Jump to content

Talk:An American in Paris (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This is a disgracefully short and dismissive piece about one of the peak mid-20th century artistic achievements in cinema. Another has commented below about the mention of the "french" kid's flub. No argument against using it, but deeply shocking in light of any other anecdotes about the movie,whose history is extremely rich in anecdotes. Whoever edited this piece doesn't care much about the topic; or doesn't vare about it at all.

ea==Undue weight given to flub== In an article of this length about a film which won so many Academy Awards and honors, it seems like undue weight to include "Notably, near the beginning of the I Got Rhythm number, one of the "French" kids says Jerry, parle anglais à nous, which sounds rather curious, containing mistakes both in direct object placement and in respectful address. In the French soundtrack, which switches to the original sound for the duration of the songs, the à nous is masked through a plop sound, to make the sentence more palatable." Wikipedia articles about films are often harmed by original research flubs that someone has found. Unless this particular one can shown to have been mentioned by an independent and reliable source, it should be removed, since it goes against neutral point of view by harping too long on one perceived imperfection noted by a Wikipedia editor. Incidentally, in the subtitles of the movie, the kid says says "Jerry, parlez anglais." The kid's voice is heard saying additionally what sounds more like "a loo" than "a nous," not included in the subtitles. Since the kid has his back to the camera, the line could have been redubbed to say anything at little inconvenience or cost. Edison (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs More Stuff

[edit]

I agree, the Wiki article on "American in Paris" is way too short. This is one of my favorite musicals. Look at the "West Side Story" movie article--it goes on forever. This Wiki article can be greatly expanded. There must have been books written about it that can provide info. 64.169.154.82 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Some Stuff

[edit]

Gene Kelly wanted to shoot in Paris, but they built 44 sets at MGM instead. Alan Jay Lerner finished the screenplay the night before his wedding. Cyd Charisse was to play Leslie Caron's part but became pregnant. Arthur Freed wanted Marge Champion for the part. There are no words in the last 20 minutes, 25 seconds of the musical. Leslie Caron, who had suffered malnutrition in WWII, was too frail and could only work every other day. Vincente Minelli was busy divorcing judy Garland at the time, so Kelly would take over directing chores. They were running behind schedule and the big number at the end was to be dropped, but LB Mayer realized the film needed it, so he kept it in. 64.169.154.82 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more stuff

[edit]

http://vimeo.com/23782128 76.91.14.191 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Here to Stay

[edit]

Having just updated the subject page for the song Love Is Here to Stay, I thought it only appropriate that the song title be corrected on this page as well. The song is published, recorded on the An American in Paris Soundtrack , and referenced in all George Gershwin biographies as "Love Is Here to Stay". Although the phrasing when sung is misleading, and even Ira Gershwin himself toyed with the idea of changing the title, it is in fact simply: Love Is Here to Stay. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An American in Paris (film). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An American in Paris (film). 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:

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) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Just a quick question: were these mass edits really necessary? [1], [2], [3]. I didn't see anything wrong with the longstanding content that was there. I may be wrong, though. Maineartists (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PNW Raven I've noticed you have made a series of mass edits to this page. Before reverting, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind your edits. As you can see here: Help Desk Discussion, "edits should improve the article rather than just replacing one editor's preferences with another's." This seems to be what has happened here, since the entire content did not warrant such personal edits. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it because the text was overly long, too detailed, and was often clumsy, repetitive, laden with clunky prepositional phrasing that weakens sentence structure, and overall was not well written. It is unnecessary to always describe the physical details in a scene. We don't have to know that the characters were sitting in a café when one tells the other person something. We don't need to know about the "shadows of Notre Dame". Who cares if party guests were wearing "black and white" costumes, a detail that was awkwardly jammed into the text. It's all fluff and unimportant to a plot summary. These are details that people see when they "watch" the movie. Also, most people know that an "heiress" is a woman, which was a character detail that was written in two successive sentences. Rule of writing is to use as few words as possible, i.e. use one word instead of two or three when possible. Writers should use an "active voice" and not the "passive." What I did was a definite improvement. Plot summaries should be "brief" and not a point-by-point retelling of the entire movie. I do not recommend reverting it back to its original form. PNW Raven (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what you have done here. In many cases, your edits have added wording not reduced. In most cases, it has simply substituted; sometimes with more content than was there before. Side by side comparison does not in any way support what you are purporting to defend above. Your version is neither "brief" and still very much "point-by-point" retelling. I must disagree that your edits are a "definite improvement" and simply come across as simply a workspace for your personal preference for writing style and not WP policy for MOS. There are dozens of examples I could give here that are neither improvements, reductions, or grammatical corrections; but most important, it is not my duty to do as such. You have made the edits, and the burden for inclusion rests on those seeking to edit. Your first summary: "Trimmed length and unnecessary details" did neither of these. Furthermore, the following 5 edits had no reason given and showed personal workspace ethics; not main space editing. I understand small edits such as "black and white" and "heiress" (which by the way, you should know, you cannot say: "Also, most people know that an "heiress" is a woman" when editing at WP); I saw those. But you cancel these out as plausible reasons for such lengthy and extensive editing when you yourself edit "painter" to "artist", (which changes the definition completely) and "but someone at her table corrects her" to "but someone at her table misunderstanding, corrects her", and "Milo rents a large" to "Milo rents Jerry a spacious". These are just 3 quick examples of dozens upon dozens that counter your claims. These are not necessary but simply personal preference. I'm sorry. But you have not proven any plausible reason for your edits. Maineartists (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PNW Raven I'm not sure what you are doing at present, but hurriedly and editing in such a manner by haphazardly removing content or once again substituting similar defined words and phrases [4] is not good editing with reason. I would suggest you simply stop editing this article for a while. Maineartists (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are never "hurried" or "haphazard," and I always make a series of small edits, then step back and analyze. I will revert what I have written if I feel later that it is not working or think of a better way to write it. That is my style and everyone edits differently. If it seems I've "added" content, it is because I've condensed two or three sentence into one. I will change a word if it is more specific. For example, "painter" is vague while "artist" is more accurate. I do not have to follow any one person's method. I have indeed trimmed the summary's overall length. PNW Raven (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you are getting your reasoning from but "artist" envelopes all mediums of art (composer, writer, sculptor, manual art, alchemy, etc); while "painter" defines precisely Gene Kelly's character. He paints. You are not helping your cause by supplying personal definition and thought toward this editing process. Maineartists (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you contradict yourself. Your first 3 edits: [5], [6], [7] were anything but "small" and were made within a very short time frame. Likewise, from the time I posted my comment, you immediately made 3 separate edits compiling of 15 removals or changes within minutes. That to me is "hurried" and "haphazard". Burden of consensus remains with the one who wishes to edit. For such an extensive overhaul to content that had not gained consensus for change, there still has not been any plausible reason for your edits except: "That is my style." Which is not WP policy. Yes, everyone does edit differently; and on WP policy alone I could have boldly reverted your first edits on non-consensus. Maineartists (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misuse my words. I never said I edit content in a way that "is my style." I stated that the "mechanical way" in which I edit, meaning that I will often do a number of small edits over a short period time, is the style I work. I've been editing on Wikipedia and on Wikibooks for over ten years, so yes, I'm pretty fast at what I do. May I point out a "painter" can be someone who slaps paint on walls for a living. Artist is more accurate here. PNW Raven (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you write, publish, read, edit; write, publish, read, edit; even when you comment on this talk page proves that you write in haste and edit after the fact. You have been editing your own content for grammatical spelling mistakes the last 2 edits on this article. Just another point of editing in haste. Last, you are mistaking "small edits" with "extensive content changes" all at once. Your very first "edit" alone consisted of 88 individual changes which is comparative to individual draft work space editing, not main article space editing. A small edit would be what Eagleash carried out recently: [8] by focusing on one element and editing as such with a summary to reflect the edit: "redundancy to cast list". This allows other editors to either contest or offer consensus. With extensive content changes with nearly 100 individual edits, it is nearly impossible to offer productive input as a community. Maineartists (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have some personal connection to this particular article and are excessively possessive of it to where you're being unreasonably resistant. Your immediately swooping in to revert all edits and contacting the Help Desk and gaslighting the way you did indicates some conflict of interest here. As you apparently once edited on Wikipedia under another editor name (which on your Talk Page you would not disclose as requested and indicated it was blocked), I suspect you may have been involved in writing much of the "Paris" plot summary and now want to prevent anyone else's involvement. Objecting to a typo that I made and then corrected is an example of your obstructionism. Every editor makes typos! That was just grasping for any minor reason to justify your claims. Your overreach in trying to prevent changes borders on obsessive and extreme. I also do not have to stop editing anything simply because you say so. We are done discussing this. PNW Raven (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no connection what so ever. Your suspect is unfounded. I never once touched your edits. I opened a discussion. Not sure what 'gaslighting' you are talking about, but once again: your suspect is unfounded. Your paranoia based on trolling unrelated to this article is telling; but once again is not based in fact. I never objected to a typo, and it is not an example of obstructionism. But thanks for leaving the discussion. Maineartists (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this listed at the Help Desk. I've skimmed through PNW Raven's edits and don't see this as a matter of "writing style" but a matter of poorer versus better, clearer, more-correct English language usage, with PNW Raven's changes being decidedly better than the existing language. Proper English usage is not a matter of "style" as referenced in MOS:VAR and expressing the encyclopedia in the best, clearest, and least-clumsy English possible is always a substantially beneficial reason for making a change in an article. Having said that, it may be that there could be some disagreement over whether some of PNW Raven's individual changes are, in fact, clearer or more correct. (I'm not saying that such is the case, I'm just saying that it's a possibility that someone might disagree.) But the objection here by Maineartists is to PNW Raven's edits taken collectively, and my opinion/!vote is that on that collective basis that they're beneficial, appropriate, and ought to be retained. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TransporterMan; as a whole, these changes were beneficial to the article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Consensus reached. For the record, I have not - nor have I ever been - affiliated with the plot summary as was accused above. That being said: currently there are still errors and corrections needed to be made to this version; and I would hope that those supporting the initiating editor will also support those in the future when they edit to improve the same section. Maineartists (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maineartists - To be clear, I never said that you had touched any of my edits, but you did contact me in the beginning to let me know that you were reverting what I had written but was first giving me an opportunity to "explain myself." You had already contacted the Help Desk as if to round up a posse to be on your side. Maybe that was not your intention, but that is how it appears. No matter what problems I pointed out with the writing style, you countered it. When I made a correction to a typo that I had made, you tried to use this against me by claiming it showed that I worked too fast. If you have no prior involvement with composing the summary when it was written some years ago, then your extreme and immediate defense of it is puzzling. Maybe you could clarify that. Your explanation against my making any improvements was that there was "no consensus" that any were needed. If, going forward, you or anyone sees any errors or has suggestions, then please let me know. I have always worked collaboratively with other editors. PNW Raven (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can clear this up right now. Where did I: "contact [you] in the beginning to let [you] know that [I was] reverting what [you] had written"? Maineartists (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a notification at the top of my editor's page directing me to the Talk Page. PNW Raven (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just proved my point. I asked you: When did I "contact [you] in the beginning to let [you] know that [I was] reverting what [you] had written"? Not "how did you know I had contacted you" - or " how were you notified" ... but: when did I contact you in the beginning to let you know that I was reverting what you had written? Maineartists (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You actually asked "where" did you contact me, not "when." If the notification I received was not intentionally generated by you, then thank you for clarifying that. However, this is what was written at the beginning of this section: "PNW Raven I've noticed you have made a series of mass edits to this page. Before reverting, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind your edits." As I mentioned, I had received a notification alert at the top my page. Perhaps you didn't realize that adding my User name to the text had generated an alert. PNW Raven
I stand corrected. You are right. I did write that. My sincerest apologies. Maineartists (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We have exhausted this topic, and it's time we move on. PNW Raven (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current edits

[edit]

As I have stated before, the current editing of the plot summary is getting out of control and is becoming yet again: unnecessary. The editor who is constantly changing the content and wording is not doing so in a productive manner; but revisiting the section to fiddle with it to his/her liking. I understand that editing is not perfect and that it is also never finished; but this is getting ridiculous. This section is not for one editor to continually come back to and edit over and over again. Readers do not even have a chance to read a coherent summary without the same editor going in and either changing the wording that they themselves wrote or going back in to fix a mistake that they themselves put in. At some point, this has to stop. These are not edits or changes for the betterment of the section but for personal preference which is what I stated above months ago; yet the same editor is still at it. Just today this edit was made: [9] which has grammatical errors (something that the history summary proves time and time again); where the editor either does not realize themselves; or leaves for periods of time and goes back in and either changes or does not correct at all. I will reiterate: this is not a personal userspace or sandbox; it is a mainspace. Not a workspace. This edit: "wants to leave and later criticizes him as being rude." is not correct. It is "and later criticizes him for being rude." And this edit: "says the correct number" has been changed 3 times by the same editor. To what purpose? And why is the word "is" capitlized? "Upon discovering he IS Milo's sole dinner guest" 30 edits on the same section is not productive; especially since it is editing the same content time and time again by the same editor. I strongly am opposed to this style of editing. Since December 2021, WP readers of this article have not had the chance to read a consistent plot summary due to the same editor's consistent changes of their own work. Enough is enough. Maineartists (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic comedy

[edit]

Per History Summary. This film should never have been called just a musical "comedy" film in the lead. It isn't. The entire storyline revolves around two men falling in love with the same woman. That's the story plot line. The songs are based on "love": "Our Love Is Here to Stay", "S'Wonderful", "But Not For Me". Every online synopsis focuses on "love": IMDB Plot summary: "Things become more complicated when two of them fall in love with the same woman.", TCM synopsis: "An American artist finds love in Paris", TVTropes: "A classic 1951 musical romantic comedy", Classic Movie Blog: "An American in Paris” tells the story of two people falling in love.", Roger Ebert: "Its story of two Americans in Montparnasse ... story of love won, lost, and won again." The comedy is supplied by Oscar Levant. It's more a romantic film than a straight comedy considering the Bridge Scene (Our Love is Here to Stay) is one of the most iconic scenes in cinematic history. Movie Music: "The song melody for the romantic “Love is Here to Stay” (1938) was utilized as Jerry and Lise’s Love Theme. The song choice was perfect as it offers classic romanticism, supporting a Jerry’s affirmation of love for Lise.". The lead should reflect the true plot and what this movie is known for: a romantic love story. It's not even listed here: Category:American musical comedy films Maineartists (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those requiring "sources", please provide "sources" that state this is solely a musical "comedy" for it to be described as such in the lead. If you are challenging the descriptor: "romantic" with sources that clearly state romance as the plot of this film above (and even in the plot summary of the article), then provide sources that back "comedy" only; by the "experts" as I did above. Maineartists (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting @MS47, Drmies, DonQuixote to join the discussion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to challenge the current genre description, you can add Template:citation needed to bring attention to it. DonQuixote (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of those aren't considered reliable sources (blogs, imdb, fansites, etc.), and wikipedia shouldn't be citing itself. Also, you would need to cite a source that uses the phrase "romantic comedy" to describe the film because what you're doing above is synthesis--implying that a source is stating something that it doesn't explicitly state. DonQuixote (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote Good. I'm glad you wrote all that. Please supply RS that states this is solely a musical "comedy" to justify keeping the current lead. You seem to think there are sources out there that simply state what this movie is besides a musical. Please provide those sources without synthesis from (blogs, imdb, fansites, etc.) yourself. Otherwise, it should just read: "musical film". Your reasoning must agree. Maineartists (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times Review: An American in Paris: A romance of song and step. You are really stretching if you require the actual word "romantic" when the NY Times reviewer calls this film a "romance" of song and step. There is no synthesis there. It is a derivative form of the word. Maineartists (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, dude, you should have lead with that. *eyeroll* DonQuixote (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think there are sources out there that simply state what this movie is besides a musical.
Strawman much? Personally, I don't care what the genre to this film is as long as everyone cites reliable sources and avoids original research. Yeah...other than that, I'm not really involved in this. DonQuixote (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Musicals in Film: A Guide to the Genre - Page 1948. Thomas S. Hischak · 2016. "Again Freed and Kelly had to convince studio executives that without the ballet , the movie was just another musical romance set in Paris.", An American in Paris. Sue Harris. 2019. "The quintessentially exotic American hero ... for whom Paris is a playground, and who will grow up and become a man only when he is elevated by romantic love.", 100 Entertainers Who Changed America. Robert C. Sickels. 2013. Page 30. "The film's central love story is a conventional tale of a Paris-based American GI-artist's romance with a shop girl.", "Fifty Hollywood Directors. Page 175. Suzanne Leonard, ‎Yvonne Tasker. 2014. "The ballet in An American in Paris, the most well-known example, essentially replays the film's romance plot." Maineartists (talk)
It's listed right here: Category: American Romantic Musical Films. *eyeroll* Maineartists (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to dial it back a notch--only one of those actual describes the film as a romance film. The others are describing the plot--i.e. you're doing synthesis again with regards to the genre. If you avoid the latter, then there's no problem.
Secondly, wikipedia can't be used as a citation for itself (see WP:USERG), so referring to the category that anyone can edit doesn't mean much in terms of due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "... describes the film as a romance film. The others are describing the plot" What do you think "describing the film means? How can you describe a film without describing its plot??? This is getting ridiculous. You're merely arguing for arguments sake now. Find even one film article here at WP that has a RS cite in the lead after a descriptor to justify this entire discussion you've generated. I'm not the one who needs to 'dial it down a notch' here. Just choose the RS that you deem acceptable from all of the above and reinstate. You do not need multiple RS for this. Just how do you defend these articles (April in Paris (film), The Band Wagon, Calendar Girl (1947 film), The Cat and the Fiddle (film)) with your above RS requirement if they have no RS after "romantic"? Maineartists (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before, I have no stake in this, but you are improperly using sources. When asked for sources for a genre, you need to cite sources that mention the genre and avoid using plot summaries to come up with your own interpretations of the genre. That goes for anything else: when asked for x, you need to cite sources that talk about x rather than sources that talk about y that might imply x (ie synthesis). If you continue to not understand that, it'll cause other frictions in future. And that's all I have to say on the matter. DonQuixote (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it perfectly. But you are trying to institute a policy regarding lead descriptors that does not exist. You are arguing apples when the discussion is about an orange. You have failed to address the simplest of requests regarding this entire situation; which makes me think that you have painted yourself into a corner. If you stop arguing the fundamental meaning of how sources work at WP and explain how descriptors are even "sources", then maybe you would add more to the discussion than just circle argument. You cannot justify citations for film descriptors in the lead. You have yet to produce even one RS for "comedy" for this film; let alone back any descriptor for any film listed here at WP. Without this, you are merely stating RS citing policy; not the direct matter at hand; and I dare say you cannot implement your own defense here with any film article at WP. Maineartists (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:FILMGENRE: The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of its most important aspects from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its earliest public release (including film festival screenings), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified...Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. (emphasis mine)
Again, if you want to challenge "comedy" or anything else, you can use the citation needed template. Also, I'm not invested in this so I don't care if you challenge it or not or whether someone defends it. Additionally, if you find other articles with questionable genre classifications, then be bold and challenge those too. DonQuixote (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. What exactly do you think that means in regards to An American in Paris? You specifically started all this by demanding a RS that exactly described this film as a "romantic musical". Period. Now you're stating policy that backs what this entire discussion has come down to: representation by what is specified in majority of mainstream reliable sources. You can't dismiss synthesis and then bring in "WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."
I could easily have reinstated "romantic" and placed a citation needed template. Your reasoning for keeping "comedy" with a template when there are more RS specifying "romantic" for this film is beyond comprehension. And to even suggest an editor go around challenging descriptors for films would make me look ridiculous. Calling An American in Paris a "romantic" musical is not a "questionable genre classifications" when WP lists it as such (don't spout policy, I'm not saying to cite WP) and I think you know this. By your own advice, you should have placed a template after "romantic"; not reverted it. Maineartists (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you clearly don't understand WP:SYNTH. Unless a source specifically states "the genre is [blah]" (or words to that effect), you can't imply it said anything like that. That's what the word specified means. Seriously, that's why my initial response was a source that uses the phrase "romantic comedy". I was emphasising the fact that the genre had to be specifically mentioned in the source. If it's not specifically mentioned, then it's synthesis--ie original research. Original research should be avoided.
I could easily have reinstated "romantic" and placed a citation needed template.
That's bad form and an abuse of the template. The onus is on the person adding the new material to cite the appropriate source. That goes for your By your own advice, you should have placed a template after "romantic"; not reverted it. comment too. It would be a huge waste of resources to tag every unverified new addition to every article and then sort it out later. Again, the onus should be on the person adding the unsourced material. And I suggested that you use the citation needed template on "comedy" because that's the etiquette for something that has already been in the article for years. If you want to remove it with the justification that it hasn't been verified, as I have said, it's no hair off of my back. DonQuixote (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment? The reviewer titled the entire article review calling the film a "romance". What more do you need from the article to satisfy: "the genre is [blah]" (or words to that effect)"??? Maineartists (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I just said that I didn't read the article and so my assessment is limited. That's just saying that my observation on the Times article isn't worth much and that you should take what I say on it with a grain of salt. DonQuixote (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists, I don't know why you are trying to pick a fight, certainly not with me. I merely reverted an unexplained, unverified edit. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Well, now it's been explained and verified. No fight here. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing some reliable sources out there that are commonly used in the film articles to cite genres.
Mike Allen 20:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No wait a minute. I get raked over the coals and told I need to actually find a RS where an expert specifically writes the words: "romantic musical" (even when the expert writes it in the title of their review it isn't enough) and is dismissed with sources such as TVTrope where the description exactly states: "A classic 1951 musical romantic comedy" and I'm told it is unacceptable. Yet another editor comes in with Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie and these are OK? What am I missing here? Maineartists (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TVTropes is a user generated wiki that can be edited by anyone. It's an unreliable source (WP:RSPTVTROPES). I suggest you study WP:RS. Also, you can peruse Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and search it's archives. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"TVTropes is a user generated wiki" So is Allmovie and Rotten Tomatoes: "There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources." It's only considered RS for statistics: "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation". You need to read the full discussion presented at Rotten Tomatoes to understand what is considered RS and what is not. I was not stating a "review". I was supplying a genre categorization from the site itself just like Rotten Tomatoes. Allmovie and AFI aren't even listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I suggest you study WP:COMMONSENSE. Maineartists (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just point out Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie aren't reliable and shouldn't be used. Don't whine about it because you were told that most of your sources were unusable. People can be wrong. Correct them and move on. DonQuixote (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop calling me, Dude. You were wrong about Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie and you're wrong about that. Take your own advice. Maineartists (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I didn't say anything about Rotten Tomatoes or Allmovie. Secondly, I didn't say anything about them because I don't have enough knowledge about them. Again, congrats on finding Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie to be unusable. Still, your attitude doesn't paint you in a good light. DonQuixote (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not here to be painted. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_American_in_Paris_(film)&oldid=1204826331"