Talk:Trench coats in popular culture

Duplication

There seems to be a lot of duplication (or doubling? not a native speaker, sorry) in this article. E.g. some things are in or could belong to all of the following categories: "in movies", "Science fiction" and "Film". 84.188.223.206 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

The Olsen Twins aka The Trenchcoat Twins are not noted why? 74.100.124.154 (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Image

Until recently, the image here was of Benedict Cumberbatch filming Sherlock. This image is a very recent actor, but in an iconic role. The photo was not perfect, showing perhaps a third of the trench coat it is meant to depict.

Now we have the beginnings of an edit war to try to change the image to one of the Olsen twins. Yes, we see the trench coats in full. However it is a posed publicity photo for a relatively obscure role.

(To me, the topic positively screams Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon, Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau, Dick Tracy or Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes. That two of these are missing is past of a different problem with this article...)

In any case, for the moment I am restoring Cumberbatch. The editor who boldly replaced it with the Olsen's was reverted. Now, per bold - revert - discuss, it is time to discuss the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Olsen twins???? This is not a parody article. The Olsen twins have ZERO association with trench coats. MightyDinoPower15 is your goal here to do what's best for the article or to win an edit war at any cost? It would be better to take a photo of a trench coat hanging on a coat rack than to use an image of the Olsen twins. Please stop this absurdity unless you can come up with a serious image that can be used by Wikipedia. There are images at Sherlock Holmes that depict a trench coat, any of which would be superior to a silly picture of the Olsen twins. Sundayclose (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In a series of kidlit books, the Olsen twins are a device to sell the books and are referred to as "the Trenchcoat(sic) Twins".[1] This weak association is at least as good as the character in The Breakfast Club who wears a trench coat that is really an overcoat in the beginning and end of the movie. (See the next topic for more on this issue.)

I do agree, however, that this is not the best image for the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Example farm/notability

This article is little more than a dumping ground for editors who noticed that their favorite characters wore trench coats at some point.

At the moment, we have one source. It is used to confirm that two characters wore trench coats. Other than the broad, vague opening statement ("distinctive...many famous...variety"), the rest of this article is a list of characters that someone spotted in a trench coat. We could also create Socks in popular culture, Pencils in film, Brick walls in comics, etc.

If the only thing we have here is that someone wore one at the end of one film, one character always wears one (in New York City, in the summer...) and someone else wears a trench coat that really isn't a trench coat (Seriously?), we do not have a topic for an article.

To have an article called "Trench coats in popular culture", we need sourced content discussing the use of trench coats in popular culture: Why the association with detectives? Where and when? Connection with villains and those dark, brooding anti-heros with a troubled past? This article, at the moment, is List of fictional trench coat wearers which might have been spun off from that theoretical article when the section got out of hand.

The list is an example farm. It is neither a complete list of every instance in popular culture nor a selective list. Instead, we omit some of the most iconic appearances (no mention at all of Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon and a bare mention of one of dozens of Sherlock Holmes portrayals...) in favor of brief appearances in more recent fare that are insignificant to the character and the work, let alone popular culture.

There is probably material out there discussing something similar to this subject. I'll see if I can find anything. The random, indiscriminate list, however, has to go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Lists like this attract excess to an enormous proportion. They often start out reasonably and then collect every editor's favorite example, most of which are not notable. I think the list should be cut down to a few stellar examples and and merged with Trench coat. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Selective merger to Trench coat

As discussed above, this article does not discuss trench coats in popular culture. Instead it is an indiscriminate list of examples of trench coats (and/or overcoats, apparently) that various editors have noticed in recent fiction (mostly comics, movies and TV). There is very little to save here. A few well-sourced, iconic examples at the target article should suffice. (Demanding strong sourcing that the examples are far more than merely "true" should help protect that article from the relentless accumulation of trivial examples.)

Keep *I disagree it's a fine list — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

MightyDinoPower15: In your opinion, what should the objective selection criteria be to keep this otherwise boundless list to a reasonable length? At the moment, the editors don't seem to have agreed on what is or is not a trench coat, let alone which entries are significant. Should the article be renamed, given that it is a list of trench coats appearing in recent fiction, rather than an article about trench coats in popular culture? We don't currently have any sources that give lists of trench coats in recent fiction, do you have such lists in reliable sources to establish notability? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To add to that question, what is it about this particular example farm that justifies making an exception to Wikipedia's policy against indiscriminate collection of information? Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because I messed up a little doesn't mean you have to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyDinoPower15 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anything you did. This article simply doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Merge a very small number of the most notable examples, per the discussion above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Merge what remains. I've gone through and removed everything that was unreferenced (and unlikely to ever be referenced), leaving two examples with sources. A short "in popular culture" section can be added to the main article, and there are certainly sources for Bogart's iconic trench coat in Casablanca and other films. This is a good source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/trench-coat-made-its-mark-world-war-i-180955397/ ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was bold.

The two remaining examples are already in the article. If we have anything to actually say about the use of trench coats in popular culture -- from reliable sources, of course -- it likely can fit into the existing target article. Given the nature of the article, it would most likely do best as inclusions in the History section(s), IMO. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It had to be done. The merge discussion needed to be moved along in a decisive way – especially considering that there is only one holdout who shows no sign of changing his mind or improving this article. He has stated that he thinks it's fine as it is, which is clearly not the case. The improvement tags had been up there for a long time. If there is nothing to merge, let's tag this for deletion and be done with it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Now it's been reverted. The "discuss" part should be interesting.

Here's my part: We have an indiscriminate list of popular culture appearances of trench coats (and a few non-trench coats for some reason). Off the top of my head, the list violates WP:V/WP:PSTS (it lacks secondary sources), WP:NOT (there are no inclusion criteria), WP:IPC/WP:EXAMPLEFARM (it's a list of examples with no sourced discussion of importance or impact) and several other policies and guidelines.

I don't really see any meaningful argument that any of these don't apply (correct me if I'm wrong). If they apply and for some reason you feel this article should be an exception to the policies and guidelines, feel free to explain.

So far we have a small but well argued consensus to essentially just redirect this to the main article. If anyone feels there might be opinions to the contrary out there, I'd suggest starting a request for comments. Otherwise, this article will likely be redirected in a few weeks or so.

(Edit conflict): I don't feel all that strongly either way. On the one had, an AfD would likely be fairly quick and decisive. On the other hand, It's nice to see MightyDinoPower15 on a talk page. Do as you see fit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. This wasn't helpful. An edit summary or talk page comment explaining why you are doing what you are doing is helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not helpful at all. It seems to indicate, in a petulant way, that he's given up. We could just turn this into a redirect now, and be done with it. It's an empty article, essentially, so could be speedied. The question is, is this a search term that is likely to be helpful for people doing research? I'm not set on deletion, I'm just asking a question. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Communication from MightyDinoPower15 is the only way we could really know what they are trying to do.

As for a "speedy", I'm not really seeing a speedy delete at an AfD. At best, maybe an early close due to snow. I'd be happy to let this sit for just a bit longer as we really don't have many voices here, with the most recent arriving just yesterday, a full week after the three original editors weighed in.

I guess I'm pretty sure this article will go away, but I don't see any reason (BLP, copyvio, etc.) to speed it through. I think a reasonable wait here will provide sound ground for killing a likely resurgence as a section in the main article.

For the moment, I am reverting MightyDinoPower15's most recent edit as there is no explanation given for it and we can't even seem to imagine a good reason for it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't clear above. What I meant is that, if the article is essentially empty, it could be speedied – I wasn't actually suggesting that route. I have no objection to letting the matter sit for now, as I am in no hurry, and I do think discussion should continue. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's now been more than two weeks with no further discussion. I think we can consider the matter closed and proceed with the merger. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As discussed, the only sourced info we have here is already in the target, so the SMERGE is really just a redirect.

The target's structure is a bit wonky ("History" and "Post-1945" are really divisions of a true history section), so I've simply sent it to the article (rather than a section). If anyone thinks a section would be better, I have no objection. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)