Jump to content

Talk:It's a Wonderful Life/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Films, Audiences and Analyses". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 0745315844.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Films, Audiences and Analyses". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 0745315844.
  • Walters, James (2008). "Reclaiming the Real: It's a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)". Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema. Intellect Ltd. pp. 115–134. ISBN 1841502022.

or:

  • Barker, Martin and Thomas Austin. "Films, Audiences and Analyses". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. London: Pluto Press, 2000, pp. 15–29. ISBN 0-74531-584-4.
  • Walters, James. "Reclaiming the Real: It's a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)". Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema. Bristol UK: Intellect Ltd, 2008. pp. 115–134. ISBN 978-1841502021.

FWiW, there are still errors in the citation templates used above, the "in-the-clear" bibliographic notations provide the reference sources in the Modern Language Association (MLA) Style Guide widely used in publishing for the Social Sciences. Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing cruft

I can see the need for patrolling the "popular media" section of this article, but the recent revision lost the following: "The Killers' single "Boots" (2010) is a "Christmas" release in benefit of the RED foundation and directly relates to It's a Wonderful Life, using scenes from the movie in the companion video." which was complete with a source. I would argue that the addition of this item was carefully assessed and did not fall into the standard "cruft" entry. The first time I saw the edit, I challenged it as to relevance and then took some time to see the connections and how studiously the group had made the connection of poverty at Christmas to a classic, idealized movie version of Christmas. FWiW. comments? Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for the deeper look (than mine), revert and comments. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. The other one, from How I Met Your Mother, is really only worth a mention if it has some direct connection to the plot, although even then it should maybe go into that movie's article rather than this one. There are probably enough references to this film across Popcultureland to fill at least a small book. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Ending

The "alternative ending" described in the article seems not to be one of Capra's invention, but rather describes a sketch from Saturday Night Live several years ago. The description reads as follows: "Capra filmed an alternate ending that was subsequently cut wherein Uncle Billy remembers misplacing the money in the newspaper when he unties a string, and Potter receives a 'comeuppance'." This describes a sketch from episode #221 of SNL, aired December 20, 1986. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cox refers specifically to alternate endings that were shot as the script was in a bit of flux even to the end. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me back off a bit, although there was rumours of a cut scene, and Stephen Cox does mention scenes that were cut, there is no clearcut indication of what the missing footage entailed. I will alter the statement in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

Removed from intro

  • Despite initially being considered a box office flop due to high production costs and stiff competition at the time of its release, the film has come to be regarded as a classic and a staple of Christmas television around the world. Theatrically, the film's break-even point was actually $6.3 million, approximately twice the production cost, a figure it never came close to achieving in its initial release. An appraisal in 2006 reported: "Although it was not the complete box-office failure that today everyone believes… it was initially a major disappointment and confirmed, at least to the studios, that Capra was no longer capable of turning out the populist features that made his films the must-see, money-making events they once were."[1]

This section implies that the movie was a failure, or that it was something other than a "great movie", or that it represented a turning point in Capra's career where he was less successful later. Yet, after making this movie he made three more movies, all of which won Oscars. So what gives?

I smell bias here, an "original research" kind of making a case that only presents one side. Instead of letting one contributor argue for a pet viewpoint, I suggest we either drop this line of argument, or present both sides of the dispute. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The section contains both a quote and a cite from Eliot, and relates closely to the same appraisal given by Capra and Stewart, that the film was a "dead end for Capra" according to McBride. Anything he did after, did not bring him satisfaction, and hastened his departure from Hollywood with what he considered his most critical failure, Pocketful of Miracles.. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

The Library of Congress Film Institution?

What about the fact that "It's a Wonderful Life," was selected into the Library of Congress for being historically or sentimentally imoportant? I think that should be mentioned as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.139.109 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomato Tomoto

Oh for goodness sakes. Five of the greatest movies in history "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "The Sound of Music," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves," and finally widely regarded as the greatest movie ever made (and I agree with them) "It's a Wonderful Life," have no Rotten Tomato or Metacritic scores recorded in them. I mean how could this happen? I not going to be putting the scores into the article because I don't believe in editing in Wikipedia and have only done so twice (I think only twice, once in "How to Train Your Dragon," book and once in "Citizen Kane,"(only one word "negative,")) but I think that somebody needs to record these scores. It's a shame to Hollywood History that some of the greatest movies ever made have no professional modern day oppinions on them. Anyways that's me talking as an American reader I don't know I'm not exactly the smartest bulb on the Christmas tree. Still what do you guys think?-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.164.245 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Having contemporary user reviews and scoring in basically fan-based sites, is not as useful as having external reviews from authoritative sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

skepticism

The article currently asserts the copyright renewal was not filed, due to a clerical error. I am skeptical. According to all my previous reading "It's a Wonderful Life" was merely one of many thousands of films, including "Old Yeller", that fell into the public domain. According to all my previous reading studios routinely decided not to bother to file copyright renewals on old films because the expected future revenue just wasn't considered worth the hassle.

I am also skeptical that stations were obliged to pay royalties for the film, even when the film was in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your skepticism is noted, but find something other than supposition to go any further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Royalties still required when the film was in the public domain?

I am also skeptical that stations were obliged to pay royalties for the film, even when the film was in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

the film was believed to be in the public domain at the time

Currently the Colorization section contradicts other sections when it says "However, the film was believed to be in the public domain at the time." I am skeptical that there is any reason to doubt that the film was in the public domain.

Skepticism aside, you do need to find authoritative and reliable sources that substantiate any changes. I am not sure that journalists aren't simply repeating "old saws" or what seems to be conventional belief in It's a Wonderful Life drifting into the public domain. Stephen Cox in 2003, in his detailed and definitive book on the film and its production, relates the passage of rights in this way: In May 1947, Capra liquidated Liberty Films and gave up all personal rights to this production, the film subsequently passed from one studio to another until Republic Pictures acquired the rights in 1969. In 1973, despite continual copyright updates, a clerical error at the studio caused It's a Wonderful Life to become public domain. (the description is on p. 113). With no copyright restrictions, independent studios released their own versions, including colorized editions. In the mid-1990s (p. 115), Republic began an concerted effort to re-establish its rights over the film by acquiring the rights of the original Van Doren Stern manuscript from the estate of the author, as well as obtaining rights to all the music featured in the film. Threatened lawsuits and protracted legal hassles led to some broadcasters paying royalties in order to continue what had become a holiday staple. NBC continued to air in prime time, the original non-colorized version during the holiday season, a tradition that has been maintained for a decade or more. Cox also indicates that once Republic regained its rights, the indiscriminate use of the film by TV stations was virtually curtailed with only NBC continuing a seasonal broadcast schedule. (p. 115)
Joseph McBride in his Capra biography, The Catastrophe of Success, on p. 534, relates that Wonderful and its future releases and rights were separately sold to Paramount in April 1947 and Capra later regretted giving up his rights, especially after learning that improper storage had led to the master negative being deteriorated (later to be restored by the American Film Institute). In the early 1980s, when the film was being distributed by third-party sources, he entered into a deal with Hal Roach Studios to create an authorized colorization, but changed his mind, choosing to approve only two other classic Capra films, Meet John Doe and Lady for a Day (a personal favorite of his). Capra, again tried to reconcile his decision to abandon the film rights to a special edition, and began in McBride's characterization, "a moral crusade" to put his personal stamp on the film, stressing his motives were based on "integrity" and that he had lost the rights to a classic film through the machinations of the studio system. Regardless of his campaign, mainly directed to the Hollywood press, Capra did not own the rights to the film after 1947. His own biography, The Name Above the Title (pp. 386–387) recounts the reason for relinquishing the rights to Wonderful as its release had been delayed, profits from its screenings were anticipated to be up to a year in the future since Capra had to recoup a claimed $2 million production budget, (p. 401) all at a time when Liberty Films was approaching a credit crunch. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

It Happened One Christmas

"Following initial positive reviews, the made-for-television film was rebroadcast twice in 1978 and 1979, but has not been shown since, nor issued in home media." This is not quite true. I saw this movie on TV in (I believe) December 1985. In general, loving the original, I thought this was an interesting sequel. I'd love to find it somewhere. Fool4jesus (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be amended to network broadcasting as I also saw and taped it in 1994, but on a local broadcast. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on It's a Wonderful Life. 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) 08:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blooper

When her son asks Mary Bailey (Donna Reed) how to spell "Frankenstein" she incorrectly says "F R A N K I N ..." She drifts off and never finishes it as this is when George is upset about the missing money. PumpkinSky talk 03:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Harold Landon as Marty Hatch, Mary's brother (uncredited)

Is it not possible to move this under uncredited cast, while keeping young Marty Hatch under credited? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Incomprehensible caption

Picture of dancing couple captioned "George and Mary dancing near the crack at the high school party"... "dancing near the crack"? What on earth does this mean? --Dcfleck (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"Christmas fantasy comedy-drama"

I see editors could not agree on what to call it... 98.143.70.197 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ending Scene of the Film

Part of the illustration has been faked. The face-head to the right of Violet (Gloria Grahame)does not belong. It has been added. Please check the illustrations more carefully in the future. Wikipedia has been duped. Pantsnotonfire (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record: the cast list in the opening credits differs from the list in the closing credits

It may be noted that, in the film's opening credits, 15 cast members are listed. Below is a reproduction of the form in which the cast is indicated:

However, in the closing credits, which list 35 cast members, four are billed in a different order than in the opening credits: 11th-billed Todd Karns is credited 12th, 12th-billed Samuel S. Hinds is credited 13th, 13th-billed Mary Treen is credited 14th and 14th-billed Frank Albertson is moved up to 11th. Below is a reproduction of the form in which the cast is depicted in the closing credits:
                      Cast of Characters

  1. George Bailey....JAMES STEWART
  2. Mary Hatch.......DONNA REED
  3. Mr. Potter.......Lionel Barrymore
  4. Uncle Billy.......Thomas Mitchell
  5. Clarence..........Henry Travers
  6. Mrs. Bailey.........Beulah Bondi
  7. Ernie.............Frank Faylen
  8. Bert..............Ward Bond
  9. Violet..........Gloria Grahame
  10. Mr. Gower..........H. B. Warner
  11. Sam Wainwright.....Frank Albertson
  12. Harry Bailey..........Todd Karns
  13. Pa Bailey.........Samuel S. Hinds
  14. Cousin Tilly..........Mary Treen
  15. Ruth Dakin........Virginia Patton
  16. Cousin Eustace.....Charles Williams
  17. Mrs. Hatch.........Sara Edwards
  18. Mr. Martini.........Bill Edmunds
  19. Annie..........Lillian Randolph
  20. Mrs. Martini.....Argentina Brunetti
  21. Little George......Bobbie Anderson
  22. Little Sam..........Ronnie Ralph
  23. Little Mary............Jean Gale
  24. Little Violet......Jeanine Ann Roose
  25. Little Marty Hatch....Danny Mummert
  26. Little Harry Bailey.....Georgie Nokes
  27. Nick..........Sheldon Leonard
  28. Potter's Bodyguard.....Frank Hagney
  29. Joe (Luggage Shop).......Ray Walker
  30. Real Estate Salesman.....Charlie Lane
  31. Tom (Bldg. & Loan).....Edward Kean
    The Bailey Children
    32. Janie.........Carol Coomes
    33. Zuzu.........Karolyn Grimes
    34. Pete...........Larry Simms
    35. Tommy.........Jimmy Hawkins
 —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's also the cast list on IMDb. It's quite strange that some of the child actors like "Little Marty Hatch", who barely say anything get listed, and the bank examiner doesn't. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The cast list above is based upon the on-screen credits and IMDb does list the cast in end credits order, while the AFI Catalog lists the first 15 names in opening credits order. Two of the credited child actors (23. Little Mary............Jean Gale and 24. Little Violet......Jeanine Ann Roose) apparently have no acting credits other than their roles in It's a Wonderful Life, with AFI's entry for the film indicating that Jean Gale is another name for Jeanne Gail, whose AFI entry shows that her career started with three 1934 credits, playing parts such as "Beauty clinic nurse" and "Show girl" --- obviously not the child actress in It's a Wonderful Life. Many familiar faces were indeed excluded from the on-screen credits, including the officious bank examiner, played by the longtime character actor Charles Halton, as well as Our Gang's Alfalfa Switzer. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncredited cast

I have removed seventeen uncredited names from the already extensive cast of 35 credited actors listed. This is just too long, and goes against WP:CASTLIST: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". There is no need to have even the 35 credited actors appearing on the page, let alone the members of the various crowd scenes, some of which do not even have speaking parts, let alone important roles. – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I see there have been some minor removals, but it's still an indiscriminate list of trivia. "Man whose great-grandfather planted the tree that George drives into"? I'm slightly at a loss as to how to describe this cluttered nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Shortened that role description, although it was a bit hard. However, this character has two scenes with George and anyone who watches the film carefully will remember the "Man whose great-grandfather planted the tree that George drives into". --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
He, along with most of the uncredited cast (and some of the credited ones), are not "the most relevant actors and roles" in the film. (BTW, I've mentioned this thread at the Film Project talk page to get a wider set of comments on this) - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Support removing any uncredited cast members for which a source can't be located, with the option to tag them now and remove them at some point in the future. If the role is signficant to the film then there must be a source out there that's identified the actor. DonIago (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the uncredited cast members are notable actors --rogerd (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make them notable in this particular film. It may be that the best option would be to include a prose paragraph of "X plays Y" with appropriate citations, but if we can't even dig up citations then we shouldn't be including them. DonIago (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Would the prose approach of an article like Avengers: Infinity War work? --FuriousFreddy (talk)
If you're referring to the last couple of paragraphs of it, I'd say so...again, with sources. Any uncredited actor for whom a source isn't available should not be listed as we won't have verifiability for them. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added some of the names, not all (for example not "Little Marty Hatch" or other characters). But I think that famous and well-discussed (in the media and in film studies) characters like Mr. and Mrs. Martini (Frank Capra Oversimplified the Italian-American Story), Annie (“It’s a Wonderful Life”: Honoring Lillian Randolph) or Bobby Anderson, who portrays young George for the first 10-15 minutes of the film, should be in the cast list. The film holds an iconic status and is a holiday favorite, so that it is seen mutiple time and many people come to know these supporting characters very closely. And they will wonder why they would not be listed in this big article. The list is long, but one has to remember that, as SchroCat says, it should fit "with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". "It's a Wonderful Life" simply has a big supporting ensemble cast like most of Capra's films - and the ending scene works only through these many supporting characters coming together and giving their rendition of Auld Lang Syne. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted on the grounds that the number of actors listed was previously contentious and there's no consensus to include these actors. You didn't mention whether any of them are uncredited, and I don't have a copy of the film, but if they are uncredited then they should be listed as such and sourced accordingly. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the numerous versions of the article in the last years, those characters I mentioned and edited into the cast list were always included in the cast list - through the work of numerous authors. If SchroCat wants to remove them like in his edit at the end of March, he should explain why and search a consensus for it. I only re-installed the normal version by now. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you asserting that all of these actors are credited within the film? DonIago (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are in the 1946 ending credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqe9eD08uUs (this was the only video of the ending credits on Youtube, it's shaky and colorized, but you can see it). I only re-added a selection of these actors named in the ending credits because some of them have small roles, like SchroCat says. But a lot of those roles SchroCat removed are substantial supporting characters and I'm against that, especially on such a film. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
RomanSpinner also listed them in the discussion below, with a comparison to the opening credits. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised to see invectives such as "indiscriminate list of trivia" and "cluttered nonsense" being used to describe a list of people considered important enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. Okay, this information isn't interesting to everybody. Some people are interested. Cutting the list of cast members hardly seems to be worth the fuss that's being made over it.Teishin (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
To me the list appears overly-long, and I'd support efforts to trim it back a bit, but I'm not strongly invested in it. I was more concerned with the possibility that uncredited actors were being included without sourcing being provided. @SchroCat: As you brought this up originally, what's your current view on it? DonIago (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd still cull most of it (anyone under Frank Albertson and probably all the uncredited ones). I stand by using terms such as "indiscriminate list of trivia" and "cluttered nonsense". More often than not less is more in getting information over to readers, and the eyes glaze over very quickly in such a list. It's still running against WP:CASTLIST, if you want my opinion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually CASTLIST would rather support the position of me and Teishin: It is listed that "a film's cast may vary in size and in importance" - It's a Wonderful Life works as a cast film and scholars have pointed out a "large cast" where everybody was "carefully selected" by Capra. 1 The "rule of thumb" criterias are also: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. ... all characters on the list fulfill all criterias except two or three, and those fulfill even all the other criterias. --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
And I think we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the readers in a way that they can't handle 27 actors. --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fine - you can keep it how you want if you really want to: I was just pinged for my opinion, which I've given. I also think you are doing readers a disservice by piling trivia into the article. And I haven't underestimated the intelligence of reader: there are countless studies that show that information given in smaller, cleaner versions is always better taken on board than information overload. I'll say again, the bloated mess we have here is doing the reader a disservice. One of the reasons I've not bothered to try and do some decent work on the article is that there is too much trivia in the article overall, it breaches the MoS in so many places. The treatment of the article as some form of hallowed ground has stunted any development it could have had; it is a mediocre article at best, and is destined to remain so unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that I don't have a strong position on this, but I'll agree with SC that the current cast list does seem a bit indiscriminate, and certainly anyone who wants an exhaustive cast (and crew!) listing can look at IMDb, for instance, as a site more geared toward exhaustive film coverage; when our list starts to be as thorough as theirs, I feel we've gone astray. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The initial sentence under this section header, I have removed seventeen uncredited names from the already extensive cast of 35 credited actors listed, highlights the fact that, as of this writing, the cast list actually contains only 30 credited actors, despite the existence of text hidden in the article directly section header "Cast", <!– Order and roles per closing credits –>. The five missing names, as seen in the cast list directly below, are 22. Little Sam..........Ronnie Ralph, 25. Little Marty Hatch....Danny Mummert, 26. Little Harry Bailey.....Georgie Nokes, 29. Joe (Luggage Shop).......Ray Walker (actor) and 31. Tom (Bldg. & Loan).....Edward Kean (actor).

I don't see consensus to reduce the cast list to 30 names, but even if there was such a consensus, the list should then simply cut names 31 through 35, not names non-consecutively plucked from the latter part of the list. Accordingly, I will restore the five missing names and make whatever other revisions are needed to comply with the <!– Order and roles per closing credits –> disclaimer. Any further suggestions and / or objections can be discussed below. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion about how over-long and bloated the cast list is, and your answer is to add names?? Unbelievable. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think he has a fair point so there is no reason to get this polemic. Most classic movies have the entire credited cast listed on Wikipedia. And "bloated" is a fairly subjective viewpoint. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't lecture me on how to talk about second-rate articles, regardless of how "beloved in American cinema" it is claimed to be (and I use that term with a shudder: it has no place in an encyclopaedia, particularly not in the lead paragraph). The list was bloated before the additional names, it is even worse now, and the uncredited section a downright joke. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the main author on this article so I have nothing to do with the lead paragraph, which also has nothing to do with the cast list we are discussing here. Between, as I pointed out, most first-rate articles from the Golden Era of Hollywood list all the credited cast members. --Clibenfoart (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Length of cast list

Comments are welcome on whether the current cast list is appropriate or too long. Comments are also welcome on whether the extensive list of uncredited actors is necessary. - SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support trimming as this list appears overly-long to me. I'd be curious as to how many of the credited actors receive five minutes or less of screen time. Support removing uncredited actors except in cases where there's a significant discussion of the actor and role in a third-party source. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Against trimming as it is simply a film with a very large cast. All of the actors in the list have at least a memorable scene or are discussed in third-party sources as it is such an iconic film. I would also argue that CASTLIST supports cases like these as I already pointed out in the discussion above. The argument that cast lists shouldnt be simply a collection of all the actors in the film seems to me mostly directed at modern Hollywood pictures, but this is a Hollywood studio era picture were most actors who are credited actually have a significent supporting role (not like today where an actor has to walk longer than 10seconds through a film and is already credited). A lot of those SchroCat edited out are actually in the film for many scenes which makes me wonder whether he knows the film or not. For many of these actors like African-American actress Lillian Randolph, veteran actors Charles Edmunds and Mary Treen or Italian-American William Edmunds this is the best-known role of their career - and they are all notable enough to have an article. Awarded, above-avarage articles about studio era films like Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Freaks and The Great Ziegfeld also list their whole credited cast and write something about the uncredited cast – so it is rather a sign of quality to list these actors for the article. The cast is especially important as It's a Wonderful Life works through a lot of these supporting characters like Mr. and Mrs. Martini, Annie, Sam, Nick the bartender etc. who are often helped by George and give him their help in the ending scene. And Capra obviously wants that the viewer reminds and recognizes all these faces in the ending scene when they all come together. So they are more than so-called "trivia", but actively contribute to the film. And viewers who come to this article will remember and recognize them and wonder why they would not be listed here. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
And I just realized that you were the editor asking Clibenfoart to engage at the time... DonIago (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that was me, trying to get some discussion going, but absolutely no answer at all. I think that is the extent of the "long balanced discussions". On that basis there is no consensus and we could revert back to that point because of the lack of discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Normally I would have answered, but at that point I probably didn't have the article on my watchlist and I'm also not always working on the English Wikipedia. Anyway, if you look into the different versions of the articles history, a lot of editors edited, worked etc. on the cast list you found bloated (for example User:RockNWrite82, User:HesioneHushabye, User talk:Jmg38, User:Clarityfiend, User:DJordan18 alone in the last year, I did not any look further). There was never any discussion about trimming the cast list completely down (except from you), which would have happened at such an article of a famous, high-traffic film if most authors or readers wanted it to be cut down. --Clibenfoart (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
You may not have had this on your watchlist, but please check your talk page: I left two messages there asking for you not to edit war, but to discuss on the talk page. You ignored them and my requests here for you to discuss matters. - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)→
Clibenfoart, you reverted recent changes on the basis they "destroyed long balanced discussions on the cast list". Could you point me to those "long balanced discussions" please. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
They are perhaps not discussions as I thought, but there are numerous collaborations by numerous authors on the cast list in the last 10 years that are in the articles version history. So I would argue that there was a consensus to keep actors. --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So no consensus at all, just you edit warring to add more and more names and refusing to discuss the edit warring on the talk page? No wonder the article is dross, lead by the second rate "man whose grandfather planted the tree George drives into" and "the student with the swimming pool keys". It pays no heed to CASTLIST (except in the extremely twisted way you've defined it above. So far the votes in your favour are all very much along the lines of 'I like the film so the list should be kept, which is a long way away from the use of policy and guideline to determine events. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is composed by volunteer editors who have interests in the topics they edit. This has correspondence with what topics the public finds of interest. Teishin (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm extremely well aware of how WP works, but perhaps you and others seem to have missed the bit about us supposedly using policies and guidelines to support our positions, not "I like the film, so we should degrade the encyclopaedia and turn it into IMDB on the basis I like it". It's that sort of lazy thinking that has lumbered us with crap like "one of the most beloved" in the opening paragraph and the frankly laughable "man whose grandfather planted the tree George drives into" and "the student with the swimming pool keys". I was going to say this is second rate, but that would be way to generous. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have not yet presented a good argument for trimming, except that you personally think it's too long. Even if you take CASTLIST: a) The CASTLIST sentence that one should not necessarily name the whole credited cast is more directed to the post-1960s films where even totally minor roles are credited, resulting in hundreds of credited actors in some cases, but this was not the case in the Hollywood studio system, where only a selected number of actors got a screen credit; b) you claim that the article is "second rate" (and I agree that the article is not perfect), but all the first-rate articles from the Hollywood studio system do list their whole credited cast and also some of the notable uncredited actors (as I pointed out above); c) CASTLIST gives as a rule of thumb that the listed actors should have speaking parts or roles with names or should be mentioned in third-part media etc. - most of the actors you want to delted fulfill all these criterias. A number of authors have stated their interest, from which I would guess that the general public also has a huge interest in looking at the supporting cast. Most of what you write is rather stating the problems of the rest of the article, which has nothing to do with the cast list, either. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition to all of the valid points Clibenfoart just made, there are concerns about how SchroCat is treating other editors, accusing them of "lazy thinking" that has "lumbered us with crap" and the condescending comments about their inferior knowledge of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. So there's also now an issue of WP:EQ now. Teishin (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you think I care tuppence about posts like this, you’ve not got a clue. I don’t care about opinions about people’s comments: I care about articles and how they read. This one fails miserably to rise about the level of second rate crap. It’s there because of the lazy thinking surrounding it, and the sub-standard approach to developing it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support cut, probably back as far as Frank Albertson or Todd Karns. And ALL the uncredited ones. Including "man whose grandfather planted the tree George drives into" and "the student with the swimming pool keys". Less is more. I'd also get rid of the sentence "The film is one of the most beloved in American cinema" in the opening para as one that is utterly unencyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose cut. There appears to be interest in these cast members worthy of listing them and no clear criteria for excluding them.Teishin (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all. For those who enjoy this film the list will remind them of the characters within it and their scenes. Keeping these seems encyclopedic as well, as long as it is a reliable record. The man whose grandfather planted the tree had his role to play, and should be encyclopedically recognized within the page of such an iconic film. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The historical importance of this film I think renders it capable of listing everyone involved with it's success. Personally my favorite bit of the film is that Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Corby is in the film and has lines but was uncredited. I would assume the article gets views every time the film airs and it's most likely to view that cast list.[citation needed] HesioneHushabye (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all as many small roles were still of note as explained above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep alll. Regardless of what one thinks of it the film personally , it is a famous work. For famous works, in contrast to those that are merely notable, all named characters need to be listed. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Shall we end this discussion? There is not much movement anymore and the result at the moment (6:2) is quite clear. --Clibenfoart (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that it seems pretty clear how this will go, Wikipedia discussions are not votes. DonIago (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Since articles in Wikipedia are continuous works in progress, I would oppose any suggestion to end an ongoing discussion. Wikipedia should always encourage editors to constructively contribute to the dialogue to improve an article. In that spirit, I add my opinion to those who seek to trim the credits list, based in part on Wikipedia's policy, which I support, to not be an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:CASTLIST: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). A vital point to consider is that even casual readers are able to access the exhaustive list of actors in this film by clicking on the citations and examining the sources. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Eliot 2006, p. 206.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It%27s_a_Wonderful_Life/Archive_3&oldid=989466463"