Talk:Changeling (film)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Changeling (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Archived links
The official production notes are used several times in this article, but I get the feeling that the link (here) will not be valid in a year or so, so I've taken the precaution of having the page archived at Webcite, which is explicitly permitted by Wikipedia. Should the main link disappear, the citation should be amended accordingly to point to the archived copy. If anyone spots any other links that may require the same treatment, please list them here or use the site's submission form. Steve T • C 09:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
way too long
this aricle is way to long, its not really an importan film it should be downsized, a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.68.211.150 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Article size does not depend on the perceived importance of a topic. The information exists, is verifiable and non-trivial, so why not have a long article? This is an encyclopedia entry, not a news article; the information doesn't have a built-in expiry date, and no-one expects or is forcing our users to read this in one sitting—many will come just for a specific piece of information, which a longer article is more likely to cover. Steve T • C 07:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Work and publisher
I think that the article's references can drop the publisher= field for the most part. Template:Cite news says of the field, "Not necessary for major publications like The New York Times, but may add credibility for local papers that are part of a family of publications like The McClatchy Company." For works like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly and so forth, we don't need the field. For a reference like The City Paper (SouthComm Communications), the field is appropriate. I know that the intention is consistency, but I think it is better to aim for brevity whenever possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Holy cow, that knocked off 2,808 bits (bytes?) according to my watchlist! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ack! It might offend my aesthetic sense, but the wisdom is sound. So removed. Yeah, at least it's lopped 3kb off the article size. :) Steve T • C 13:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Historical Evidence for David Clay
There were a number of references to a boy found years later who escaped after the Collins murder. This is cited in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article as Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#cite_note-24 (Rasmussen, Cecilia (1999-02-07). "The Boy Who Vanished–and His Impostor". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/07/local/me-5769.)
J. Michael Straczynski specifically mentioned this in a recent posting on the IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824747/board/nest/134784017?d=134784017#134784017).
--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I happened to see that spat (JMS really shouldn't feed the trolls), which was one of the reasons I considered removing the statement altogether. Whatever the truth, it is verifiable in enough sources, and it provides the proper context to information presented in the "Plot" section. Thanks, Steve T • C 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Casting
I think that the "Casting" section could be re-structured. Currently, the section lists the actors and their roles without bullets, so there are a lot of very short paragraphs. Combined with boldface, I do not think it is the best presentation. Might it be worth adding bullets to the items below the paragraph about Jolie and removing the boldface to see how it looks? Another option is to combine the small paragraphs into larger ones, though the change would require solid transitions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm halfway through the second part of my review and I brought up this same issue. I proposed the possibility of removing redundant plot descriptors in favor of general prose paragraphs about the actors and their characters. It would help to alleviate some of the size issues with the page (it's currently 58kb of readable prose, not including the lead paragraphs), as well as redundancies in information that is already presented in the plot section. It could also clear up the standard "Actor plays Character" blurbs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- All good points, thanks! Is this the kind of thing you were thinking of? Steve T • C 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's what Erik was thinking of as far as formatting goes (and it address some of my concerns as far as extraneous plot info about the characters). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- What plot information is in there is, I think, only what is absent from the "Plot" section (e.g. Hahn). This test was thrown together in 30 seconds, so I'll implement a more considered variation on it tonight. Thanks, Steve T • C 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Christopher Award Winners Announced
Is this award worth noting in the article?
Christopher Award Winners Announced
... The Awards, which will be presented on Thursday, April 16, salute media that remind audiences of their power to make a difference.
Twenty-four feature films, TV and cable programs, and books for adults and young people, along with their 98 writers, illustrators, directors, producers and executive producers, will be recognized at the Christopher Awards gala, at the McGraw-Hill Building, here.
Father Dennis W. Cleary, M.M., the new director of The Christophers, expressed his pleasure at personally greeting this year's winners. "Artists offer humanity a unique prism," said Father Cleary. "The creative contributions recognized by the Christopher Awards present views of reality which heighten inspiration and engage the human soul. Each Christopher Award winner 'affirms the highest values of the human spirit.'"
Feature Films
The six Award-winning Feature Films focus on protagonists from youth to old age facing extreme challenges. Slumdog Millionaire's Jamal Malik and The Secret Life of Bees' Lily Owens survive brutal childhoods and grow up to be winners in spite of early obstacles. Young@Heart follows a chorus of senior citizens as they rehearse and perform contemporary rock, despite physical infirmities and initial unfamiliarity with their repertoire. Music bridges the gap between generations and cultures in The Visitor and a lone robot with an affinity for Broadway show tunes helps bring life back to garbage-strewn Earth in the computer-animated WALL-E. And finally, Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood, shows a mother's fierce determination to reunite with her abducted son in the face of rampant police corruption in Los Angeles circa 1928. ...
--Dan Dassow (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why we can't add that, the awards seem notable enough. Though I'm hesitant about citing a press release, so it might be a good idea to wait until the news appears at the Christopher Awards' website (it hasn't yet) or in a reliable secondary source. Thanks, Steve T • C 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Christophers website only has the press release available for the 60th Christopher Awards. I added the award to the article, since the press release is on official website. By the way, sorry for the ham-fisted editing. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Summary" subsection
I was wondering if this subsection could be re-titled or even removed entirety. It seems awfully self-referential, telling a reader, "This is a summary you are about to read." I think that it is acceptable for a section to start off with a summary-style paragraph or two before getting into specifics via subsections, so the heading seems unnecessary here. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I included it more for navigation purposes, really. Seeing the contents at the top of the page, a reader might see the subsections to the main sections and assume there's no content above them (as clicking through to the subsection puts it at the top of the screen). So yes, I'd much prefer to keep it under a heading; "Summary" was merely the best I could think of at the time, and any alternatives would be gratefully received. Cheers, Steve T • C 17:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you mean; it's hard to gauge how most readers actually navigate pages. Judging from the content of the subsection, perhaps in the vein of "General consensus"? Can't think of a term that quite nails it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative text for images
Per the alternative text for images guideline, the article should have alternative text for the five images. For the image of the poster, include the alt= field in the infobox (ideally, below caption=) and include the alternative text there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried a couple of times, but this an area in which I've struggled. I'll throw something together for the poster image in a few minutes; if that looks acceptable, I'll have a crack at the others again. Steve T • C 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The alternative text for the poster works well! :) You also could have gone the way of IMP Awards in describing the woman's appetite for children, though. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Age in Historical Context section
I've changed Sanford Clark's age to 13 in the Historical Context section because the main article states that he was 13, as did all sources I could find. Finding a source that qualified as a reliable source, however, was a bit of a challenge. In the end, I decided to cite a book that's actually not out yet (basing the info on the book summary quoted on numerous websites). I don't know if that was necessarily the best choice, but that's what I did. :) If anybody has a better, currently-released source, by all means feel free to change it. --RobinHood70 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sanford Clark was 13 when Gordon Stewart Northcott took him from Clark's home in Canada. The September 19, 1928 issue of the Los Angeles Times gives Sanford Clarks' age as 15 at the time of the kidnappings and murders of Walter Collins, Lewis Winslow and Nelson Winslow, Jr. Sanford Clark lived from March 1, 1913 – June 20, 1991. This is shown on his grave stone which is shown in a picture from Nothing is Strange with You: The Life and Crimes of Gordon Stewart Northcott on page 258. Anthony Flacco and Jerry Clark's book (The Road Out of Hell: Sanford Clark and the True Story of the Wineville Murders) will be published November 3, 2009. Anthony Flacco is a crime novelist and occasional actor. He reads the opening chapter (audio) of the book which is included on his [1]. The opening chapter chapter of Flacco and Clark's book starts out, "Thirteen year old Sanford Clark felt his stomach lurch ...". --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus" sub-heading
I removed the sub-section heading called "Consensus", but I didn't notice the discussion about it in the archives. Nevertheless, I think the best solution was the one proposed at first: removing it altogether. "Summary" would be unnecessary for a relatively short text like this and "Consensus" somehow implies that how the public and critics react to a film is formally agreed upon or even quantifiable in some positivistic manner. Overall, it's much better to just start a section with the most immidiately relevant info without any additional labels.
Peter Isotalo 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. The reason it was included in the first place was for navigation purposes; a reader might click on "Critical response" in the table of contents to be taken to that section, not realising there's one above it that discusses the wider consensus (as it would be off the top of the page). From the TOC, it's not clear the information even exists. If possible, I'd like to keep a section title of some kind, but I agree that the previous one wasn't a good fit. Any suggestions? Steve T • C 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- To me, it would seem most natural to check out the top-level heading before reading the sub-headings. I don't think there's really much to fret about. The current layout is used in other film FAs and seems logical to me.
- Peter Isotalo 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"David Clay"
Why is the notation - "Also, there is no evidence that the "David Clay" character depicted in the movie ever existed, nor that he was kidnapped by Northcott or ever met Walter Collins." - being removed? It is a statement of fact, and is included in the section dealing with other historical inaccuracies in the movie.Mytvc15 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, your assertion requires a citation. You should not simply add the following without providing a suitable citation and/or allowing sufficient time for discussion. "Also, there is no evidence that the "David Clay" depicted in the movie ever existed, nor that he was kidnapped by Northcott or ever met Walter Collins." Conversely, according to Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#cite_note-29 Rasmussen, Cecilia (1999-02-07). "The Boy Who Vanished–and His Impostor". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-10-06. "Five years after Northcott's execution, one of the other boys he was accused of killing was found alive and well. … This tiny bit of news gave Collins the hope she needed to go on searching for the rest of her life." Since you insist upon adding this to the article and I do not wish to get into an edit war, I will ask for arbitration on your proposed change. --Dan Dassow (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- How can there be a citation of lack of evidence? Shall I cite the book "Nothing is Strange with You: The Life and Crimes of Gordon Stewart Northcott" by James Jeffrey Paul that makes absolutely no mention of anyone resembling the "David Clay" in the movie, nor anyone who escaped from the Northcott ranch? How about the many other sources related to the Northcott case, including newspaper articles of the time, that are silent on "David Clay" and his alleged story as presented in the movie? Why should I be forced to cite another source that also asserts a lack of evidence? That makes no sense. The lack of evidence speaks for itself until legitimate and reliable evidence is produced. The article you refer to is not confirmation of the existence of the person depicted in the movie. It's wording is so ambiguous and it's facts are so completely unsubstantiated (what was the boy's name, for one?)by the author of the article as to make it worthless as a source of information. For all we know she could've been repeating unsubstantiated rumor and hearsay, and if you tried to use that part of the article for support as a secondary source, you would rightly be challenged with WP:BURDEN. What you need to do is find one reliable substantiated source or document that refutes my notation and I will consider removing it. You might start with asking Ms. Rassmusen where she got her information from. Also, I would remind you that YOU should not simply delete things without allowing sufficient time for discussion.Mytvc15 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. I over reacted to your original edit. I am very familiar with Jeff Paul's book and have corresponded with the author. I suggest using Mr. Paul's book for your source for the statement you added to this article, since it sounds like an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Barring contacting Cecilia Rasmussen for clarification or violating Wikipedia's policy against original research, I can offer no other source at this time. I suggest that we as a community discuss your edits to this article and to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd urge the original commenter to look at the WP:OR policy before adding anything further to the article; even the absence of evidence for this boy's existence needs citing to a secondary, reliable source. It's not enough simply to say that no newspapers from the period mention him; it needs to be more clear-cut than that—a source published after this film was released that explicitly comments on the situation. That might seem unfair for something that Mytvc15 feels is pretty clear cut, but the policy is strict on what is allowed for very good reasons that probably have greater relevance at slightly more controversial or disputed articles than this one. Does the Paul book mention the film's changes from the history at all? Steve T • C 07:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Steve, Mr. Paul researched his book and Mr. Straczyski researched his screenplay independently. Mr. Paul and Mr. Straczynski were unaware of each other's research until Mr. Paul found out about Changeling and contacted Mr. Straczynski in February 2008 with my help. There is no mention of Changeling (film) in Mr. Paul's book other than mentioning it on the book cover and using the tie-in to publicize the book. Mr. Straczynski indicated online that he had other supporting research for the existence of "David Clay" beyond Cecilia Rasmussen's article. I felt that I was very close to violating the WP:OR policy if I were to pursuit this matter further. Given this scenario, I planned to contact various admins to get their assessment of the situation. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Steve - what you suggest may be the letter of the law, but it makes little sense to single out this one notation in an article filled with uncited notations of facts. The article is also unusually long for a movie page, extremely bloated with unnecessary information, it's tone smacks of press release, and is in desperate need of significant trimming. However, since you insist on asserting that "rules are rules", I will look for a published source that presents what you describe, and if found, I will reinstate my notation with citation, as requested. In the meantime, I will take your admonishment that "the policy is strict on what is allowed for very good reasons" to heart and apply it rigorously to this and any other Wiki articles that call for it. I would suggest that if Dan wishes to clear this matter up quickly, he only needs to obtain one, and only one, verifiable published source, from the writer who claims to have such, that refutes my one-sentence notation. I would also suggest that Dan not bother with sources such as Ms. Rasmussen's two lines of text that could be taken as opinion and that neither cite her source, nor are substantiated by any other verifiable source whatsoever.Mytvc15 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm happy to remove the passage pending whatever we do or don't find. I don't exert ownership over this article, and I'm happy to amend things when someone proves me wrong. Thanks for the input, Steve T • C 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was watching this, and I would like to mention that the film article guidelines have a "Historical and scientific accuracies" section that says, "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." Otherwise, any number of comparisons can be made between a film and its source material, may it be a fictional work or a historical event. The preferred threshold is to have others observe the most relevant similarities and differences out of many, many trivial ones. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should also be said that the section you mention also states: "If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license".Mytvc15 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The link to Wineville Chicken Coop Murders fits this. :) Historical detail can be added to that article, but I discourage language that ties it to the film. If it's history, report it in that context and let readers judge creative works against their historical basis. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mytvc15 has already made what I consider acceptable edits to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article along the lines that Erik suggests. However, I will update those edits as appropriate with Mytvc15 concurrance if I find reasonable and citable collaraboration to Ms. Rasmussen's article.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The link to Wineville Chicken Coop Murders fits this. :) Historical detail can be added to that article, but I discourage language that ties it to the film. If it's history, report it in that context and let readers judge creative works against their historical basis. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should also be said that the section you mention also states: "If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license".Mytvc15 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was watching this, and I would like to mention that the film article guidelines have a "Historical and scientific accuracies" section that says, "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." Otherwise, any number of comparisons can be made between a film and its source material, may it be a fictional work or a historical event. The preferred threshold is to have others observe the most relevant similarities and differences out of many, many trivial ones. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm happy to remove the passage pending whatever we do or don't find. I don't exert ownership over this article, and I'm happy to amend things when someone proves me wrong. Thanks for the input, Steve T • C 12:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Steve - what you suggest may be the letter of the law, but it makes little sense to single out this one notation in an article filled with uncited notations of facts. The article is also unusually long for a movie page, extremely bloated with unnecessary information, it's tone smacks of press release, and is in desperate need of significant trimming. However, since you insist on asserting that "rules are rules", I will look for a published source that presents what you describe, and if found, I will reinstate my notation with citation, as requested. In the meantime, I will take your admonishment that "the policy is strict on what is allowed for very good reasons" to heart and apply it rigorously to this and any other Wiki articles that call for it. I would suggest that if Dan wishes to clear this matter up quickly, he only needs to obtain one, and only one, verifiable published source, from the writer who claims to have such, that refutes my one-sentence notation. I would also suggest that Dan not bother with sources such as Ms. Rasmussen's two lines of text that could be taken as opinion and that neither cite her source, nor are substantiated by any other verifiable source whatsoever.Mytvc15 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
More resources
- A Conversation with Stephen Campanelli, SOC on Changeling at Society of Camera Operators
- Urban Renewal at Cinefex (summary; need to find print)
More resources to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Stephen Campanelli interview is very interesting, but I did not see any information in the interview that is not already covered in the Changeling (film) article. However, I will probably use it as a citation when I create a Stephen Campanelli article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Lede template
Seems totally unwarranted to me. It is three paragraphs, and briefly summarizes the main points of the article. It is similar in length to all of the recent TFA's ledes. Suggest removal of the template. decltype (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Brief" is a relative term, but I've seen a lot of FA intros, including those for much more significant (and epic) films than "Changeling", and the general trend is 10-15 lines, tops. This intro has, what, 30? It reads like a press release, not to mention an excessively long and detailed article. I mean 154 refs? For "Changeling"?? Which "All recent leads" are you referring to?Shirtwaist (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, I should have linked that: TFA as in WP:TFA (Today's featured article). My impression is that the general trend is 3-4 medium-sized paragraphs, depending of course, on the length of the article itself. I'd appreciate it if you would give one or two examples of featured articles whose ledes you consider to be of a more appropriate length. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, now believe me, these are the very first six films (with # of lines in lead) I picked randomly from WP: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 8, ZODIAC - 16, SE7EN - 4, BEN HUR (1959) - 5, APOCALYPSE NOW - 17, THE GODFATHER - 12. All of these films have articles roughly equal in length and detail, although I believe CHANGELING is the longest article of the bunch. You tell me if 30 lines of text in a FA lead is reasonable. Maybe we can get some other opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, my opinion is that, with the possible exception of Zodiac (film), all these articles fall hopelessly short of the featured article criteria, criterion 2a being one of them. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, now believe me, these are the very first six films (with # of lines in lead) I picked randomly from WP: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 8, ZODIAC - 16, SE7EN - 4, BEN HUR (1959) - 5, APOCALYPSE NOW - 17, THE GODFATHER - 12. All of these films have articles roughly equal in length and detail, although I believe CHANGELING is the longest article of the bunch. You tell me if 30 lines of text in a FA lead is reasonable. Maybe we can get some other opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, I should have linked that: TFA as in WP:TFA (Today's featured article). My impression is that the general trend is 3-4 medium-sized paragraphs, depending of course, on the length of the article itself. I'd appreciate it if you would give one or two examples of featured articles whose ledes you consider to be of a more appropriate length. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Decltype; the lead is not excessive for the length of the article. Shirtwaist stated in the edit summary that the lead "Should be a very brief synopsis and one or two other relevant facts about the production. Second and third paragraphs are covered in detail in body." Per WP:LEAD, this is not what the introduction to the article is supposed to achieve; it should be a summary of the main points of the article. This article is very comprehensive, and the lead summarises most of the sections—in this case, something of the premise, the writing, the production and visual effects, the critical reception, box office and awards—yet concisely. For context, take a look at some of the articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length; most of those close to Changeling (no. 54) have leads of a comparable size, e.g. Tropical cyclone, Boston, Donald Bradman, and Hurricane Katrina. Steve T • C 11:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- A major strength of this article is that it exemplifies the featured article criteria, criterion 2a. It summarizes the topic at progressive levels of details: first sentence, first paragraph, first three paragraphs and finally the full article. This layering of detail helps the reader by not forcing them to read the whole article to get the level of detail they desire. The Encyclopedia Britannica, well written technical articles and newspapers with great editorial guidance follow this writing style. It is a proven technique.--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with others that the template is inappropriate. The lead section is of acceptable length. Reviewers at the FAC process did not find this to be an issue, either. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would point out that criterion 2a calls for "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections", the key word there is 'concise'. As to Dan's point, I'm talking about the length of paragraphs and articles, not the style. Section 4 is also relevant to the state of the entire article - "It stays focused on the main topic without going into 'unnecessary detail'". Erik's point about the article's lead length not being an issue for FAC reviewers seems to be in opposition to Decltype's opinion that the articles I mentioned "fall hopelessly short of the featured article criteria", which would lead one to believe that simply because this article has passed the FAC review process does not, as Erik seems to be implying, mean it doesn't need improvement. Steve's point about other articles' length doesn't take into account that I was deliberately comparing this article to other FILM articles, not articles in general which vary wildly according to topic. If you look at that list, you'll see that the "Changeling" article consists of 118kb, more than the articles on the entire history of Sound Film and the Earth itself! In fact, the next largest film article(after "Star Trek TMP, which is also excessively large and needs trimming, but entails a lengthy and complex history, which "Changeling" does not) is "Star Wars IV" at #287 and 83kb, followed by "Barton Fink" at #320 and 81kb. The vast majority of film articles (which is what I meant by "FA", sorry if that wasn't clear) fall under 75kb. The point made that the article's intro length is proportional to the article size leads to the question - "Why is the article so enormous?". Does the fact that "Changeling" has an even larger article size than "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" seem unusual, unwarranted, and somewhat self-promotional on the part of the article's author? I'd very much like to hear valid justifications for an article this enormous for a film this inconsequential.Shirtwaist (talk) 19:51, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, then I misunderstood. By "FA", I really thought you meant "Featured Article". I stick by my statement that articles such as The Silence of the Lambs (film), Seven (1995 film), Ben-Hur (1959 film) fall hopelessly short of the featured article criteria. While the issues are too many to list here, Ben-Hur (1959 film) and The Godfather, to name two, has insufficient ledes in my opinion. The way I interpreted it, Erik simply stated that the FA reviewers did not take issue with this particular article's lede during its FA review (or the issues were corrected during it), but I don't want to put words in his mouth. However, I don't see how that contradicts what I said about those other articles. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- OOPS, my mistake. Those six films I used are NOT on the Featured Articles List and therefore have not gone through the FAC process, making my analogy inappropriate. Sorry about that. But I'm still mystified as to why "Changeling" would require such in-depth and extensive coverage apparently reserved for films(judging by the FA list) with much more significance to cinema history. I don't think I've gotten a reasonable answer to that question. Shirtwaist (talk) 21:29, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- It is not comparable. People will work on topics that interest them. You will see most articles about superhero films in better condition than articles of films considered the greatest ever. For what it's worth, it is difficult to research the articles you mention. Good information about these topics is not found online. Changeling, being a film released in the era of the Internet, has much information available online, and the primary contributor, Steve, compiled the information into this article. My experience with film-related articles is that most editors are passersby, so they do not have the time nor accessibility of resources to work on the so-called "greats". Hope that sheds some light on your concerns. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of course editors tend toward articles that interest them. However, I believe it is comparable. All film articles follow the same basic pattern that conforms to the realities of movies and their theatrical releases. The architecture of an article about "Blade Runner" or any other film is never going to be comparable to an article about, say, "Intelligent Design" or "Belgium". Articles about "Blade Runner" and "To Kill A Mockingbird", however, definitely are. Therefore, film articles can, and perhaps should, be considered as part of a group for the purposes of analysis and comparison on a list of featured articles, considering the guidelines in place for inclusion in such. As to researching online, "Star Trek:TMP" was released in '79. In fact, five of the top seven (going by size)"Featured Article" films were released long before there was an internet as we know it, ST:TMP being the second largest on the list. Granted, Changeling is a recent release; Zodiac was also a recent release, but would it be good Wikipedia practice for me to go about including every single fact concerning critical response, production detail, release strategy, theme, etc., etc., that I could possibly dig up resulting in an article so huge as to be the largest FA film article? Or how about for a movie like "The Black Dahlia"? The reason I mention this is that, as you pointed out, the vast majority of contributions and edits to this article seem to be from one editor - Steve. This may be allowed under the rules, but it seems to go against the doctrine of objectivity so pervasive on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about that, please show me where my error lies. The fact remains that Changeling is in the top 2% of the FA length list. I find it astounding that it has not been edited down to a reasonable size by now. I'm not making any accusations, but it's possible that attempts at trimming the article have all been reversed. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Intelligent design and Belgium are not the only articles related to these topics, just the overarching ones. There are related sub-articles; see Category:Intelligent design and Category:Belgium. I am not sure why you take offense at Changeling (film) being so thorough; it is the best place anywhere for a person to read about this film. That's quite a service. If articles about films considered the greatest ever were comprehensive, they would be much longer than this one and warrant sub-articles (just see what resources exist for Citizen Kane). There is no so-called "doctrine of objectivity" to go against; WP:NPOV is about the writing, not the subject matter. Of course there is an imbalance between articles of important topics and articles most worked on. We should encourage work on articles for important topics, but people volunteer their limited time and gravitate toward more manageable topics that are of personal interest. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not offended by anything. I just find it odd that this particular article's length seems to be attributable for the most part to one individual, that's all. Is this common on Wikipedia? Maybe the right choice of words would be "policy of neutrality" as it relates to who makes contributions to particular articles and how often. The point being that an article(whatever the subject) being seemingly monopolized by one or two people over time just seems at odds with the intent of Wikipedia. Not that my opinion on that matters a great deal, nor should it I guess. Seeing as I am a consensus of one:)BTW, would Wiki editors tolerate a film article on any film, great or small, that was equal to or greater in size than the one on Intelligent design? That would be hard to imagine happening.;)Shirtwaist (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is more common for articles to be the work of a single primary contributor than multiple such contributors, but sometimes WikiProjects attempt collaboration on specific articles. WikiProject Films has considered the idea of doing this, particular for the core film articles. One primary contributor for an article is normally acceptable, but sometimes an editor will assume ownership of it. I assure you that Steve has not tried to own Changeling (film); he has always been willing to discuss changes. For the film article vs. intelligent design, I think it is hard to compare the topics. Like I mentioned, there are related sub-articles for intelligent design, so if all information was compiled on one page, it would be very long. The article covers intelligent design in broad strokes, and it links to more specific elements of intelligent design for further exploration. Films are too specific projects to have branches like that; most details are for a specific time frame, and retrospective coverage (like exploring its themes a decade later) is just periodic. It would be fantastic to have more "great" films have more respectable articles, but such endeavors, I think, require more specific conditions, like multiple editors collaborating, a more arranged schedule to push forward with expansion, and cranial capacity to digest some more challenging sources. Any particular article you feel like helping with? :) I can try to help with resources, and WP:FILMRES is a useful page. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me; I was pointing out the differences between articles like "Intelligent Design" and film articles, not the similarities. Thus, attempting to compare them would be futile. As for the editor in question, I've noticed a distinct lack of openness to attempted legitimate changes over time in the change history. This is evidenced by his immediate removal of the "Too Long" banner without attempting discussion first. This would suggest a sense of ownership of the article in question. I've seen it before in other articles, but it seems to be a tolerated practice here so what can be done?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not ownership; from what I can tell, he acted that way because he perceived the consensus to be that the lead section was of an acceptable length due to plenty of long-term editors' eyes on the article and his own experience reviewing articles, including Featured Articles. As you can tell, the consensus indeed turned out that way in this discussion. It would be indicative of ownership if Steve edit warred with you over adding the template, but I could not see him doing this. He's a great editor to work with; the community unanimously supported him to possess admin tools. I think it is clear that the template did not belong. If you have specific issues with the article, such as overly extensive detail in parts of it, it may help to start a new discussion, and I'm sure Steve will be happy to respond with his thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be very unwise for a newly-elected admin like Steve to engage in an edit war, wouldn't it? I would suggest Steve review WP:CON before unilaterally removing banners intended to initiate discussion before any discussion whatsoever has taken place. He, and you, will find there is no "perceived consensus" entry mentioned there. You'd think an admin would know better.Shirtwaist (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Steve did not edit war. He reverted once because he disagreed with your assessment. This is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. It may be useful to read about the BRD cycle. I am only presuming his thoughts, which may or may not be accurate. WP:CON does mention a perceived consensus: "In any case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community." Like I said, Changeling got a lot of attention per Steve's personal requests and per the FAC process. The lead section has never been an issue. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 03:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be very unwise for a newly-elected admin like Steve to engage in an edit war, wouldn't it? I would suggest Steve review WP:CON before unilaterally removing banners intended to initiate discussion before any discussion whatsoever has taken place. He, and you, will find there is no "perceived consensus" entry mentioned there. You'd think an admin would know better.Shirtwaist (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not ownership; from what I can tell, he acted that way because he perceived the consensus to be that the lead section was of an acceptable length due to plenty of long-term editors' eyes on the article and his own experience reviewing articles, including Featured Articles. As you can tell, the consensus indeed turned out that way in this discussion. It would be indicative of ownership if Steve edit warred with you over adding the template, but I could not see him doing this. He's a great editor to work with; the community unanimously supported him to possess admin tools. I think it is clear that the template did not belong. If you have specific issues with the article, such as overly extensive detail in parts of it, it may help to start a new discussion, and I'm sure Steve will be happy to respond with his thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me; I was pointing out the differences between articles like "Intelligent Design" and film articles, not the similarities. Thus, attempting to compare them would be futile. As for the editor in question, I've noticed a distinct lack of openness to attempted legitimate changes over time in the change history. This is evidenced by his immediate removal of the "Too Long" banner without attempting discussion first. This would suggest a sense of ownership of the article in question. I've seen it before in other articles, but it seems to be a tolerated practice here so what can be done?Shirtwaist (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is more common for articles to be the work of a single primary contributor than multiple such contributors, but sometimes WikiProjects attempt collaboration on specific articles. WikiProject Films has considered the idea of doing this, particular for the core film articles. One primary contributor for an article is normally acceptable, but sometimes an editor will assume ownership of it. I assure you that Steve has not tried to own Changeling (film); he has always been willing to discuss changes. For the film article vs. intelligent design, I think it is hard to compare the topics. Like I mentioned, there are related sub-articles for intelligent design, so if all information was compiled on one page, it would be very long. The article covers intelligent design in broad strokes, and it links to more specific elements of intelligent design for further exploration. Films are too specific projects to have branches like that; most details are for a specific time frame, and retrospective coverage (like exploring its themes a decade later) is just periodic. It would be fantastic to have more "great" films have more respectable articles, but such endeavors, I think, require more specific conditions, like multiple editors collaborating, a more arranged schedule to push forward with expansion, and cranial capacity to digest some more challenging sources. Any particular article you feel like helping with? :) I can try to help with resources, and WP:FILMRES is a useful page. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not offended by anything. I just find it odd that this particular article's length seems to be attributable for the most part to one individual, that's all. Is this common on Wikipedia? Maybe the right choice of words would be "policy of neutrality" as it relates to who makes contributions to particular articles and how often. The point being that an article(whatever the subject) being seemingly monopolized by one or two people over time just seems at odds with the intent of Wikipedia. Not that my opinion on that matters a great deal, nor should it I guess. Seeing as I am a consensus of one:)BTW, would Wiki editors tolerate a film article on any film, great or small, that was equal to or greater in size than the one on Intelligent design? That would be hard to imagine happening.;)Shirtwaist (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Intelligent design and Belgium are not the only articles related to these topics, just the overarching ones. There are related sub-articles; see Category:Intelligent design and Category:Belgium. I am not sure why you take offense at Changeling (film) being so thorough; it is the best place anywhere for a person to read about this film. That's quite a service. If articles about films considered the greatest ever were comprehensive, they would be much longer than this one and warrant sub-articles (just see what resources exist for Citizen Kane). There is no so-called "doctrine of objectivity" to go against; WP:NPOV is about the writing, not the subject matter. Of course there is an imbalance between articles of important topics and articles most worked on. We should encourage work on articles for important topics, but people volunteer their limited time and gravitate toward more manageable topics that are of personal interest. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of course editors tend toward articles that interest them. However, I believe it is comparable. All film articles follow the same basic pattern that conforms to the realities of movies and their theatrical releases. The architecture of an article about "Blade Runner" or any other film is never going to be comparable to an article about, say, "Intelligent Design" or "Belgium". Articles about "Blade Runner" and "To Kill A Mockingbird", however, definitely are. Therefore, film articles can, and perhaps should, be considered as part of a group for the purposes of analysis and comparison on a list of featured articles, considering the guidelines in place for inclusion in such. As to researching online, "Star Trek:TMP" was released in '79. In fact, five of the top seven (going by size)"Featured Article" films were released long before there was an internet as we know it, ST:TMP being the second largest on the list. Granted, Changeling is a recent release; Zodiac was also a recent release, but would it be good Wikipedia practice for me to go about including every single fact concerning critical response, production detail, release strategy, theme, etc., etc., that I could possibly dig up resulting in an article so huge as to be the largest FA film article? Or how about for a movie like "The Black Dahlia"? The reason I mention this is that, as you pointed out, the vast majority of contributions and edits to this article seem to be from one editor - Steve. This may be allowed under the rules, but it seems to go against the doctrine of objectivity so pervasive on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about that, please show me where my error lies. The fact remains that Changeling is in the top 2% of the FA length list. I find it astounding that it has not been edited down to a reasonable size by now. I'm not making any accusations, but it's possible that attempts at trimming the article have all been reversed. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is not comparable. People will work on topics that interest them. You will see most articles about superhero films in better condition than articles of films considered the greatest ever. For what it's worth, it is difficult to research the articles you mention. Good information about these topics is not found online. Changeling, being a film released in the era of the Internet, has much information available online, and the primary contributor, Steve, compiled the information into this article. My experience with film-related articles is that most editors are passersby, so they do not have the time nor accessibility of resources to work on the so-called "greats". Hope that sheds some light on your concerns. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 01:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- OOPS, my mistake. Those six films I used are NOT on the Featured Articles List and therefore have not gone through the FAC process, making my analogy inappropriate. Sorry about that. But I'm still mystified as to why "Changeling" would require such in-depth and extensive coverage apparently reserved for films(judging by the FA list) with much more significance to cinema history. I don't think I've gotten a reasonable answer to that question. Shirtwaist (talk) 21:29, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, then I misunderstood. By "FA", I really thought you meant "Featured Article". I stick by my statement that articles such as The Silence of the Lambs (film), Seven (1995 film), Ben-Hur (1959 film) fall hopelessly short of the featured article criteria. While the issues are too many to list here, Ben-Hur (1959 film) and The Godfather, to name two, has insufficient ledes in my opinion. The way I interpreted it, Erik simply stated that the FA reviewers did not take issue with this particular article's lede during its FA review (or the issues were corrected during it), but I don't want to put words in his mouth. However, I don't see how that contradicts what I said about those other articles. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would point out that criterion 2a calls for "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections", the key word there is 'concise'. As to Dan's point, I'm talking about the length of paragraphs and articles, not the style. Section 4 is also relevant to the state of the entire article - "It stays focused on the main topic without going into 'unnecessary detail'". Erik's point about the article's lead length not being an issue for FAC reviewers seems to be in opposition to Decltype's opinion that the articles I mentioned "fall hopelessly short of the featured article criteria", which would lead one to believe that simply because this article has passed the FAC review process does not, as Erik seems to be implying, mean it doesn't need improvement. Steve's point about other articles' length doesn't take into account that I was deliberately comparing this article to other FILM articles, not articles in general which vary wildly according to topic. If you look at that list, you'll see that the "Changeling" article consists of 118kb, more than the articles on the entire history of Sound Film and the Earth itself! In fact, the next largest film article(after "Star Trek TMP, which is also excessively large and needs trimming, but entails a lengthy and complex history, which "Changeling" does not) is "Star Wars IV" at #287 and 83kb, followed by "Barton Fink" at #320 and 81kb. The vast majority of film articles (which is what I meant by "FA", sorry if that wasn't clear) fall under 75kb. The point made that the article's intro length is proportional to the article size leads to the question - "Why is the article so enormous?". Does the fact that "Changeling" has an even larger article size than "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" seem unusual, unwarranted, and somewhat self-promotional on the part of the article's author? I'd very much like to hear valid justifications for an article this enormous for a film this inconsequential.Shirtwaist (talk) 19:51, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with others that the template is inappropriate. The lead section is of acceptable length. Reviewers at the FAC process did not find this to be an issue, either. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
← Indeed, I removed the template, but did not do so again after it was reinserted, preferring instead to let other editors weigh in here on the talk page instead of exerting ownership over this page—which none of us have. Rather than edit war, I acted completely in accordance with the recommended steps in a situation like this. Returning discussion to the matter at hand, it seems clear to me that the current lead is entirely compliant with the recommendations at WP:LEAD—a comprehensive summary of the main points in the article. And it is concise; each section is represented by no more than one or two statements in the lead. On the wider issue over the article's length compared to other articles, as Erik says, a film article is more self-contained than something like Intelligent Design, which has numerous sub-articles; were all of these to be rolled into the parent ID article, it would likely run to 100s of kilobytes. This film article has one sub-topic—for the soundtrack listing—so the comparison doesn't stand close scrutiny. Steve T • C 07:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never said he DID edit war, I merely stated if he had, he would be foolish to do so. BRD cycle seems to concern itself primarily with edits to the body of articles, not templates intended for initiation of discussion about possible edits. Removing a template of that type before discussion has taken place is clearly wrong, especially for an admin. I take "Silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" to mean exactly that; that adequate time must be allowed for discussion on a particular topic when a question is raised, as the result of either editing the article body or adding a template, before consent can be implied. Steve reverted exactly 6 hours and 21 minutes after the template was added and after only one editor posted a comment, hardly "adequate exposure to the community". As to comparisons, apparently Steve had the same misunderstanding as you; I was not comparing the two types of articles, I was pointing out their obvious dissimilarities, which makes it all the more unusual for them to be almost equal in size.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The cycle applies to all edits. "Adequate exposure to the community" means that many eyes have looked over the article, especially during the FAC process. Seasoned editors never took issue with the lead section. If there are any issues with the article, they will be minor. It is clear that the lead section is of an appropriate length. If you have any other concerns with the article, or would like some help building up other topics to Featured Article status, feel free to start a new discussion. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Artios nominees unveiled
Kilday, Gregg (2009-09-17). "Artios nominees unveiled". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2009-09-18.
2009 Artios Award Nominations for Outstanding Achievement in Casting
Big Budget Feature -- Drama
- "Changeling," Ellen Chenoweth
- "The Dark Knight," John Papsidera
- "Duplicity," Ellen Chenoweth
- "Star Trek," April Webster, Alyssa Weisberg
- "State of Play," Avy Kaufman*
I will try to update the awards section when I get a chance. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Style issues
In most style guides I've seen, one uses the full name of a person the first time the name is used and the last name thereafter when there is no confusion. A recent edit by Treybien brought to my attention that this is not consistently done in the article. I will do a scrub of the article later today unless someone else does so in the mean time or points to style guidance to the contrary. Also, Treybien added a number of Wikilinks. I corrected a couple of broken links. He may also added a few unnecessary Wikilinks. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted some instances of overlinking; most of them unnecessarily pointed to entire topics where only the definition really needs to be understood, like trauma and circumcision. Same with general country names, though linking to Los Angeles and Southern California seems okay. I'm not sure about the best approach for dashes, though? He replaced the actual dashes with "mdash" statements. Someone else will need to check this and the other links that Treybien added. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I swapped the em dashes back to how the Manual of Style recommends, and made some tweaks on top of the tweaks, but most of the other changes look like improvements. Steve T • C 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Question about one link. Treybien linked Universal Studios in the "Development" subsection, but you reverted this, stating that it was linked earlier. I see that it is linked in the lead section and the infobox. However, other items from the lead section, like the writer and the producer, are linked in "Development", too. Also, Universal Pictures and Universal Studios are not quite the same; perhaps some re-identification is in order? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't look closely enough at what else was linked nearby. For consistency's sake, we should relink it or delink the others; either is fine by me. And looking at the studio's article, it seems we should be calling it Universal Pictures in this context? (Assuming that article is correct, that is). Steve T • C 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
← The following terms were linked to in the article: circumcision, deportation, extradition, and vigilante. We do not need to link to the entire articles; only the basic definitions of these words need to be understood for the context of the relevant statements in the article. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 00:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Re: WP:OVERLINKING "An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context." It should be up to the reader to decide how much information is too much after they click on the link, especially in "Plot" and "Historical Context". How do you know who already knows the definitions and who doesn't?Shirtwaist (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- A fair point, but one that could be used as a rationale for linking just about everything. At some ill-defined point we draw a line between assuming that people are aware of these and giving them help with the more ambiguous or technical terms. My line differs from yours—those are words that either most people will know or can easily look up—but I see no harm in retaining the links right now. Steve T • C 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- These words are at the weakest end of the spectrum; they are explanatory on their own and do not necessitate linking. There are other similarly weak words: box office, academic major, folklore (especially in general), sidewalk, and demographic profile. Do you think Tony1 would have time to share his thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree that they should ultimately be delinked. When I say "no harm in retaining the links right now" I mean until this discussion is done and dusted and we have a consensus. One thing we do have to bear in mind is the likelihood of understanding by non-US readers. For example, because the term isn't generally used here in the UK, I think Academic major is a useful link. The others I wouldn't lose any sleep over if delinked. Steve T • C 14:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- These words are at the weakest end of the spectrum; they are explanatory on their own and do not necessitate linking. There are other similarly weak words: box office, academic major, folklore (especially in general), sidewalk, and demographic profile. Do you think Tony1 would have time to share his thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- A fair point, but one that could be used as a rationale for linking just about everything. At some ill-defined point we draw a line between assuming that people are aware of these and giving them help with the more ambiguous or technical terms. My line differs from yours—those are words that either most people will know or can easily look up—but I see no harm in retaining the links right now. Steve T • C 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
RCMP
RCMP is referenced Plot section. The acronym the may not be clear to most readers and should probably be spelled out as Royal Canadian Mounted Police. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Article on AVID use on Changeling
Currently the article has very little information the editing of the film. "The Quiet Art of Editing Enhances the Powerfully Affecting Changeling". Avid Technology. Retrieved October 15, 2009. has background information on Joel Cox and Gary Roach's editing of the film that could be useful. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source isn't the best in the world; Cox and Roach used Avid software and equipment to edit the film, so the article doesn't have the benefit of distance from the subject (just look how many times the writer tries to shoehorn "Avid" into each paragraph—to be honest, it reads like a company press release). Still, it would be a shame to ignore it entirely; as you say, our article lacks information on the editing right now. So ideally, I'd like to see another opinion or two before we (very carefully) include anything from it. Steve T • C 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Steve, I was also concerned that this article sounded more like an advertisement for AVID than about the editing process for Changeling. That is why I wanted your opinion and the opinion of others. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
anachronistic usage of ECT?
it seems to me that pre-1930 such usage would have been either extremely rare or simply not done at all--Jrm2007 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical response heading
Isn't this heading better placed higher, right at the start of this film's Reception section? I mean, the start of the Reception section is also about the critical response. And I am not saying that this will happen to most readers, but I simply clicked on the Critical response heading (instead of the Reception section heading) moments ago and missed all the reception information above it. I knew something was odd when I did that, because I felt that starting off the Critical response section in the way I saw is odd and I remember reading the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information in this article. I inched back up, and felt stupid for missing something that I had already seen there before. But I honestly felt that it must have been removed since then, until I inched up higher.
Of course...I am not as familiar with this article's layout as the ones significantly working on this are, but that is my point. Surely some general readers will make the same mistake of clicking on Critical response as opposed to Reception, and possibly miss all the other reception information...unless they check back or visit this article again and then see it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I happen to agree. We've been through this before, briefly, here and here. I left it as we see it now because I seemed to be in a minority, but I'd be more than happy to reinsert a section heading. I still think we should keep the reviews separate from the summary information, so my question is... what do we call the latter? The two previous versions have been sub-optimal, IMO ("Summary" and "Consensus"). Steve T • C 23:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to those two past discussions. I had thought the one already on this talk page was about something else, which is why I originally did not read it.
- A new sub-heading? Hmm, what about what Eric suggested -- General consensus? But even then, I am left thinking about the fact that the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information is still part of the critical response and may be better put at the beginning of the Critical response section. But, yeah... If not Eric's title, we could use the titles General reception and Critical reception. Or General response and Critical response or General response and Reviews, etc. Either way, I definitely feel that a subsection heading is needed to specify the information before the reviews if we are not going to put it all together without any qualifiers. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nice suggestions; I've retitled the sections accordingly. Thanks! Steve T • C 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you as well. I hope other editors are okay with this. I do not see any reason for objections, other than wanting a different word used in place of another. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I like the rewording and way the section flows.--Dan Dassow (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you as well. I hope other editors are okay with this. I do not see any reason for objections, other than wanting a different word used in place of another. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nice suggestions; I've retitled the sections accordingly. Thanks! Steve T • C 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)