, but a good chunk of that information is unsourced and trivial. There are valid points in that article to be kept, but not every single one. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/'Redirect after any content of significance is incorporated into the film article. Most of what's in the pop culture article are incidental mentions that are, at best, merely unencyclopedic. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to space concerns. Certainly completely uncited references may be removed. I won't have a stroke if it's merged, but I think it can stand alone. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture seems WP:PUFFed up with items that belong in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The Academic analysis section seems taken (perhaps in a hasty, AfD-driven Google Scholar search) from discussions about mass culture rather than about Bueller, but much of it would still enhance this article. The Influences on society and culture is entirely IPC spottings, and rather WP:IINFO—anyone who has ever watched the show knows cultural references on Family Guy are hardly a rare and important event—but some of it would be okay to keep in this article. The Lasting effects section is verbose with WP:PEACOCK arguments on how incredibly influential this film is—without checking histories, I imagine this also may be an artifact of the recent AfD—and could be re-written for inclusion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• keep Space concerns are an issue. Much fo the article is cited and more likely could be cited and added if research was done. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Seems reasonable. Protonk (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There's enough here to justify a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Merge sourced content. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge what relevant, sourced content there is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clean-up of "Influences on society and culture"

With the merge, I think it would help to clean up this section. A couple of good approaches, in my opinion, are to eliminate self-referential influences (citing the episode itself for a line) and influences cited by IMDb's user-submitted movie connections, which is unreliable. Items like Sexy Boy could be acceptable, but the problem is that Sexy Boy does not have an article. We should evaluate the section item by item. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Mind, the way I factored the merge, as an uninvolved admin, was straightforward should not be taken as any lasting way to handle this content. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

The deleted scenes, sans the radio show scene, were shown on the KVVU version of the movie when it aired, I think, during the early 1990s (some time between 1989 to 1994). I recorded the version and these scenes are in the airing of the movie. I haven't seen these scenes anywhere else. Anyways, other than combing KVVU's vaults, the tape that I recorded the movie onto is no longer able to keep a tracking status and is unwatchable (sigh), as is many Beta and VHS tapes that I have that are going over 15 years of age. Coffee5binky (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. I recently discovered the original theatrical trailer which includes snippets of these deleted scenes including a missing sibling as written in the original script. How much of these do you recall?--The lorax (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Broderick approves 'Bueller' remake

See here. Seems like this belongs somewhere in the article, but I couldn't really figure out where. BLGM5 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Annalise (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this over the next few days. I haven't looked over the article in detail yet, but so far it seems pretty good.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I'm going to go over this now and make sure everything's completely in order; if it's not, I'll most likely fix it myself.

   Generally, this is pretty good. In a lot of the quotations, though, the article has double quotes (") within double quotes. All of the quotes inside of quotations should be changed to single quotes ('). As well, the external link in the "deleted scenes" section should be removed or at least moved to the external links section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Make sure that all of the direct quotations are cited directly. Right now, there are a few where the citation is at the end of the paragraph/sentence or absent altogether. They all need to be cited immediately after the quote.

   It looks like this was mostly fixed, but the quote in the lead also needs to be cited directly. Never mind, going through there are still a lot of uncited quotes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Some of the captions ended with a full stop even though they weren't complete sentences, but I fixed that as I went through. Other than that, the images all look great.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All of the concerns I had have been cleared up. It looks like this pretty obviously qualifies for GA, congratulations! Annalise (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)