Talk:Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard

Merge?

I can't see how this article can exist without merging with the Matthew Shepard article. I don't think that listing the cast of a movie works as a section on this article, and there are other problems with content. Is this topic able to stand on its own? I would like to hear why it can't be done as a shorter section in the Shepard articleMrathel (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Matthew Shepard should be only about him, and the events surrounding his death. Similar to To Kill a Mockingbird and To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, but that article had a deletion tag for quite sometime and probably deserved it, and Matthew shephard is no To Kill a Mockingbird. Mrathel (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that one was a man and the other is a novel, then I quite agree. In the sense that TKaM is a Featured Article, and Matthew Shepard needs a whole lot of work to expand it to a fully fleshed out biography and discussion of the impact of Shepard's death, I also agree. But I would not agree that one has had more of an impact than the other. Should a merge occur and Shepard's article expanded to the length it should be, the cultural depictions info would be deleted or relegated to a footnote. It should stay here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, well I can see how my comparison fell a bit flat; i was more or less focusing on the idea that one was a book and another is a person. A depiction of a book and a depiction of a person are two very different matters. If these deictions have notability, they are notable enough to be in the Shepard article. If not, then they are a list of trivia, which means they don't belong anywhere. My first impression was that this has become a dump where notable and non-notable items that belong or do not belong in the Shepard article have come to hide.Mrathel (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the Harvey Milk article, most of the tributes have been moved to a footnote. They all made news, so they are notable enough to be included, but for the space of the article, they're just too much of a list. You're right that this is a dump. Such things happen to articles of lower quality. Rarely are GAs or FAs added to include such trivia, and if they are, it is usually removed fairly quickly. --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting this material in its own article here seems to make sense in that it allows the Matthew Shepard article to stay more on-topic on the murder and not diverging to discuss the plays etc. I'd advocate the opposite, to shorten the cultural section of that article to just a precis, and direct people here. Michael-Zero (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

redundancy

several of the links in the first paragraph alone link right to this article, because apparently plays like the laramie project don't deserve their own page, but still have blue active links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.176.140 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

something i dont understand with this page, as youve said, The Laramie Project dosnt have its own page, & yet fictional characters from TV shows have their own pages. Considering how large a section of this article the content about 'Laramie Project' is, there has got to be enough for its own page, & i also think its important enough in its own right. The play & film are big enough to not just be listed as a Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. They are also not just about Matthew, but the effects on Laramie of that event.
Any objections to 'The Laramie Project play/film' having its own page? 81.151.117.72 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Non free?

Why does this article have a tag that it has "excessive" use of non-free material? All I can see is a graphic of the promotional material for one play and one movie, and a graphic of a book cover, which are allowable fair-use under Wikipedia policy. Michael-Zero (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Italicized title

Anyone know of a good reason this article's title is in italics? Rivertorch (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably cause it's an sub-article?94.218.74.176 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317133521/http://www.lclark.edu/org/piolog/arts2003oct24.html to http://www.lclark.edu/org/piolog/arts2003oct24.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20060521134322/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com.au/artists/Trivium/index.aspx?PageNum=2 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com.au/artists/Trivium/index.aspx?PageNum=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/25210.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)