Talk:Trailer (book)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: February 2007

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The prejudice against entire categories of web content 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Blatant Advertisement. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I helpfully removed the linkspam/advertising from your comment.
--Cosproductions (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete outright?