Talk:TV Tome

message: *Support, this is a pathetic article, but merge TV Tome with it and we will have a good article. I tend to go for merging articles where possible, SqueakBox 21:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::We already have a good article — TV Tome.  TV.com is a brand new article, and it will improve over time.  We shouldn't merge disparate articles simply because one is inferior to the other (especially as a lazy alternative to adding new content).  The TV Tome article contains very little information pertaining to TV.com, so this proposal is analogous to requesting that Apples be merged with Oranges.
::And for the record, I'm a Mergist.  —Lifeisunfair 09:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, already, I withdraw the proposal. Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to; it's been seven days. :-)  —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Having no references or sources, the entire criticism section is suspect.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place to put your personal complaints about subjects.  If there are no objections, I shall remove this entire section in a week's time. -- Perfecto 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous. The purden of proof is not on the removed to provide sources to "discredit" the original research. The burden is on the adder to source it. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: This article is hard to read, which usually calls for cleanup.  However, with this original research situation, I believe that this article should be rewritten to remove the original research and become an actual NPOV article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May I recommend web.archive.org, from which many past versions of the site are accessible? Agent0042 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking of saying the same thing, but I guess you got here before me. Anyway here is the link to web.archive.org aka The Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tvtome.com This site lists all the versions of tvtome since it started archiving to the present. Each one is clickable and has a rather complete (if slow) archive of the website. Someone could in fact easily download the entire archive of the most recent version change the name from tvtome to something else and ressurect the entire website. Someone correct me if this is breaking copyright, as IMO if the name is different shouldn't cause much of a fuss as all of the information was user submitted. Ergzay 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite needed 

message: I'm going to redirect John Nestoriak here, as most of the information there is not about the man.  I'm pasting the content here because it shouldn't be lost I'm unsure where to work it into this disorganized article:
:John Nestoriak was the founder and head developer of TV Tome and Movie Tome. TV Tome was on the web around June 2000 and Movie Tome was added November 2003, with plans to make a Music Tome. These plans were cancelled when John Nestoriak sold the Tome franchise to CNET Games and Entertainment in February 2005, much to the dismay of the majority of members. The editors were the first to be told via an e-mail sent 22 April 2005. The TV Tome website was no more as of 6 June 2005, replaced by the new site www.tv.com.
Have fun with it, someone....  — Catherine\talk 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Nestoriak 

message: I think this site should be added to the clones/spin-offs section. It was launched shortly after the demise of TV Tome, even before TV rage I think and offers much the same content in a slightly different layout.--Gsapient 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodeworld 

message: Who else misses tvtome...i hate tv.com...i miss tv tome...it was so much easier to use  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.168.164 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Unfortunately, this isn't quite appropriate for the talk page, as, per WP:TALK, it is only for disucssions of improvements in the article, not of the subject.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who else misses Tv Tome???? 

message: Why did they buy TV Tome if they're not going to use the domain or any of the content on the website? 184.96.220.172 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did CNET buy TV Tome? 

message: "The website uses a simple design that attempts to recreate the original TV Tome concept." This is not true. The webmaster said on one of the forums that before finding a graphics designer, he didn't have anybody to consult him on how the website should look. It still uses a simple design, but expanded with slideshows, etc. There are other features and I think they are trying to compete with IMDB, and of course TV.com, but at the same time they have said many times that they are NOT the "tv.com sucks site" and I have no idea of if they desire to "attempt to recreate the original TV Tome concept." It is all coincidence! In-Correct (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Rage