Talk:King Kong in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within popular culture articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Sept. 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] A Summer Place

I have put back in a modified version of the paragraph about a A Summer Place that was taken out. A Summer Place is not trivia because in the book Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture, the author opens Chapter 3 with two pages (121 & 122; also 128 & 142 later on) that talk about the links between A Summer Place and King Kong. She uses this device to lead into a wider discussion about King Kong in the 1950s (re-releases etc). Bláthnaid 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful re-write, by the way. This is what a "in popular culture" article should be. --Haemo 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a fun article to write. Bláthnaid 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kong Fight.jpg

Image:Kong Fight.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing redirect

I have removed the redirect and reinstated this article, which was merged into King Kong (franchise) without any discussion. IMO King Kong in popular culture can have an individual article because the topic of this article meets WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As seen in the reference section, the book Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture published by Wayne State University Press is entirely about King Kong in popular culture. There is an entry about King Kong in the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. There is also quite a bit about King Kong in culture in the book King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson.

King Kong in popular culture should also have its own article because of the summary style guidelines. I do think that the King Kong (franchise) article is a good idea for merging the character articles, and there should be a few paragraphs about impact in popular culture in it. However there is too much sourced information in King Kong in popular culture (it is more than 2,000 words long) that will have to be taken out because King Kong (franchise) is already 27kb long with more than 10 sections that need expansion. The section headings have already been lost in the franchise article, and more of the sourced information will have be trimmed to make the franchise article a manageable length. There is no room for the popular culture article to be developed further or for more sourced information to be added to it. Being part of a merged article also makes it difficult to keep the crufty info out. Bláthnaid 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I totally agree with your restoration of this article. The King Kong (franchise) article seems unnecessary, it mostly duplicates content already dealt with much better in the main King Kong article, apart from (as you mentioned) the other characters, but they should probably be listed in their own List of King Kong characters. I noticed the editor who is merging all these existing King Kong articles without discussion to his new King Kong (franchise) has also turned Queen Kong, The Mighty Kong, and others into redirects. Those films are all notable in their own right and deserve their own articles. 92.0.85.215 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)