Talk:The High and the Mighty (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Repetition

This article is maddeningly repetitious. I think it could do without the same line of information ("this is one of the first disaster films") being stated in every section. Aglie 05:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was edited by a member of the Redundancy Society of Redundancy. Feel free to improve it. :) Wahkeenah 07:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I pared use of the word down again. I glark some editors only glance at the article before inserting the (somewhat thinly supported) phrase "disaster film" in the first subsection they see, then leave. It's not much of a disaster film at all, the plane makes it to SFO. A canny drama though! Gwen Gale 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Glark? Don't you mean grok? Clarityfiend 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I've cleaned it up thoroughly. The character summaries I think are a bit much but I loathe removing content so I at least factored them into the wikified structure of the article. I've removed quite a bit of unsupported stuff about "disaster" and "sister" films. I'm not even sure this can be truly called a fore-runner to those glitzy, soap-opera "airport" films of the 70s but I've left that in since I think it likely at least a few critics have said it is and yeah, it likely did have something to do with inspiring how they were done. Gwen Gale 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was a mess. Maybe it still is. Let's discuss what to do about it here. Thanks Gwen Gale 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the original complaints about the contents and structure of this article were posted in April, 2006. In response to them, I did my extensive rewrites of it (I have been a professional writer for more than 35 years) in December, 2006, and January, 2007 (see the page history), but I did not make any specific notation of that on this page at the time which I probably should have done. I expect that my faliure to do so is what may have misled you to think that the issues raised in April had never been addressed. The structure and order in which I organized the page were done very carefully, and the details about the characters and story, as well as the technical and aviation aspects (I am myself a pilot) relating to the plane and the flight, were all very extensively researched and confirmed. (As I mentioned above, this is what I do for a living.) I have retained a fair number of the changes that you made, but restored the formatting and structure which I carefully developed for the article when I did the rewrites over a period of several weeks in December and January. Thanks for your input and concern. I quite vividly remember when I first saw this film as a child in 1954 and it has always been one of my favorites. Centpacrr 08:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you tell me you're a professional writer? Gwen Gale 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say that the "disaster/sister" film references were not mine and I probably should have taken them out. (I did, however, add the references to the specific actors and other participants who were common to both films.) I mentioned that I am a professional writer as it seemed relevant to my bono fides in explaining why and how I researched, wrote, and structured my contributions in rewriting this article from what it had been prior to the first time I worked on it in December. Centpacrr 10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a cheer, to hear what you have to say about the disaster/sister references. Now, that's bona fides isn't it? :) Never mind though, thanks for answering my quesiton. Now, what do you think of the long list of character rundowns? Gwen Gale 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The character descriptions of the passengers, crew, and the aircraft (which is as much of a "character" in the film as the people in my view) are mine and were each carefully researched and developed. I accept responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of my contributions to the article on which I spent a great many hours over a period of several weeks in December and January, and believe its content and structure are all fine as they are now. Thanks for your comments and input. Centpacrr 17:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article still has some problems. Are you willing to discuss my thoughts on this? Gwen Gale 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think but I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Centpacrr 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First, the character capsules would in themselves be ok for like, a zine article but not, I think, for an encyclopedia article, too granular. Here are almost two dozen little paragraphs which could be helpfully skived down to about one 40 word para. I don't like rm'ing content and did try to format them for reading on a wiki but you reverted that, not sure why but no matter. I'd like to try making a single, helpful, narrative paragraph out of that section. Gwen Gale 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While nominally an "action/adventure" film, The High and the Mighty is really an intensely character driven ensemble piece. The film spends more than an hour carefully developing the viewer's understanding of the personality of each character starting by introducing each passenger individually with much basic biographical information (name, age, hometown, occupation, why they are traveling, etc) as they check-in for the flight in Honolulu. The crew is also extensively introduced before departure on the tarmac (Dan Roman) and the TOPAC dispatch office. After boarding the plane all the characters are further developed through extensive interactive dialogue as well as many long, expensively produced flashbacks sequences before the accident (the action/adventure element) ever happens more than half way through this unusually long (2:27) feature. Without this careful and exhaustive development of the character and background of each passenger, crewmember, and the aircraft itself, the reactions of each -- and their interactions with the others -- which is the essence of the drama would be all but lost and therefore make little sense to the viewer. Reducing that essential background and character development information to a "40 word paragraph" (or about two words per character) therefore makes no sense at all to me as this is what drives the entire film and makes the story work. The technique I selected of giving each character a single, concise caption-like sentence ("character capsules") organized as part of a character/cast list seems to me to be by far the most efficient and easy to follow way to present this essential information which is so crucial to the understanding of what happens (and why) in the rest of the film. Centpacrr 07:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you, spot on, about the importance of character development in the film (and it was successful IMHO). I was talking about how to approach the article's description of character development. I like the capsules you wrote but think that section is too long, impeding encyclopedic narrative. Can you think of any way to keep the content but adapt it into narrative form? Gwen Gale 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comments on my views on the importance of how character development is the key to understanding this film. I considered a variety of ways to present the necessary information with sufficient detail in the most organized and concise way. After much thought I found the technique which I selected and employed here to be by far the most efficient and clearest approach. A narrative paragraph would probably work fine for many (if not most) films, but not, I strongly feel, in this particular case in which there is such a large ensemble cast of complex characters whose interactions with each other are so centrally driven by each of their individual situations. While this section may physically appear to be long when displayed on the page, trying to convert it to a narrative form without sacrificing clarity and essential information would in fact make it both longer and much less easy to follow. For this and the other reasons I noted earlier, I strongly feel that this is the best, clearest, most efficient, and most objective way to present the complex details of this information which is so essential to the overall understanding of the film, and that it should not be changed in any way. Thanks again for your input and for caring so much about this wonderful film. Centpacrr 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha thanks for thanking me so much :) I do think it breaks up the narrative but again, I truly understand your thinking and tend to agree with that too. For example, whilst in one way a narrative would be easier to read, comprehension of the ensemble capsules would indeed likely drop... I wonder if it's a layout thing. Something. I'll let you know first if I stumble onto any searingly helpful notions about it. Gwen Gale 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding of my views on this. Centpacrr 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some minor cleanup to the syntax and punctuation. For example, putting "quoted material" in italics is wholly redundant and non-standard (see Chicago Manual of Style). My only lingering worry is that there are bits of redundancy in the plot summary, which have already been covered in the character capsules. There isn't much of this though, I'll put some thought into how to resolve this without upsetting the pith of the article. Gwen Gale 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been rather WP:BOLD. See what you think. Clarityfiend 07:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and input. I have elected to delete all of my earlier contributions to this entry and thus restore the article to the way I originally found it. Centpacrr 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg

Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Revision

I have some concerns over the latest edit which is so verbiose and does not fit the original edit recently which was merely to conform to similar movie/film articles. I have tried to incorporate the new changes but I frankly liked the original edit better. Please comment. Gwen, did you write the original edit? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

After bit of a contretemps, I have restored the best of three editor's work and will continue to slave away. Coincidentally, I agree with all the edit choices made so far but have tried to integrate them more fluidly. FWIW Bruce, don't give up! Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

I wouldn't characterize any of our edits as "the best" and would only ask that we follow the editing guidelines outlined in the template above, keep the text as neutral as possible, add more citations and discuss things more here on the talk page. As for "the original edit" could you provide a diff since I'm not sure which edit you're referring to(!)? This said, it appears, Bzuk, as though you're generally supporting a factoring and narrative approach which I think may be the more helpful and encyclopedic... Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit by User:Centpacrr does not conform to the editing guidelines in the above template and contains WP:OR (lengthy discussion of "souls on board"). Moreover, the edit summary implied the editor had engaged in this current discussion, but User:Centpacrr has not done so. Hence, I have reverted the edit. Please, let's discuss this here and try to reach some kind of consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made several factual additions and corrections but have left the formatting alone with two exceptions. First I have moved the section relating to the aircraft so that it appears as its own section immediately after the cast list. It is clear to me that N4726V is intended to be every bit as much of a "character" in the film as any of the 22 passengers and crew on board. For that reason I strongly feel that it should not be a subsection under "Production" where it is treated as a physical "prop" as opposed to an essential character element. Second I have created a new section title ("Restoration and re-release") for the section of the article relating to its recent return to public view. It does not seem to me that this very different part of the film's history does not fit in the section relating to its public reception at the time of its original theatrical release a half century earlier. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for discussing this here. Have you read the editing guidelines in the template above? Please let us know if you have. Also, although I understand (and agree spot on with) what you mean by referring to the aircraft as a character in a literary sense, the aircraft is not a cast member, it is a prop. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreed to the restoration of approximately 10,000 characters of contributions that I had made as far back as December, 2006, at the request of the User:Buzak (which he did in a posting to my user talk page) and was attempting to post my reasons for the additional edits he invited me to make when that was blocked by your posting of 09:38. I have deleted the discussion of "souls on board" (which Buzak had added) to which you objected, and also returned the "aircraft" section to "Production" (although I do not see how it does not conform to the template). If, however, for any reason you still do not feel that you can accept my contributions to this article, then please so advise and I will permanently delete all of them. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

You deleted both the {refimprove} tag and a citation from the lead, I have restored them. The factoring seems closer to the guideline now but maybe we should discuss this more. My biggest worry to start with though, is the lack of citations for many details in the text. This may be partly a formatting thing (some of the listed sources may cover more of this than it seems at first glance) but either way, all assertions in the narrative should be clearly referenced back to verifiable, independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources for everything I included in the narrative of the film, the characters, and the aviation related issues and technical details are found in the film and the screenplay themselves, my own experience as a pilot (since 1965), and my extensive professional research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. First, I'm only talking about the article as a whole, not what you've added. This said,

• The film itself is only an acceptable source for a plot description. Even then, editor consensus has sway. The film (other than its written credits) is not an acceptable source for anything else.
• Your experience as a pilot sounds wonderful, but following WP:OR, anything you might contribute to this article which draws from your piloting experience would be original research and is not an acceptable source.
• Likewise, your own "research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history," while no doubt fascinating and worthy, would be WP:OR and hence, not acceptable for use in this encyclopedia article. Rather, your past research should give you the knowledge and understanding to cite independent sources (WP:V) and not your own interpretations and conclusions. The exception here would be if your original research has been published by a verifiable and reliable publisher (if so, we could cite your published works, subject to editor consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT).
• The screenplay may be an acceptable source for technical details, if assertions of these details are directly attributed to the screenplay by the narrative. Meanwhile, I don't see any citation of the screenplay in this article. Am I missing it somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled about what you're driving at here, but by the film and screenplay as the source I mean including exact words as spoken by the characters. (These appear in quotation marks in such a way to be obvious that that's exactly what they are.) By my experience as a pilot and "research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history" I mean that these provide me with the background and experience in aviation to clearly understand and relate technical aspects that appear on the screen and/or are referred to by the characters (for instance the readings on flight instruments, ADF, radio altimeter, meaning of radio transmissions, check list items, weather conditions, flight operations and procedures, etc.) It would seem to me that the film itself is always the primary and definitive source of the plot. Relying on anything else would introduce interpretation and hearsay. I first saw this film when it was released in 1954 and have watched it many times since. It is what it is, and that is all I described .... objectively and without prejudice or artifice. I can't see that there is any better "source" as to plot, etc, then the film itself, i.e., Res ipse loquitur. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, as I said above, The film itself is only an acceptable source for a plot description. However, most of what I listed above had to do with WP:OR. You cannot cite your own experience or expertise as support for article content (although you may certainly use your experience or expertise to quickly track down and cite acceptable, independent sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I included all the appropriate technical reference hyperlinks long ago (most of these are in the section on the aircraft). (Centpacrr (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Two of those are only photographs of DC-4s with no independently verified relationship to the film. Let's give this some time, I have no plan or wish to gut the article or anything and I think much of the text is likely supported by some of the provided sources, it may only be a question of getting footnotes placed throughout the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't either supply or post the two photographs of the aircraft. Please be specific about what (if anything) in my contributions (primarily in the plot and the aircraft sections) that you think may be insufficiently supported. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

User talk:Centpacrr, I am not talking specifically about your contributions, I am only addressing the article as a whole (thanks for telling me about the two images used as cites though). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In just taking a cursory look at the layout and content, I think you both have done an admirable job in creating an interesting and informative article. IMHO (standard aviation lexicon for "in my humble opinion"- just kiddin,' Bruce) the overall impression is highly favourable (Canajan spelling here) and stands up well against other similar film articles. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

Cast

As for the cast list, if someone is missing from the credits as displayed in the film, are they notable enough to mention in the paragraph which follows the cast table? If so, let's put them there, if not, it is unacceptable for the narrative to refer readers to an external link for more information. Most commercial films since the 1920s have had hundreds of folks involved in their production and the participation of most of them (numerically speaking) is not notable. Although more recent movies have exhaustive end-credits which are an industry solution to the problem of unambiguously confirming creditable film work on an industry resume (among other issues), many of these names are still not of encyclopedic interest and there is no need for the narrative to go on about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The total list is actually referred to as a reference. All that is indicated is that the entire list can be obtained from that reference. The inclusion of many cast and crew in their first roles can be identified in the list which is mainly "standard issue" for Wicky film articles. Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes. Any reader who wants to dig more deeply into the arcania of cast and crew will easily find a path through the citations to IMdB. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, but the proviso to explain that the list is incomplete and production crews are not provided in the listing is a "standard" practise. Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

I don't agree that the list is incomplete in encyclopedic terms: The notable names are in the article. If other notable cast/crew have been missed, cast can always be added to text in the cast section, crew can be noted in the production section. Any "standard practice" of having the narrative point readers to an external source for "complete" information is wholly unacceptable and was clearly not thought through. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The only sourcing lack I see now has to do with how sundry props and aircraft were assembled to depict the airliner onscreen. I glark most of this text is accurate and easily supportable: I'll be going through the sources and adding footnotes as time allows (anyone else can do this too though!). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The aircraft seem to have adequate sourcing which is the normal one citation per main passage. There are a few missing citations that can be applied to other areas. For example, I just enlarged the peripheral details regarding casting problems. Wayne was never scheduled to do the film and Wellman was faced with the dilemma of finding "name" actors for lead roles. In the end, a large cast of unknowns and B-movie stars substituted although Wayne's name still had star authority. A new section on commercial success may also have to be developed. The film set box-office records for the fastest "return-from-take" until modern times. Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

John Wayne hit on something with this film and I think critical appreciation for it will continue to grow over time. Also interesting that in the end, he didn't need that A-list of fussy actors to make this one fly (forgive me for that one haha!). As for the sources, I only want to go through them a bit more and make sure all the assertions are indeed supported, I'm sure they are though. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally Spencer Tracy was cast and the initial screenplay was written with him in mind. In this film, although Wayne was the producer, he gave casting decisions over to William Wellman. It's not that he didn't want A-list stars, he simply couldn't get anyone even after Wayne signed on as the "star." Barbara Stanwyck was a great "pet" of Wellman yet steadfastedly refused his entreties. Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Yep and I meant to say, "although he wanted an A-list of fussy actors to play the passengers, as it happened, he didn't need them to make this one fly." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the number of citations and references now provides more than adequate attribution sources. Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Commercial success

I have just added a note about the commercial success of the film. Until modern times, it had been considered one of the fastest films to recover its production costs. Bzuk (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer

While perhaps not absolutely "essential" information, the violent death by justifiable homicide (self defense) of TH&TM actor Carl Switzer in January, 1959, is every bit as significant a fact about him as mentioning his five years playing "Alfalfa" in the Our Gang comedies as a child actor. Had George Reeves, Sal Mineo, or Phil Hartman, for instance, played a minor part in a film and been given a career note such a Switzer's, the unusual circumstances of their violent deaths (all of which were huge stories at the time) would surely have been included. If it is worth mentioning his career as a child actor from ages 7 to 12, it is IMHO every bit as legitimate to include the the fact that he was a victim of homicide at the young age of 31, just five years after appearing in this film. It seems to me that this information about a actor in the film also fits in with another sub-theme of the article relating to it being a "disaster film" that also had elements of real life disaster in it in that the airctaft "The Argentine Queen" also met a tragic and violent end ten years after its own appearance in the picture. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

The one main concern I have is that much of the detail is actually about his later life well after his involvement with this film. That's much the same reason why anecdotes about John Wayne after his work on the film, for example, he participated in disaster films and a real-life disaster of contracting cancer befell him, also would not fit. Unless Alfalfa continued to be notable because of his role in the film, perhaps a revival of his career but that did not occur. Where the unfortunate circumstances behind his untimely murder do fit is in a notation on the main page that details Carl Switzer's career and life. Have you thought of expanding the section about his death on the actor's main page? It is a bit of a stretch to see that Alfalfa playing a role in a disaster film and later is the victim of a tragic end, is a significant enough connecion. But then again, this is only presupposing that you do not come back with an even more convincing case for including his demise. Perhaps you can do a trial rewrite here on the "talk page" before inserting it into the body of the text. That's only a suggestion but it is often a "proving ground" to test out ideas and concepts. As for the connection of the airliner movie model to a real-live tragedy that mirrored the events of the film, its inclusion makes some sense. FWIW, as you can deduce, my entry here is mainly a "stream of consciousness" so take it as you will. Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

Using only the phrase "his later tragic death" but then not specifying the circumstances thereof or why it is tragic seems to me to unnecessarily leave the reader "hanging" with insufficient information to understand what it means. (It is almost like saying "Guess what? There's another significant bit of information about this person here which we will allude to but will not tell you what it is or why it is relevant.") Either the full context of the circumstances of his sudden death by homicide at the young age of 31 should be included (which is what I strongly feel is the proper approach), or any reference to his "tragic death" be left out altogether. If Wikipedia were a printed encyclopedia in which editing for space is an economic necessity, then cutting out a few words here and there makes sense. As a digital encyclopedia, however, there is no such economic rationale for the tight editing out of such relevant details. Leaving it only as a "tragic death" is misleading IMHO, especially when what that phrase actually means can be clarified and nailed down in just a few more words. When the manner of death of a public figure is homicide, especially at a young age, it seems clear to me that this fact should always be included as an integral part of any reference to his or her demise. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

All that being said, the circumstances and untimely passing at a young age have little relevance to an article about a film where a minor character is merely noted. His background should be treated as an aside. Placing greater emphasis on one character over the many other main actors does not seem balanced. The main focus on the article should be on the story of the film not on the peripheral details of an individual character actor, no matter how interesting his death. One of the provisos of starting a talk page "string" of discussion is to uise this forum for formulating a consensus-driven approach. It is not as useful to use the mainspace for multiple revisions. I had conceded a point by introducing a phrase that would give the reader a better understanding of the person's notoriety. However, the original first edit on his name probably stands up the best. FWIW, I will alter the passage to reflect this until there is a consensus on how to proceed. Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

As I mentioned above, my views on this are to either explain it completely or not mention it at all. While Switzer's death by homicide is certainly not a central piece of information about the film itself, I still think it is interesting and worth mentioning for the reasons I stated above but I will not press this any further. As I have said, my philosophy is that as this is an online, digital encyclopedia and is therefor not limited by the same economic constraints as a printed one. That being the case, I believe that opting for the inclusion of additional relevant detail when available is almost always appropriate. The process of how to achieve "consensus" on this, however, is unclear to me. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I have expanded the cast list to include all the actors whose names appear in the opening credits (in the order in which they appear), and also included a brief description of who each one is (with the exception of the passengers who are already described in detail elsewhere). I also included one uncredited actor (Robert Easton) because his character (TOPAC dispatcher, Honolulu) is mentioned in the plot section. Now that Carl Switzer in included in the cast list, I also changed the note about him to a footnote. I trust this meets with everyone's approval. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Bruce, your latest addition is a good alternative. BTW, the means of gaining consensus can be either a formal or informal means of deciding "the best course forward." In terms of the normal process, merely an accord based on all interested parties accepting a decision is all that is needed. The present commercial or business management definition of consensus is an acceptance by all parties of a proposed plan. A formal call for consensus involves a recorded vote. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Far from its use being demeaning, actor Carl Switzer used the nickname "Alfalfa" as an integral part of his name in life, and it also how he is identified on his tombstone at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Images of TOPAC airliner

Although I really like the digital "watercolor" and even the CGI image is passable, perhaps the use of an actual screen image would suffice and be used to replace all the other images, or at least the DC-4 and CGI version. See: thumb|screenshot FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

I considered doing it that way (straight screenshot). Let me give it some thought. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

After some quirky uploading issues with the Wikipedia server which required me to upload the image multiple times, I have added a last screenshot from the film of the fire in Engine #1. I inserted the image in the plot section at the place where the engine seizure is described at full column width (750px) as in this one case I feel quite strongly that a smaller thumbnail would be completely inadequate to illustrate this, the central event which drives the rest of the film. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry Bruce, this is really waaaay over the guidelines. How about if I play with it a bit, scaling it down to an acceptable size that will pass FA review. Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

Please provide me with a link to the guideline (presumably on images) to which you make reference as I have been unable to find it and am not sure where else to look. In the meantime I'll drop the image and give it some additional thought on how to make it acceptable. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Bruce, this is the relevant section from the Wiki "Help Page" Wikipedia:Picture tutorial: "Thumbnailing: Let us say that picture is too big. Let us say we want the user to get a smaller version (a "thumbnail") when he/she looks at the article. Thumbnails always include a frame, so when thumbnailing, you almost always want to specify a caption.

A thumbnail adds a gray border around a picture and lets you add a caption, like 'frame' above. See Wikipedia:Captions for caption writing tips.

But "thumb" also automatically resizes a large picture into a smaller display size, with an option for the user to click on the image and see the original large version. Because different people work to different screen resolutions, your preferred size of thumbnails can be set in special:preferences under "files". The default, which is also used for logged-out users is 180 pixels (px), but you can choose between 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 250px, and 300px sizes. If an image is smaller than the thumbnail size you specified then it is displayed at 100% resolution, that is, at its natural size. Generally speaking, thumbnails are the best way to display images."

Further, individual wiki groups have set standards for using images, including the Wiki"Film and Wiki:aviation groups which specify "thumb sizing" and no hard-coding. I am going to temporarily resize the image back to the image as last seen. It will probably be acceptable at 350 px size. Centering is a bit of an issue where "white space" is created. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Recommendation for a FA Review

Bruce, Gwen, the article looks great! Isn't it time for a Featured Article review? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

OK with me. Is there some formal process for that? (Centpacrr (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I will start by "tagging" the article and then asking for an independent reviewer to analyze the content. Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

One of the main criteria for an FA recommendation is "stability" in that the article appears to be complete, meets all other FA criteria and is not continually challenged or revised. (Bruce, this means that the article, once you are satisfied with it, is passed over for review and essentially "stays put" – no more changes, except for errors that require changes: dates, places, events, etc. Other minor "tweaking" changes should be put "on hold.") (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

I have made my final tweaks to the "Plot" and "Aircraft" sections and am satisfied that the article is now ready for FA review if it should be proposed for that. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

It has now begun – the first stages of a peer review were set in place today. Thanks for all your hard work, but get ready, this is only the first part of the process, and typically, an overall assessment will identify areas for improvement that are then undertaken by the primary editors involved in the development of the content. (BTW, the Italian slang was to be taken entirely in the context of good-natured ribbing. That's what the LOL means in this case, "don't take it seriously...") FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the information on the "FA Review" process. Please keep me up to date on its progress. Re: "Varnish" This is a term used in railroading referring the company paint schemes on rail passenger cars. Re: "Capiche?" You have to understand that I come from Philadelphia which has a lot of really nasty Italian "Mob guys", and where using the expression "Capiche?" carries, among other things, some fairly unpleasant connotations. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

I assumed the term "varnished" may have been an obscure term but it does not seem to register as aviation jargon. "C'est la vie, c'est un autre l'expression à la française." (Being Canajan, we also have our idioms.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Bruce, being plain, stability also means leaving everything in place, otherwise, there are always some little "tweak" to be made. The reviewers have to see that the article is essentially finished its development phase. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

Minor changes

First, let me mention that I made some additions to this article back in the dim-and-misty. Coming back to it now, I find it improved beyond measure. Kudos, mostly to Gwen Gale, Centpacrr, and Bzuk.

Because of the effort that went into bringing the article to its present state, I feel obligated to justify the minor edits I have just made. The small grammar and puctuational corrections (the latter mainly inserting hyphens) need no explanation. The four minor items of any substance are:

Changed the wording from

Frank Briscoe (Paul Fix): an ailing, wheelchair bound, grandfatherly gentleman who, although apparently down on his luck, is still gracious and generous to a fault;

to

Frank Briscoe (Paul Fix): a wheelchair-bound, grandfatherly gentleman who, although ailing and in pain, is still gracious and generous to a fault;

as "down on his luck" implies poverty, which is not the case (he refers to his "heirs," buys steak dinners for Chen and Spalding, and has a chauffer, Pete).

The DVD commentary given as a source for

Wellman revealed later that the commercial prospects of a decidedly risky "theme" concept project which also had been filmed in the new Cinemascope format that limited theater use, had led to Joan Crawford, Ida Lupino, Barbara Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers and Dorothy McGuire, all in turn, declining lead female roles.

most decidedly says no such thing. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest such a dubious rationale before. The film could hardly have become the #1 money-maker for the year if theaters were unable to exhibit it. I have replaced the sentence with

After Trevor and Sterling were nominated for Academy Awards, Wellman revealed that Joan Crawford, Ida Lupino, Barbara Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers and Dorothy McGuire, declined the roles, apparently unwilling to essay the parts of "a broken-down broad" (Holst) or "a mess" (McKee).

which is in line with the DVD commentary source.

I made a tiny change as a grammar clarification. The first paragraph of the "Production" section speaks of The High and the Mighty and Island in the Sky. They are also the subject of the second paragraph. However, the wording "These films" could be taken as having "such films as Grand Hotel" as the direct antecedent. Thus the change to "Wellman's films," to make the reference clearer.

I find it unnecessary, and somewhat demeaning, to refer to Carl Switzer as "Alfalfa" every time he is mentioned. I limited myself to removing the second of the two such references, although I feel that both should have gone.

I make mention that the link to the source for "Spencer Tracy 'ankled the project'" does not bring one directly to such a source.

This Discussion entry is much longer than it is worth, but I wanted to demonstrate that I was not vandalising the article. Once again, "Nice job" to the revisers.B00P (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

B00P, Thanks for your comments and they are in large, very accurate and help the development of the article. As for the one minor point that was related to the DVD commentary in that in the behind-the-scenes DVD commentary on Wayne's production company as well as the Wayne bio listed in the references, there is a mention that the project was "risky" and that two factors were in play, the first being the use of the Cinemascope format and the second that it was a film that did not fit the standard Wayne formula. Both elements came into play, perhaps the roles being more important but the use of the new film format did cast a doubt in some movie people as to its viability. The fact that the film becomes a "blockbuster" is mainly due to its strong casting and "playing against type" which the actresses who were being sought out, were unwilling to take a chance on The High and Mighty. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

The basis I had for stating that Mr. Birscoe was "... apparently down on his luck ..." is his remark to Miss Spaulding about the chiming watch as being the "...last possession that I have not signed over to somebody else...". For that reason I have returned the phrase to his thumbnail description. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Centpacrr has misperceived the point of Briscoe's statement. Knowing that his time is short, he has been giving away his possessions. This will save his heirs paying inheritance taxes. He has been giving things away, not selling them. Briscoe is wealthy. Impoverished people don't vacation in Hawaii and get picked up by their personal chauffers. I am restoring my correction.

Bzuk partially reverted the second item even before I had finished typing the rather lengthy explanation for my edits.

Once again, the restored version's inclusion of "... the commercial prospects of a decidedly risky "theme" concept project had led to a number of "stars" declining lead female roles. The choice of the new Cinemascope format that limited theater use along with the perceived "unsympathetic" characters ..." fails for various reasons.

• Neither "risky theme concept" nor "the new Cinemascope format" deterred star actors from wanting the two lead male roles (Roman and Sullivan).
• How "risky" could a concept be (strangers on a journey) that has a pedigree going back to The Canturbury Tales and beyond, and coming from Gann's bestseller? Indeed, the article notes the similarity to Grand Hotel.
• I repeat that the "limited theater use" business makes no sense for the #1 box office picture of the year. The DVD commentary discusses theater owners needing to compete with television. The conversion to wide screen was swift.
• I reiterate that the DVD commentary given as the source tells no such story. It discusses the named actresses not willing to be physically unattractive on screen.
• One wonders who perceived Holst and McKee as unsympathetic characters. Despite their facades, their vulnerabilities show through. They are the most sympathetic female characters. It is clearly Lydia Rice who is the unsympatheic female role. Nevertheless Laraine Day had no problem in taking it as Lydia's appearance is attractive.

Therefore I am removing the quoted portion of Bzuk's restoration (leaving in the new sentence about Stanwyck).

I am not interested in a "revert war." If, after reading this, he wishes to restore his claims, I shall not alter them any further. He mentions here that "the use of the new film format did cast a doubt in some movie people as to its viability." This is not stated on the DVD, nor are any reasons given other than looking bad on screen. If he wishes to reinsert these claims, I do feel that he should come up with a valid source for his assertion.B00P (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

B00P, no interest in edit mismashes either, and I did read your commentary before looking at a slight revision. I think our edits may have come one on top of another and I have moved the minor aspect of the Cinemascope format to a more appropriate section. Just sneaking some time away from a holiday in Mazatlan so some of the edits may be less than complete. BTW, if I hadn't mentioned it before, thanks for coming on board, I really enjoy editing with others. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

Upon further reflection, it seems to me to Mr. Briscoe's fiscal situation is actually ambiguous, and thus whether he is "down on his luck" or has voluntarily "given away" his possessions in contemplation of death are both unprovable conclusions based on speculation. To cure this I have therefore modified my original thumbnail to incorporate the description as to how his possessions had been disposed of -- i.e., "signed over" to others -- that appears in the script. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Airliner - aircraft

I traded out some of the instances of the word "airliner" when it was clear that "aircraft" was the more appropriate term. "Airliner" refers to a passenger configuration and the scheduled usage of an aircraft, and is appropriate when talking about the type in general. When the text talks about a specific airframe, "aircraft" is more apt. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

I removed the non-free images from this article back in January, but it looks like it was reverted. Per WP:FILMNFI, non-free images cannot be included in articles for decorative purposes. Although it's great to have images to break up the text and support the information, we can't just use non-free images to do so, unless there is a valid reason to include them. Non-free images should only be included if there is criticial commentary within the article discussing the importance of the image. Looking over the images included in this article, I would say that maybe File:Damaged engine.jpgand also File:DC4 engine fire.jpg should remain in the article and only if there is a section that focuses on the special effects in the article that specifically names the engine fire. Everything else appears to me as decorative or could be replaced with a free image (for example, consider the Douglas DC-4 category at Wikimedia Commons. I'll wait to remove the images again for a response to be included here if there is opposition to removing the images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: There are only eight total images in this article of which five are screenshots from the film. As required, the images include detailed fair use rationale statements on their file pages which explain why "generic" images would not suffice as replacements as each is used to illustrate specific (and unique) aspects of the film described in the text, The essentially pro forma removal or replacement of any of the article's images -- all of which have all been illustrating the it for more than two years without complaint -- would materially diminish the descriptive value of the entry and would thus be unjustified. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not for removing all non-free images from articles, I like them as much as everyone else. But to be able to use non-free images, we have to ensure that they are being used appropriately. Just because images have been here for years doesn't mean they meet fair use requirements (there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have non-free images being included for the wrong reasons). Eight images is quite a lot for a film article, when only two or three are necessary. The poster is long acknowledged to be included in film articles as it provides details on the film's release, cast, marketing style, as well as possibly providing some details on the plot. However, the DVD cover included here seems to be there just to point out that there was a DVD release (which is common for most films). The only way that the image should be included for example is if there was some commentary pointing out critical praise for the design of the cover or how it significantly differed from the poster. The image in the plot section shows a plane which could easily be replicated from one of the free images in the above category (the same goes for the first image in the "Douglas DC-4 N4726V" section). The image of the cast members could be replicated with free images of the actors. This could remain in the article if for example there was a section that talked about costume design or how filming took place in the cockpit. For the image of Williamson behind the camera, that could also be replicated from a free image and is not that vital for a reader to see the director with a camera as that is something we'd expect for most films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

After dealing with many challenges about non-free images, I concur with Centpacrr as the images follow the text carefully, amplify and not "prettify"; the other issues are easily debatable. The standard for large articles established by WikiAviation group is 10 images and this article falls into that range. The Wellman image is indicative of the hands-on approach used by the director. The image of the aircraft is important as this was the first postwar disaster film set on an airliner and the image of the aircraft would not be readily apparent to a later generation, while the other images depict critical junctions in the plot as this is considered a "classic" aviation film and has been the subject of a major restoration and recent re-release of the DVD version, hence the illustration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

• I must still strongly oppose removing and/or replacing any of these images. Just because other film articles may or may not have more or fewer images then this article does not make eight too many -- or for that matter too few -- for this one, so that argument seems to be at best a straw man. The article has eight images because the consensus of the various editors who worked assiduously on expanding this article over many months in 2007 and 2008 found these eight that were appropriate and that each materially enhanced the article. (I am also not aware of any guideline or policy that defines exactly how many images are "necessary" to illustrate any particular article as this would necessarily be purely a subjective consideration which would be different for every article.) If you read the text about the DVD you will find that this was not a common reissue, but quite an important one for the studio in that the film had been out of circulation for decades before being digitally restored at great expense and released on DVD with considerable fanfare much the way The Manchurian Candidate was after a similar long absence.
• The images of N4726V, the DC-4 in the varnish of the fictional airline ("TOPAC") used in the flying sequences, are there to illustrate this particular aircraft, not just the type. N4726V was both a key "character" in the story, and it was ironically also lost in the Pacific on a flight from Hawaii to California ten years later after suffering a malfunction similar to that of the fictional flight in the picture. Using images of some other unrelated DC-4 when those of the actual aircraft described in the text are available would be both inadequate and inappropriate. The group image of the aircrew is key as this is an ensemble cast picture in which the characters are far more important as a group then they are as individuals. This image illustrates that much better than unrelated publicity shots of individual actors as the image is meant to illustrate the aircrew, not the actors playing the parts. I also see nothing wrong with the image of the director either. I suppose it could be replaced with something else, but it illustrates what it intends to perfectly well so I see no need to change it.
• In sum there is long time consensus for all eight images being in the article, each well illustrates something important and specific which is also discussed in the text, and all are supported by legitimate fair use rationale statements. That being the case, I see no reason whatsoever to make any changes, deletions, or substitutions to any of the images illustrating this article, and substance should also always be given greater weight than arbitrary process. Centpacrr (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some issues. Images in the plot section are just about impossible to justify, mainly because the plot doesn't have critical commentary on the image in question, which is a requirement of non-free images. Thus, if there exists critical commentary on the images in the plot section (e.g., the second image talks about special effects which obviously are not discussed in the plot), then those images need to be moved next to the text in the article that provides that commentary. If there is no such section of the article, then obviously these images fail WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because critical commentary is a must. Simply putting a decent fair use rationale on the image page is not enough. On a side note, why is the cast listed in the plot and in the cast section? That needs to go. Anyway, back to the images. The image of William Wellman doesn't appear to be necessary at all. It doesn't add any understanding to the readers, it's more decorative. The DVD image is also decorative. There is no critical commentary on the DVD cover art and how that is somehow special enough to warrant illustration in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Bignole and Nehrams2020 about the images. Also the article is so confusing. I don't know if I'm ready the plot, casting, or the development of the film. Or at the same time. I think the article is doing everything opposite of what the WP:MOSFILM recommends. Mike Allen 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As to the use of images; I can see the relevance wherein the naysayers are quoting one "statute" after another? Just removing all non-free images seems to be a prevailing attitude, while their inclusion to support and explain key aspects of plot and production are summarily dismissed. Sheesh... Wellman was a hands-on director and the image accurately portrays that; the aircraft in question is also an important "character" while I agree that the image commentary can be more effusive and that is the obviously the job of the editor who put in the images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

We don't want to remove all non-free images from articles, we just want to ensure they are being applied correctly. I know it's difficult to see images removed from articles, but we can't just keep them because we like the images. For film articles it is difficult to secure free images to provide illustrations for commentary within the article, so we usually have to rely on non-free images. Although the plane might be different from one of the free images we have of similar planes, can't we just say in the caption that a similar plane was used for filming (such as File:Douglas C-54A TF-ISE Flugfelag LAP 02.06.53 edited-2.jpg in place of File:N4726V.jpg)? For the screenshots and DVD cover we have been listing, they just don't have enough justification to remain in the article. I provided examples above on how the article could be expanded to justify keeping some of the images. This also isn't a numbers game where we want to keep x images. If there were eight images that all had strong justification with a really well-developed article that may be a possibility. At times, only one is needed, it all depends on the article. For examples on articles that are using non-free images correctly, see Changeling, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Transformers, or The Simpsons Movie. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, the increasingly narrow straw man arguments evolving and being advanced above by those apparently bent upon deleting images (and now apparently even other content) might carry more weight if any of their proponents had ever shown any interest in (or had previously contributed any material to) this article in the past, but that is certainly not the only reason I find these arguments wanting. While I am sure these new views about the appropriateness and validity of the images are being offered in good faith, the arguments being advanced also appear to be beginning to take on the unhelpful characteristics of "Wikilawyering", especially as they relate to making narrow technical interpretations (or perhaps even misintertprettions) of some Wikipedia guidelines which, if blindly accepted, would have the negative result of overriding the underlying principles they express. A review of the article's long history reveals that the majority of the entry as it now exists was developed, intensely debated, tweaked, fact checked, and (after much additional discussion) broad consensus was reached on all of these issues -- including the images --several years ago.

• As previously noted, this article has been mature and stable for several years now, all of the challenged images carry the required fair use rationale statements, and the reasons for their selection and inclusion in the article have been explained above for which broad consensus was long ago achieved. Each image in the article is there for a specific purpose and illustrates one or more key plot, production, or genre elements of the film. In the absence of some compelling supported argument to the contrary (i..e., especially other than just subjective personal opinion), I strongly oppose the deletion of any of the eight images from this stable, well sourced, and mature article as simply not being justified. I also strongly believe that substance should always be given precedence over the arbitrary application of "process" which is all that seems to me to be being advocated here. Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that there needs to be discussion about the validity of non-free images in the article. The goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia, so when we include non-free content, there has to be clear-cut contextual significance. Most films are copyrighted, so this means when we sample copyrighted content, we must do so with care. For this reason, Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films make sparing use of non-free screenshots. While there was discussion about this article's copyrighted images in the past, Wikipedia's consensus policy says that consensus can change. There is interest in revisiting consensus for these images, and my recommendation is to discuss each image separately, as there are different arguments available for each one. Some images may be kept as-is, some may be deleted, and some may be kept with contextual improvement. Let's start with one image. I recommend discussing the DVD re-release image first. In terms of contextual significance, the film is already represented with the original theatrical poster, so one image suffices instead of two. In closer relation to the sub-topic of restoration and re-release, the image does not provide significance. We can write in text that the film was re-released on DVD. Seeing the cover does not add anything. My suggested adjustment is to remove the redundant cover art and to move the "digital watercolor" image to this section as more contextually significant media. Erik (talk |contribs) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am really much more interested in the views and consensus of the editors who took part creating, researching, and building an article then those who appear years later who have no previous demonstrated interest in an article or know anything about the discussions and process it underwent during development. This has nothing to do with "ownership" which none of the editors who worked on it are claiming, but with understanding the article's background, why the particular images were selected, and why removing or replacing them with inferior substitutes would diminish the article. Detailed fair use rationales have been supplied for the images on their file pages as have the background and reasoning (see above) for why they best illustrate key elements of the subject film. Also be aware that "guidelines" on Wikipedia are meant to be just that -- guidelines -- not "requirements." They are not designed to be hard and fast "rules" meant to prohibit the use of "non-free images" or anything else, especially when the latter provide the best alternative to illustrate the topic. I agree that "consensus can change", but it has to be for some good and compelling reason, and after-the-fact second guessing is not really one seem to be one of them. Claims such as "Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films make sparing use of non-free screenshots" or "Images in the plot section are just about impossible to justify, mainly because the plot doesn't have critical commentary on the image in question, which is a requirement of non-free images" need some evidence that that these contentions are true to be credible. (The images are there to illustrate material covered in the text, not the other way around.) I don't see that any compelling case for change has yet been made.Centpacrr (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's called an unbiased opinion. Regardless, you cannot ignore the rules of the WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because they are copyright issues. If an image fails to comply with those pages, it can actually be deleted on the spot. Please read NONFREE, it clearly says "Screenshot - for critical commentary". If you don't have critical commentary, then the image fails the criteria and has to be removed. It's as simple as that. If there is no information in the article about special effects used in the film, then an image intended to illustrate special effects clearly lacks the critical commentary necessary to justify why we need the image. If we don't understand where the image is coming from, which requires prose information detailing the subject, then it's just decorative. So, put the image next to critical commentary, or go find critical commentary and add it to the article if it doesn't exist, and be done with it. Otherwise, the image will most likely be deleted when they are all put up for non-free image review and it's shown that there is no commentary in the article discussing the image in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article has been edited to incorporate "critical commentary" relating to the images. Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...not really. Critical commentary is not merely identifying what is in the image. It's a discussion of what the image illustrates. If the image of the engine on fire is supposed to illustrate the effects used in the film, then there needs to be detailed (reliably sourced, and not personal observation) prose discussing those effects. Critical commentary is not critical if it's coming from editors on Wikipedia. We cannot be the source of critical commentary, it must be from reliable sources, and needs to be more than just a single line. For instance, you have to ask yourself, "Is there something special about this image of the engine on fire that is somehow different than the average readers' understanding of an engine on fire that we somehow need this image or else the reader will lose significant understanding of the event?" Another way to tell that you lack critical commentary is that the only mention of "digital effects" is in the caption for one of the pictures. There is no mention of digital or computer generated effects anywhere else in the entire article. And no, saying there is "new cover art" for a DVD is neither critical commentary nor is it necessitate the need for a reader to know what that cover art looks like. We're not here to sell a product, and unless there is a significance to said cover art the image is purely decorative (I've never really seen a DVD cover pass any non free review when it was used in the body of the article, because rarely if ever is there actual significance to the cover art to a DVD box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion continues to go back and forth on the intentions of wanting to remove the images as a whole or keeping them. As Erik recommended above (and probably what I should have just done at the beginning) is to divide up all the images and focus one each one, stating the rationales for keeping or removing it. Although the editors commenting here may not have been here helping to improve the article in the past and not know of prior discussions related to these images, the editors do have experience working with non-free images in many articles and strive for uniformity and quality among WP:FILMS' various articles. This article does have some issues that conflict with MOSFILM (namely the plot and cast sections), which we should focus on after the images are addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, in this topic, the film is a primary source. When the plot of the film is described, WP:PSTS says, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." We cannot base theories or purposes of copyrighted images on the primary source, which is not critical commentary. In addition, to answer your question about the claims made about other articles, please review the Good and Featured Articles at WP:FILMSPOT. If this film was in the public domain, this number of screenshots that would be free would be understandable. However, given that copyrighted images are being used just as liberally as public-domain images, it seems that there is not enough restraint in this kind of use on a free encyclopedia. (Please note the infrequency of copyrighted images in the Good and Featured Articles I linked you to.) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate unfold and I can see that there are good reasons for keeping the infobox poster and the slanted engine image. The other images would have to have their own discussion in the article body to merit keeping them. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

File:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg - Movie poster featured in the infobox

I see no reason to remove this as it is a valid use of a non-free image in summarizing the film's release, marketing style, cast, plot, and release. It identifies the film for the reader when they first visit the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Poster is fine. They typically always are, assuming this is the original poster (which it appears to be).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the poster image is acceptable. There is overwhelming consensus across Wikipedia to use this kind of representative image (like cover images for books and albums). Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:TOPAC DC-4 (film image).jpg - Screenshot

The current image caption reads "Passengers waiting to board ill-fated fictional TOPAC Flight 420 at "Gate 4 in Honolulu" for an overnight hop to SFO". Plot sections do not need non-free images to support the details as there is no critical commentary included, it is just a summary of the film's plot. I do not think that this image could be used elsewhere in the article to support any other sections so it should be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I think the original caption for this image had something to do with fake color schemes for the TOPAC, but even that really isn't a necessity for an image. It doesn't add anything to the plot and a single sentence saying they had to change the color scheme because _____insert reliably sourced reason for the change___ is all that is needed in a production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This image is being used to illustrate the plot, which is the primary source of the film. Description of primary sources need to be basic, and guidelines show that screenshots ought to be for critical commentary. It is baseless to point to any scene of the film and argue on one's own the importance of a screenshot. Outside of film, we show famous photographs not because we editors think it is famous, but because it is acknowledged as famous. There needs to be similar relevance with copyrighted images in film articles, not necessarily fame, but relevance established outside. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DC4 engine fire.jpg - Screenshot

The image is also included in the plot section, and although a brief statement was included in the plot talking about the film's special effects, it doesn't really elaborate. In addition, the plot section should not have details about the making of the film, but should just focus on the events that take place. If special effects are to be covered, that would be best served in the production section. I am for keeping this image, if there can be adequate details about the special effects in the film. Are there any DVD special features or newspapers at the time that cover this? --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree in all fronts. Production info is best suited in a production section. Putting it in the plot section becomes confusing when it's interlaced with plot related info. I agree with its inclusion if information regarding the special effects used for this scene can be found, as I'm not sure there is anything in the article about effects at this moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image should demonstrate contextual significance in relation to the production of special effects for that scene. As it stands, it appears to be part of a plot-based narrative where copyrighted images are picked without non-primary source relevance. I ask those who have edited the article historically, do you know if there are any major details about this scene on the DVD commentary or in one of the books? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Thehighandmighty'54.jpg - Screenshot

Located in the plot section, it focuses on three cast members. Unless there is a section that focuses on the costume design to focus on authenticity or how a filming technique was used to get this view, I don't think it is valid for inclusion within the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree. If there is information on this specific scene (as it poses the question of, "why isn't scene X with these characters used?", thus creating the doubt of its significance in general), then it doesn't have a lot of necessity either. There are free pictures of John Wayne and Robert Stack on Wiki, and I'm sure we could find free pictures of Wally as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the contextual significance of this screenshot? It shows people in a cockpit, and like Bignole said, with two of three people who have free images. Is there a reason why we cannot entrust readers with imagining this scene in their mind's eye? This is a free encyclopedia, and the use of copyrighted content needs to be compelling. Erik (talk |contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:William Wellman.jpg - Screenshot

Located in the production section, shows the director using a camera to film a scene. As this seems common for most films, there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why this would be a special event to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Most directors will get behind the camera at some point. Saying that "Wellman was a hands on director who often filmed scenes personally", or something like that is all that is needed. The average reader can comprehend that basic concept without the need of a visual image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the rationale for this image in this article. While I understand that the director is hands-on, this particular image is somewhat indiscriminate here. This kind of statement could be made at the articles of different films he directed, so it would be best to use it at the director's article. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:N4726V.jpg - Altered screenshot

The screenshot from the film that has been modified digitally using a computer program. I don't see the encyclopedic value of modifying the screenshot, is there some significance to the modification? If the image is being used to illustrate the plane being used in the film, then I think any one of the free images at Wikimedia Commons could be substituted instead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur, though if there is significance about the digital effects used then this goes hand-in-hand with the fire engine image in needing a section to discuss effects. There currently isn't one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this screenshot could be used in the "Restoration and re-release" section if we can pull together enough details. The problem with editors working on this article is that the use of these copyrighted works is not self-evident. (Which is why I cannot ascribe old discussions; if you're not convincing a batch of new people here, then it seems that images came from personal choice.) However, there could be relevance here, as I'd like to know more about why this shot has digital watercolors, especially compared to the "normal" shot of the other plane. Was this shot damaged and subsequently cleaned up? It is just not self-evident, especially when the images were used to illustrate the plot (which is the least important part of a film article, IMO). Erik (talk |contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Damaged engine.jpg - Screenshot

This one's a toss-up for me. There is commentary about the modification that was required for filming, but it may be difficult for readers unfamiliar with the engine layout to see the difference. Further elaboration may be helpful for the image to remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This one certainly has more going for it as far as critical commentary is concerned than any of the others. My only issue is similar to Nehrams, the lack of explanation. Why is the 30 degree slant important? If I understand why this was significant, than seeing an image to show me would better than understanding in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Like Bignole asked, "Why is the 30 degree slant important?" Hopefully the editors of this article can explain that and provide citation of its relevance. Erik (talk |contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:High and Mighty DVD.jpg - DVD cover

The cover does not seem to have any justifiable reason to be included as it is merely illustrates that there was a DVD release to the film which is already conveyed in the text. As I mentioned above, if there was a large amount of praise about the cover or if there was something really special about it. I haven't been able to find anything online to support this and think it should be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a DVD cover image in any film article that was special enough that it needed mentioning and illustration.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I had the DVD cover for Fight Club! Granted, it's gone now (as I wanted to appease a FAC reviewer). It's not completely impossible to show DVD covers, though. I think the Alienquadrilogy and that one Evil Dead "Book of the Dead" cover art are candidates for inclusion. Here, though, like I said before, the DVD cover of the re-released film is not illuminating. Nothing that writing in text cannot accomplish; we must remember this initial option available to us when we consider copyrighted images. Can it be conveyed in text or with free images? Erik (talk| contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• The images in the article are there to illustrate and enhance the reader's understanding of the topic (the film), not for the article to "illustrate" and explain the images. The usage of each of these copyrighted images is explained in the fair use rationale statements on each image file's page, and each clearly falls well within the meaning of 17USC§107 (The Copyright Law of the United States of America) which provides for the fair use of copyrighted material by stating that any use "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Each image also meets the criteria specified in §107 for determining the parameters of fair use which are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
• The five images derived from "screenshots" were not put there haphazardly nor do they exist in a vacuum. Anyone who has actually watched and knows the film would easily recognize that each image illustrates a key element in its plot development or production, and each enhances the understanding of the overall topic for the reader which is the whole point of the article in the first place. (This usage also exactly conforms with the language in the Wikipedia "movie screenshot template" on each image file's page which specifies that the image may be used to "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", but says nothing whatever about being limited to critical commentary and discussion of the image itself as claimed above as the main reason for deletion.) Whether or not the number of images falls within an undefined range for images in order for the article to be placed in some arbitrary category unrelated to its topic ("good". "featured", or whatever) seems to me to be another straw man. The article was not developed, written, and illustrated to win merit badges, but to serve as a good source of basic information about the picture for those interested in its history, background, cast, plot, characters, genre, etc. Removing images to meet arbitrary technical minutia of guidelines (which are not policies) which have nothing to do with the real purpose of the illustrations being there would significantly diminish the article as a whole and thus would be antithetical to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Centpacrr(talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's policy of non-free content criteria states that one of its goals is "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Since non-free content by policy requires contextual significance, it is clear here that the significance of the copyrighted images used here is not immediately evident. One should not have to be familiar with the film outside what is written in the article to see why an image is significant; it should be evident in the article. We are trying to be a free encyclopedia, so the article would much more benefit from the accumulation of information from various reliable sources than the gratuitous display of copyrighted images. The point of mentioning Good and Featured Articles is that they have been reviewed by independent editors, and these articles use copyrighted images very selectively. We will gather more opinions about the images in this article and determine what is contextually significant and what is not. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am truly puzzled by the inability of the proponents of deletion to see the "contextual significance" of these images which illustrate and enhance the understanding of key points of plot and/or production which are specifically discussed, described, and are evident in the article's text immediately adjacent to each image. (Each image also has a descriptive caption.) I really don't see how any of this could be more clear. There is no pretense that readers need to be "...familiar with the film outside what is written in the article to see why an image is significant" as each image relates to what is written in the article. (Also inclusion of these images is certainly not "gratuitous" but was made to enhance understanding of the text.) As noted above the usage made of each clearly falls within the provisions of 17USC§107 (see above). It also meets all ten of Wikipedia's criteria for the fair use of non-free content, the guideline for screenshots, and the provisions of the "Non-free image screenshot template" for motion pictures that appears on each image file's page which specifies that such images may properly be used to "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents". As I noted above, the images were not added in a vacuum but are meant to be viewed and understood in the context of the article. Their significance to the film and its contents are all fully discussed in both the article's text to which each is adjacent and in their captions, and all three (image, caption, and text) are meant to be considered together. Centpacrr (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The film is a primary source, so with the plot summary in this article, we are providing a basic description. Articles are supposed to be based on secondary and tertiary sources, so it is a problem when the contextual significance of many copyrighted images is being tied to the primary source. This approach is inappropriately scalable; an argument could be made for providing a copyrighted screenshot for every scene and every character on the vague premise that it helps the reader "understand". Since this is a free encyclopedia, we have to practice restraint with non-free content, and that is not being practiced here. I assume good faith that the content was added to illustrate the article, but with the overuse, it is not in compliance with the Wikipedia policy to ensure that this is at its core a free encyclopedia. If you have time, please review each image above so we can decide each one's fate. In addition, I did a little research and recommend checking out The Lost Films of John Wayne by Carolyn McGivern; it has a lot of information about The High and the Mighty that could be used in the article. It's possible that there would be information in this source where a copyrighted image would benefit readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concerns expressed and can address lot of them in a week as I am presently away from home on a trip to Newfoundland to "trace the steps" of Amelia Earhart. FwiWBzuk (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see how four screenshots from a two-and-a-half hour film could arbitrarily be considered excessive, nor do the four images seem to me to be in violation of either 17USC1§107 or any of the the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on non-free images in that: 1) there are no free equivalents available; 2) the images are not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; 3) only four images are used to illustrate an article on a complex two-and-a-half hour ensemble cast film; 4) the non-free content has been publicly displayed outside Wikipedia; 5) the images meet general Wikipedia content standards and are encyclopedic; 6) the images qualify for fair use under 17USC§107; 7) the content is used in at least one article; 8) the images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and their omission could be detrimental to that understanding; 9) the images are used within an article; and, 10) each file's description page contains the appropriate tags, templates, and fair use rationale. I am not trying to be difficult, but in the light of the above I just don't see how any of these images violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, nor do I see how they do not enhance the article for the general reader. In the interim I suggest awaiting the comments of Bzuk (see immediately above) who is one of the long time principal contributors to this article and has a great deal of experience in dealing with non-free images in film and aviation related articles. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the precedent is that copyrighted images are very rarely used in plot summaries because the summaries are basic descriptions of the primary source, the film itself. I recommend readingWP:FILMNFI for guidance. I also doubt that you have taken any time to look at our Featured Articles to understand just how sparingly we use non-free content, so I will be happy to link you directly. Changeling (film) uses one screenshot and has an entire section devoted to it. American Beauty (film) has a screenshot that is contextually significant in the "Imprisonment and redemption" section. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has two screenshots displayed where contextually significant. Not One Less only has one non-free image in the film infobox. Tropic Thunderuses non-free content to illustrate the makeover of characters. Fight Club (film) has a screenshot related to themes and a screenshot related to visual effects. All of these Featured Articles do not use any copyrighted images in the plot summaries, which are kept to a minimum. (An exception is Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which covers visual effects and not plot detail.) In most of these instances, though, you can see how free images are being used and how minimally non-free images are being used. When we compare your article to the Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films, we can see that the use of non-free content here is excessive. You want your article to be excepted from the guidelines, but I cannot see what makes this article so special that we should let it use so many copyrighted images on a free encyclopedia with unconvincing reason. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the examples Erik pointed out to refer to, I want to clarify on the issue of "there are no free equivalents available". I have provided a link to the category of multiple free images, and we also have several free images of some of the actors which could be included. Centpacrr, could you please leave comments after each of the above listed images so we can get a better idea of what your rationale is for keeping each one? So far, your comments seem to be about the group of images in general, and it would be more helpful to determine why you think each image warrants inclusion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

I was going to implement the Bosley Crowther review in the "Original release and reception" section, but I am finding the current paragraph to be lacking in citation. Onlythis is used as citation for the following passage: "John Wayne provided a critically praised role "against type" while supporting actresses Claire Trevor and Jan Sterling earned 1954 Academy Awards nominations for Best Supporting Actress. The film earned additional Oscar nominations for director William Wellman and film editor Ralph Dawson, along with composer Dimitri Tiomkin and lyricist Ned Washington for the film's title song. Tiomkin received the film's only academy award, for the film's original score. The popular title song by Tiomkin and Washington was included on only one print of the film so as to qualify it for an Oscar nomination. It is not heard on the prints issued for general theatrical release." The passage has more detail than what is available in the citation. Do we have the citations for the other details, such as where "against type" came from? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

While we have a discussion about the article's images going on, I would like to create a separate discussion about improving the article, whether images are used or not. I have some recommendations below:

• The lead section needs to summarize the article more adequately, especially highlights of production, the film's lack of availability, and the eventual restoration and re-release.
• Per guidelines, plot summaries in film articles are generally 400 to 700 words. This is a long film, so the latter end of the spectrum is understandable. It would depend on the complexity of the film as well; some films can be long but are easy to summarize in just over 400 words.
• The list of characters is out of place in the middle of the plot summary; it disrupts the flow of following the story. The list should be merged with the "Cast" section in an amalgamated "Cast and characters" section. I do have concern about the "flavor" of the character descriptions, though. We are supposed to write neutrally, but almost every character reads less like an encyclopedia and more like a puff piece for the film.
• It seems overly playful to treat the airplane as part of the cast. It is a setting that changes and affects the character. I'd rather see it outside of the "Cast" section. It can either be its own plane-centric section or be partially in the "Production" and "Loss of plane" sections that existed before.
• "Production" section has strong potential since research shows that a lot can be discussed about the development, casting, and production (such as music) in this film. We will not see much about critical analysis. We do need to improve citations here and elsewhere in the article, though. It is hard to tell where some information comes from, like I reported above with the passage in the "Original release and reception" section.
• We could sample more reviews, both contemporary and retrospective. I was going to include the New York Times review, but it was negative, and I didn't want to punctuate the reception section with just that. It would be better to pull together a paragraph or two sampling multiple reviews.
• Would anyone mind converting references to a link-friendly format? Such as seen in American Beauty (film)#References? It would be quicker to jump from the footnote to the full citation.

If others have a response to my recommendations or any additional thoughts, feel free to share! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to gather from these comments that you have never actually seen this film and have no familiarity with it, its genre, and its history. First the film is almost two-and-a-half hours long in an era when features were often not more than 90 to 100 minutes. It is in fact a landmark ensemble cast film in which the detailed development of the many characters is given huge weight with most of the first half devoted to nothing but that. Everything in each character description comes directly from the film, its script, the words of the characters themselves, and/or from expensively produced flashback segments included to establish their personalities and motivations. Understanding what happens in the second half of the film, and how (and why) the many characters react and interact to the crisis as they do, is based on knowing all of the information about their backgrounds which was developed in the first half (or what you call "flavor") and is briefly summarized in the list of characters. Understanding and identifying with the personalities of the passengers and crew are in fact the very essence of what makes the film work for its viewers. The aircraft itself is also treated in the script and production as every bit as much of a "character" as are any of the passengers and crew, much the way the RMS Titanic is in A Night to Remember or Titanic, and in fact might even be considered its MacGuffin. You appear to be trying to pigeon hole put this film in some category in which it does not belong and to "dumb down" the article to the lowest common denominator by removing much of the information central to what makes it the character driven action/adventure disaster ensemble cast film that it is. Centpacrr(talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information includes this: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." Guidelines recommend that plot summaries in film articles be between 400 and 700 words in length. Are you telling me that the plot of this film cannot be summarized in less than 700 words? Allmovie does this succinctly. When we write about a fictional work, we write with a real-world perspective. You are assigning a lot of importance to a section that is intended to complement real-world coverage about this topic. Are you saying that your article is an exception to every guideline mentioned on this talk page this past week? You think that every aspect of this article should be untouched? Erik (talk |contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have no problem with quoted descriptions from the film for the characters. However, outside quotes, it is creative writing with words like loqacious, avuncular, unctuous, shrewish, infuriated, philandering, placating, exuberant, logorrheic, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the film as a landmark production in a variety of genres (multiple character driven plot, action/adventure, disaster, ensemble cast), the extraordinary emphasis placed on character development in its production, the irony of the real world fate of the actual aircraft that was itself a "character" in the film, and how all of these elements relate to how the film was viewed, accepted, covered, "disappeared" for decades and then resurrected and expensively restored as an example of all these genres, etc., the material should be left exactly as it is. The article in its current form is the result of many months of work in 2007 and 2008 of a group of editors during which all of these issues were discussed at length and consensus was reached. Guidelines are exactly that,guidelines, not statutes on inflexible rules.

Nothing in the article as it is misrepresents the film or is false. It provides a succinct description of a complex character driven film providing the reader with an accurate understanding about the many things that the film is and why they are significant. If Wikipedia were a "paper and ink" encyclopedia in which printing and page count considerations were crucial for fiscal reasons then I could see editing down some of this material for space considerations would be appropriate. However Wikipedia in an on line encyclopedia which makes it possible to provide each individual subject with the space it needs to fully cover it. The length and detail of the article is appropriate to provide its readers with the information needed to fully understand what this film is. Just because it is longer — or shotter — then articles about other films is irrelevant as each film (or any other topic of an article on Wikipedia) is unique. and should be as such as opposed to being run through a cookie cutter. Also please note above thatUser:Bzuk, another of this article's historical editors, has indicated above that he will be commenting on this issue next week when he returns from a trip to Newfoundland and his views deserved to be waited for. Centpacrr (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision history statistics of the article show that you, Bzuk, and Gwen Gale have edited this article extensively. This shows the same level of involvement. I assume this is the "group" you keep mentioning? An older discussion reflects that Gwen Gale took issue with the character list. Regarding your defense of the plot summary and the character descriptions, Wikipedia's policy of no original research states, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." The plot summary needs to be a basic description of what happens in the film, and it needs to be concise. Are you disputing Wikipedia's policy of keeping plot summaries concise with your argument of "We should be able to write as much as we want about the primary source because it's not paper and ink"? Also, if Bzuk is vested in the article like you, do you believe that his views would be impartial? I see that you're dismissing policies and guidelines and indicating that the article as-is should be unchanged. It is bothersome that you're willing to ignore policies, guidelines, and even examples of well-reviewed articles in favor of this current draft. I'll be helping to improve the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This provides a synopsis of the film across a couple of pages, and I've tied screenshots together forthis. (To the right are the page numbers.) It's an example of how the film can be summarized. Are you saying that this is impossible? Erik (talk |contribs) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I don't understand why you keep commenting that just because we haven't seen the film we are unable to improve the article to meet the guidelines that all film articles fall under. I have seen plenty of films in the disaster genre, of longer length, and more "landmark" than this one (if it is a landmark film, it would be great to have citations to add that to the article for the release section). A film, no matter its entertainment value, length, cast, plot, box office performance, etc. holds it above all other articles. This isn't a fansite, but an encyclopedia that provides a reasonable overview of a topic. Without the guidelines that all other film articles follow (well, that we constantly try to ensure they follow), readers would see extensive irregularities between the articles, as each would be organized according to its fans/critics. There's films I love on here that I've worked on, but I've made sure they follow guidelines for the benefits of readers. Heck, there's even films I hated (see Evan Almighty), and it still gets the same treatment as any other film article. Any of the featured articles we've linked to above have found a way to keep the plot under a manageable level, while keeping other details in perspective. We want to have readers to have an overview of the plot, not go over every single detail. Allow the readers to have interest in the film so that they can go watch it. Please realize that we are not here to destroy the article and move on. We have worked on thousands of film articles, and have strived to improve the articles so that there is consistency in providing quality examples for new editors. I moved this film to the top of my queue, so I'll probably be able to watch it on Sunday or Monday to assist in cutting down on the plot. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020(talk • contrib) 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a "Genre" section to cover that ensemble aspect of the film and trimmed the plot section to 726 words. (Your suggested maximum is 700.) Centpacrr (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce! Let me know if you have any comments on my changes. The flow might be affected since new details could not be added cleanly, but we can work to order the details better. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What does everyone think about merging the list of characters with the "Cast" section to basically have a "Cast and characters"? I was going to do it myself, but each list has a different order, with some character items neighboring each other. We could basically establish the list of characters as a "Cast and characters" section. (We can worry about the wording in the character descriptions later.) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging these two lists does not work as the they have completely different structures and purposes, to-wit:

• Ensemble List: The first list located in the Genre section, includes only the 22 souls on board the flight (17 passengers and 5 aircrew), and is there to describe how and why the characters of each of these were carefully and extensively developed in the production over the first half of the film in order to create the ensemble grouping characteristic of this genre and which was necessary to establish in order to make the "disaster" portion (i.e., the second half) of the film work dramatically. (The adjectives and other descriptive terms used in the thumbnail summaries of each character in this listing are all derived directly from the film's script, come from the mouths of the characters themselves, and/or are stated in the flashback sequences about them.) The real (or screen) names of the actors who portrayed each of these 22 characters are only included in this list parenthetically as they don't have anything to do with the development of the characters they play, or with the personalities that those characters become to the audience.
• Cast List: The second is strictly a listing of all the credited actors in the film's cast (i.e., including those who play the parts of characters located on the ground in HNL and SFO, the radio operator on the cargo ship, and the USCG ASAR pilots) with the actors' names both Wikilinked and appearing ahead of the name of the character each played. The actor's names are also listed there in the order in which they appear in the screen credits which has no relation to the characters they play but was instead determined contractually. The two lists therefore have completely different purposes, orders, and styles, and thus do not lend themselves to being merged. Centpacrr (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should a list of characters belong in the "Genre" section? Discussion of the film's genre is an out-of-universe perspective, while descriptions of the characters are not directly pertinent to the film's genre and are in-universe. I can understand the need for a list of characters due to the ensemble cast, but I'm not sure why you don't think a "Cast and characters" section would work. Do you think the readability is difficult? Perhaps we can restore the table format with three columns; Actor, Character (or Character, Actor), Character Description. We can use sub-headers in the table to group by the 22, then by the rest of the cast members. (We do not have to provide character descriptions for the rest of them.) It would address the redundancy without taking anything away. Thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When you see the film (as I understand that you've indicated you plan to do) you will understand the reasons I have provided as to why these lists are not the same thing. One is a list of a specific group of characters (not of actors or cast members) while the other is a straight forward cast list. The two lists have completely different purposes, are of different things, their orders are based on different criteria, and trying to "combine" them will destroy the understandability of both. The reason for the "Genre" ("ensemble") section, by the way, is that this is what the entire first half if the film is about and what establishes many of the premises for what happens in the second ("disaster") half of the film. Centpacrr (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have problems with that entire section. At the moment, it sweats original research. There are three sources in the entire section, the first two in the first sentence. The section reads like someone's personal interpretation of the film, and not like an accumulation of various professional opinions. As such, I think anything cast related should be with the cast. There is no reason to have two character lists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are not "two character lists" in the article. One is a list of a specific group of characters (the "ensemble" group), and the other is a cast list based on the screen credits—two completely different things. Centpacrr (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They look identical. The only difference I see is that one list explains (albiet, with some OR) who the characters are, while the other does not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference, but I repeat one is a list of a specific, limited group of characters in the film who make up the dramatic "ensemble characters" on board the flight which include thumbnail summaries of who they are as ensemble figures in the film, while the other is a list of the real (or screen) names of all the actors who appear in the film who are listed in the screen credits. "Character lists" and "cast list" are not the same thing. Centpacrr (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The second list has 9 extra names, and most probably shouldn't even be there. So, that makes the lists identical save for the character info. Both contain the main cast. Both contain the character names and the actors who played them. The second list just includes minor characters that should be saved for IMDb. That means they are redundant to each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely and utterly disagree with you, but I am not going to carry this discussion on any longer so I have just removed the cast list which you consider redundant. Centpacrr(talk) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Using Google Book Search, I included details from John Wayne: American, where it covers The High and the Mighty in pages 406 through 409. I was not able to view 408 or 409, so if anyone could try to view these pages for added detail, that would be great. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it either, but I just placed a hold on it at the local library so it'll probably be shipped over in the next few days. Will hopefully have it at the beginning of next week. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to The Lost Films of John Wayne? Half of it is about this film, according to Amazon.com, but I could not see many pages of it. Erik (talk |contribs) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, added that one too. Any others? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; that ought to be a big one. I'm just going through Google Book Search, as you can see. The Lost Films book might have critical commentary for hosting a non-free image. Maybe we can get a screenshot from the DVD for the article? I'm kind of curious about seeing the film now, as I research it more and more. :) Erik (talk |contribs) 02:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if any other John Wayne books are available. Once I finish viewing the film, I'll see if there are any more relevant screenshots that can be included. I've been avoiding reading the plot and the recent additions you guys made until I see the film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• The early film criticism of François Truffaut, Truffaut talks about the film. Cannot really add it now. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Filmcracker is a sockpuppet for a user with a long history of disruptive editing

Edits made by Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for 64.252.0.159 and many other anonymous IPs, are not legitimate and are being made for the purpose of Wikistalking. He/she has been repeatedly banned for engaging in these activities over a period of more then three years. A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of disruptive editing,sockpuppetry, and overt Wikiststalking by the this editor and the many anonymous multiple IPs he/she has used for this purpose can be found here.Centpacrr (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Attack the editor for disruptive editing, not for making the sensible changes to this article that were made. I prefer the version arrived at by Filmcracker, where content is reorganized into the correct sections. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The way the plot and casting sections were reorganized earlier was done so because other editors objected to their being combined as they said it made the plot section too long. I don't really care, but some agreement has to be arrived at so that the text makes sense and is not redundant. (I have again adjusted it to make sense in the the format you prefer.) However any disruptive edits made by the sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" or his/her anonymous IPs (who has been stalking me and many other editors for as long as three years) will be promptly reverted and reported to AN/I as his/her record of misconduct is longstanding, egregious. and extensive. Centpacrr (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Further article improvement

I went through and added citations from the three books that I got from the library. In addition, I shuffled some of the sections around and added more headings to help break up the text and improve the flow. I think this article has the potential to go onto GA, but there are still some areas that need to be further improved. I started an impact section, and that could definitely benefit with expansion. The plot has ballooned in length again, so we should get that back to what it was when it was trimmed down. I'm thinking that it may be helpful to incorporate the casting section within the production section (after script) and leave the list as its own "cast" section. If Bzuk gets a chance to look over further improving the article, we can hopefully soon get back to going over the non-free images. I still don't think the current ones work, but I think we can include one in the filming section that talks about how filming was done using CinemaScope (the director, faced with small quarters in the plane, placed the camera in one spot and had the actors walk in and out of the frame). In addition, for the restoration section, if we can find an image of the damage to the film, a frame of that would be helpful. Is this available on any DVD special features? This article is continuing to get better and better, and it will be a great example for other older films once we address the remaining issues. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The plot has "ballooned" again because others (started by a now indefinitely blocked wikistalking sock puppet) undid the reorganization I did a couple of weeks ago to shorten it. This article had its major development in 2007 and 2008 and was stable for more than two years. If you want to add new material that's fine, but it strikes me as being unhelpful to keep rearranging and rewriting long standing sections wholesale as this upsets the carefully crafted flow and interdependence of the material of this complex film and confuses the "ensemble" nature of its characters and plot development. Major changes in text and structure (as well as "trimming" of detail) need to be discussed and agreed upon in advance if this article is ever to achieve stability again.Centpacrr (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, just because there were decisions in the past, does not mean that this article is set in stone. The cast formatting was reverted because it was "long standing". Was there a discussion about bolding the cast list that can be linked to? If that was something that was decided in the past, WP:FILM consensus has developed the formatting in the style guidelines of all film articles, and there is no notable reason why this film's cast section would be any different. With so many issues with the article, I really don't think that the bold formatting is the priority. Would you please comment on the other points above regarding the further expansion and images? Do you have the second disc of the DVD to look at the featurette regarding the restoration? Blockbuster mail only provides the first disc.--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This list is not a "cast list" of actors, but a list of the 22 characters who make up the "ensemble group" of passengers and aircrew on the flight. Its purpose is to describe how their characters were introduced, developed, and began to interact over the first half of the film before the introduction of the "crisis" event to the plot. The format of bolding the names of the characters (not the actors) of the this key group makes it much easier to read and understand quickly who they are as characters in the film, and how they relate to each other. The format of the list has never previously been a matter of controversy over the more than two years it has been there. (There was an actual "cast list" in the article listing the actors in the format you like, butyou removed it on July 11. You are, of course, free to restore it.)

With regard to images (and 17USC§107 issues) I made my views on this subject clear above and they have not changed. I have no view one way or the other on adding well sourced new material to the article. I do object, however, to the deletion of well sourced accurate detail and other material as doing so only serves to pablumize the article. Centpacrr (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to look up "pablumize", but couldn't find a definition, could you clarify? That sounds like an interesting word to add to my vocabulary. Call the list what you want, it still details who the actors are, what characters they portrayed, and include brief background information. We could call the plot something else, but it would still be a summary of the film and still have guidelines it would fall under. There are numerous other films that have ensemble casts but none that required that they have a cast list and an "ensemble list". There is no added benefit of using the bold font as each cast member is being broken up by bullets anyway. We see how they relate to other with the headings "crew", "passengers", and "additional cast". Again, I don't understand why this article is deemed special over all other film articles just because there were discussions several years ago about formatting that solely pertains to this page. I also don't understand why there would be no interest in further adding to the article. Could you clarify what well sourced information was deleted so that could be addressed? Regarding the images, you still did not ever reply to each corresponding image in the above section despite several requests, so I'm still not sure of the rationales you have to support each image. Again, do you own the DVD that has the special features disc which could be used for further improving this article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pablum is an essentially tasteless processed cereal for infants the name of which is also used metaphorically, especially in literary criticism, to refer to writing that is bland, homogenized, and lacking in detail and substance. I have modified the character development list to remove the actors' names and restored the cast list in the format you like. I didn't say there was "no interest" in further adding to the article, just that I don't have a particular view one way or another on how you do it. The rationales for each image can be found on their file pages. I am away on vacation and don't have the DVDs with me but you can get them on Amazon.com. Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you return the character list to the redundant version where the character Dan Roman (for instance) is listed twice, once as a character, and once as the role played by John Wayne? That version is very much suboptimal. Please trim it back until there is a single listing per character. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually only one "cast list" which is in the casting section. The other list is of the ensemble group of characters only and is located in a subsection of the plot section. It describes only how their characters are developed as a group within the film but does not specify the actors who played them. The two lists have completely different purposes and are not duplicative. (Also the sockpuppet user who stalked me to this article and moved them has now been indefinitely blocked in all of his/her registered accounts and is likely to soon be "community banned" from the project altogether. See[1]) Centpacrr (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are pointing out that which is plain to see, telling me the sky is blue... If you don't correct the redundancy, I will. The easy fix is to put the actor or actress name in at the point of first introduction. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it your position that there should be no cast list at all? What is your justification for that? Not all of the characters in the film are included in the plot section. There is no redundancy here.Centpacrr (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This version of Nehrams2020's from July 11 shows what I am talking about. The Ensemble cast list is accompanied by actor names in parentheses. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the actors' names no longer appear in the group character list having been removed because of your and Nehrams2020 redundancy objections. Centpacrr (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the term, I was curious. I created a sandbox of the article and modified it to merge the cast list and ensemble description together. I struck through text located throughout the article I think that should be removed (that's not set in stone) and put in bold the text from the ensemble section that I incorporated into other sections. I think the layout helps to improve the flow of the article and the changes help to cut down on the length of the plot. Regarding the non-free images I removed them all (well, the sandbox is located in the user space!), but I just had a miraculous, smack on the forehead, breakthrough. Movie trailers that were released before 1964 were not placed under copyright, so screenshots from those trailers will be free and can be included in the article (as this film was from 1954). I just placed a hold on the DVD at my local library so when it arrives, I'll work on getting the screenshots from the trailer (as well as getting the non-free image from the restoration featurette). Thank goodness for older films! Anyway, please let me know the thoughts on the potential formatting and layout of the sandbox so we can see if those changes can be incorporated here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of pablumization I am talking about. You are proposing to remove a great deal of accurate, well sourced detail (especially as it relates to the plot and the development of the ensemble characters) as well as images that fully conform to the guidelines for the fair use of non-free images (extensive, detailed rationales for which appear on those images' file pages) and the provisions of 17USC§107. The only reasons you give above is your personal views on "flow" and to "cut down the length of the plot section" that had already been cut down to 790 words, a length which is certainly not overlong for a film as complex and with as many sub-plots as this one. If you want to add material to expand the article's other sections, that's fine. However the wholesale slash and burn truncating, homogenization, and pablumization of what has been carefully developed there over a period of more than five years now (I personally have been working on it off and on since late in 2006) is completely unnecessary, unjustified, and counterproductive. I really don't see that you have made any case whatsoever to do this other than you like it better. The article is fine just the way it is. Centpacrr (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the so-called pablumization. This is an encyclopedia, not Creative Writing 101. The "accurate, well sourced detail" is the result of watching the film and being overwrought and colorful with descriptions, where the primary source should be described in a basic manner. Nehrams, I support the implement of this revision. Erik (talk |contribs) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but I do want to point out that the argument of five years of careful development is a null argument if the results of that effort do not satisfy the need for an encyclopedic article. Nobody is challenging the fact that Centpacrr has worked hard on the article; instead, they are giving it a hard look and evaluating it as it stands now. I move that we drop the ownership stance and deal with the text from the point of view of the casual reader who is looking for a brief and accurate account of the film. Though I do not encourage creative writing, I do not want well-intentioned improvements to rub out any fine writing of a scholarly nature. At Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, the very first requirement for a featured article is that it be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In the revision, it's not about what I like, but what goes with the accepted guidelines that consensus has developed through numerous discussions on a project-wide scale. The sandbox revision does not remove a great deal of sourced content. There was a split up of the details about the ensemble cast (with a few sentences being cut) which is best covered in the cast list section along with the casting details (which helps to better explain the search for so many actors to play the roles). I cut out some of the details that are already covered in the plot or in other areas of the article, but I'm sure we can still leave some of it (like I said, the suggested changes are not set in stone). In the case of plot sections and explaining the cast, we're best off going with the Dragnet's "Just the facts, ma'am". We don't need our own interpretations of the characters nor to go into excessive descriptions. The plot isn't that intricate to necessitate a large plot, it's okay to leave out details. If readers want to know everything about the plot, there are plenty of movie spoiler sites out there. As Binksternet said above, I do recognize that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it's great to see an older film that isn't a stub. The suggested changes merely help to move the article towards film article guidelines concerning layout and formatting. Regarding the non-free images, I don't think that you understand that we will be able to replicate the same screenshots (or very similar ones) from the trailer (which would definitely render the current non-free screenshots as being replaceable and would have to be deleted). The only non-free image that I'd be for removing would be the DVD cover, which the section would benefit from a restoration screenshot instead (readers may be more interested in seeing how extensive the damage was rather than seeing a generic DVD cover they can find on Amazon). I do plan to expand this article, but I'd like to see the article to continue to move in line with accepted guidelines before I can spend more time on further research. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk •contrib) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am truly puzzled by the apparent contention that a description of the plot of this (or any) film should not be based on what happens in the film. (If not that, on what then should it be based?) Does anyone really think that vast majority of film plot descriptions on Wikipedia were not created in exactly the same way? (If so, what is your evidence for that?) The 790-word plot section of this article is not a dramatic, psychological, or critical analysis of the film, but is instead a straight forward factual recitation expressed in declarative sentences of what the characters do and say during a flight from Hawaii to San Francisco which is interrupted by a mechanical failure that imperils their lives. It is hardly "creative writing" with "overwrought and colorful descriptions." Many of the words which I presume are being objected to as "too colorful" to are taken directly from what the characters say (which means they are also in the written script), as well as from statements made on the "commentary" audio track of the DVD which are spoken by (and credited to) Leonard Maltin, William Wellman, Jr., Karen Sharpe, Pedro Gonzales-Gonzales, and Vincent Longo. Simply because their source was the spoken word as opposed in written word does not make them less valid or render them "unencyclopedic".
• The adjectives in the descriptions of the ensemble characters also came from the same two sources and were spoken by the characters themselves, were said about them by other characters, were said in the flashback sequences, and/or were stated by the commentators on the secondary audio track. I have no problem with removing material from articles on Wikipedia if they are inaccurate or unsourced, but so far I have seen nothing anyone has said here that challenges the accuracy of anything currently in the plot and character development sections. Instead the only "complaints" seem to be that the writing is not bland enough and contains too many facts and details. That hardly seems to be adequate justification for removing anything, or to call them "unencyclopedic."
• I never in any way have claimed "ownership" of the article, and much of what I am defending here I didn't even write. Instead what I am objecting to is the dumbing down (i.e., "pablumization") of the article to the lowest common denominator, or as I guess Erik would call it, reducing its writing to being in a "basic manner" whatever that is supposed to mean. I would be interested in knowing what exactly he finds to be so "un"basic about the language in these sections. It is made up exclusively of declarative sentences that accurately relate what the characters do and say, and is written using standard English vocabulary. It neither analyses the film, nor does it critique it. There is nothing esoteric or "unencyclopedic" about the language or writing style of these sections, it just isn't written for an elementary school age audience. It assumes that those who would be interested in this article would be at least able to read and understand English at a high school level.
• I am equally puzzled about the continued objections by Nehrams2020 to the three remaining "non-free" screenshot images. Each of these images have extensive fair use rationales on their file pages and fully comply with the both the spirit and the letter of 17USC§107, the "fair use" provisions of the US Copyright Law, as well as the applicable WP guidelines. (With respect, I am constrained to observe that the objections seem to me to be more like Wikilawyering then anything else.) Please explain how the images used in this article are any different in character, copyright status, manner of creation, or fair use rationale, than the multiple non-free screenshot images that User:Nehrams2020 uploaded to Wikipedia and placed in the Little Miss Sunshine, Forest Gump, Evan Almighty, Night at the Museum, or Crank (film) articles. I can see no difference whatsoever. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bruce, I'll get to the point. The plot summary is a complementary section in a film article; policy says that a concise summary is appropriate as part of larger coverage. This means we provide readers an overview of what happens in the film. Look at how briefly the Featured Articles American Beauty (film) and Changeling (film) summarize the films' plots. There is too much focus on trying to describe the primary source; we have an opportunity here to provide that "larger coverage" in an article that used to be half-filled with plot detail.
• Also, Bruce, the images that Nehrams uploaded are both free and non-free. Where they are free, they do not need contextual significance evidenced. Where they are non-free, they exist in the proper context. There needs to be similar context here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering if you could tell me please, sir, what has changed your view about the length and character of the plot section of the article between July 8 when you described my trimmed plot summary (747 words) as "Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce!" and today when you now seem to find the almost identical summary (43 words longer) completely unacceptable as being too long and/or against some other unspecified guideline(s). However at 790 words this plot summary is 641 words shorter than the summary for Apocalypse Now (1,431), 406 shorter than Seven Days in May (1,196), 301 shorter then Dr. Strangelove (1,091), 263shorter than Gone With the Wind (1,053), 165 shorter than Night at the Museum (955), and just 93 longer than Forest Gump (697), so I really don't see how its current length is much of a legitimate issue. I do not know the average length of film plot summaries on Wikipedia, but to find the above examples I only looked at the summaries in a dozen articles about American films which I selected at random (the shortest summary was 553 words and the longest 1,431) which clearly puts the length of the summary for The High and the Mighty at the lower end of the scale. Thus your July 8 comment above that "...plot summaries in film articles are generally 400 to 700 words" seems to be clearly way off the mark.

• Also the six images that I referred to that were uploaded and used by User:Nehrams2020 to illustrate the Little Miss Sunshine, Forest Gump, Evan Almighty, Night at the Museum, and Crank (film) articles are all identified by that user as "non-free screenshots" and contain "fair use rationales" on their file pages that are virtually identical to those on the file pages of two similar screenshots and one derivative original illustration in this article. I don't see any material difference whatsoever in the "context" of how any of these screenshots are used in those five articles and the three images in this one. Centpacrr (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The unspecified guideline you may be looking for is WP:FILMPLOT. Apologies for not linking to the guideline earlier, but hopefully that will clarify on some of the points you raised. Thank you for linking to those articles with the bloated summaries, although you may have been better off looking to the FA articles that Erik linked to above, which do comply with the guideline. If you come across film articles with extensive plot summaries, then you can either tag them with {{plot}} or take a stab at reducing them (which isn't an easy feat, but is feasible). You initially linked to Crank, which in my early days here in 2006, I had created an 1,800-word monstrosity (Don't look at the trivia section, or the taglines, or the non-free movie poster sections, those were all rookie mistakes...). It was through several years of developing guidelines that we worked down plot lengths to a manageable size that can adequately cover the details while avoiding mentioning every minor detail. For new editors or IPs, who are unfamiliar with WP:FILMPLOT, plot sections seem to be the most edited section of any film article, and as they months go by, a few sentences are added here and there, and eventually the plot turns into the film in words. The articles you linked to so far have not reached any GA/FA levels, so they haven't gone under that much scrutiny regarding the length of the plot (I do plan to work on Dr. Strangelove in the distant future, so that will be reduced in time). Plot sections do require the occasional trimming and possibly even reverts to prior revisions to ensure there is compliance. Unfortunately, too much focus of editors' time is spent on the back-and-forth of expanding and trimming the plot, when the more pressing issues of articles is sections such as production, reception, themes, etc. The initial plot reduction I edited, cuts the plot down to 620 words. Looking over it, I can clearly understand that there is an emphasis on the individual characters prior to takeoff, and then the reactions and response to the disaster. There is little loss in detail with cutting out the quotes and several side stories.

Regarding the non-free images you linked to, each of those screenshots follows the critical commentary within the article (maybe not the Night at the Museum one, and I'm likely considering removing that one). For the Forrest Gump image, the visual effects section details how Hanks was incorporated into archival footage, and this is demonstrated with the screenshot. The screenshot inEvan Almighty helps to cover the content regarding the costume design as well as the controversy over the human-like God. For this article, I provided two examples on non-free images that would work in this articles and we have invited other suggestions, but there has been no indication on whether those images would work. For some of the articles you linked to, I worked to secure permission for multiple free images that would render non-free images unneeded to help meet our goal of being a free encyclopedia. For example, I was lucky to stumble across the images of Forrest Gump and Lt. Dan taken on a filmset instead of including a non-free cast image.

Anyway, I just got the DVD tonight and will start uploading the images from the trailer so they can be worked into this article. I'm amazed at the amount of special features that are available on the DVD and how they haven't yet been used here for sources. I'll either add those tomorrow or later this weekend. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk •contrib) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Images are available here. Will probably upload a few more tomorrow. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't actually see any of the plot summaries that I pointed to as examples of their length in relation to that in this article to be either "bloated" or uncommon in length or detail, but instead informative and helpful in describing the plot as well as much closer to the norm for American film articles on WP. The two that you directed me to, on the other hand, seemed to me to be rather thin and bland in comparison, and also not like what appears to be how most others on WP are structured based on a random survey of about a dozen or so. (I was surprised, however, to find how "bloated" the intros of the two "FA" articles are at 518 and 403 words compared to The High and the Mighty's much more concise 168 words.) That being said, even the 790 word existing TH&TM plot summary does not seem to me to be very far out of the range even for "guideline" parameters, or is it overly detailed. The few quotes from the film that are contained parenthetically in both the plot and character development sections are both important detail as well as providing reliability to the sourcing of the information they relate to as the "spoken word" does not otherwise lend itself to normal WP citation formatting because they are not to written documents.

• For these reasons I still oppose truncating the plot and character development sections, or changing the formatting of the "character" list to a "cast" list which defeats its purpose. Instead bothshould be left as they are and not be combined. They certainly have not been demonstrated to be "out of the norm" for other similar articles on WP, the information is accurate and well sourced, and they provide readers of the article with a good background understanding of the film. The character development section also describes the techniques that its creative group (producers, director, writer, etc) used to develop the "ensemble" group of characters in the film's first half needed to support the dramatic interactions among them in the second ("crisis") half of the picture. The modifications that you suggest would both diminish and confuse both of these and thus would make the article less informative to its readers. Centpacrr (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• You should be looking at the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer, not the run-of-the-mill articles. In addition, if you are complaining about the lead sections of these Featured Articles, you should read WP:LEAD and look at a random survey of Featured Articles' lead sections. What you ignorantly call "bloated" is the norm with Wikipedia's best articles. I'll let Nehrams2020 judge if the plot summary can be shortened based on his viewing of the film, but the cast and characters will be combined to avoid redundancy. It is more direct to have a "Cast and characters" section identifying the actors and their roles. Regarding character development, I assume that the last sentence of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph are dependent on the commentary track? If so, they would be fine but need citations at the end of each. Do you think you've incorporated everything possible from the commentary track, or is there more to add? BTW, Nehrams2020, nice job with the public domain screenshots! We should definitely replace the non-free images with these. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is or is not "best" as opposed to "run of the mill" is, of course, subjective. You have not, however, responded to my question as to why you completely changed you view about the length and character of the plot section of the article between July 8 when you described my trimmed plot summary (747 words) as "Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce!" and now when you seem to find the almost identical summary (43 words longer) completely unacceptable as being way too long. As your group ("we") has apparently decided to assume ownership of this article to the exclusion of all other views, however, I will gracefully withdraw from further work on it and take my ignorance on to other areas about which I hope that I am better informed. Centpacrr (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (The word "bloated" BTW was first introduced into this thread by Nehrams2020,)

• In order to provide you with a fresh slate, I have restored the original 500 word plot section, deleted the redundant, inadequately sourced, and "overwrought" character development section, and removed all "non-free" and unrelated images. Your group is now free to redevelop the article in whatever way you think best. Thanks for considering my views. Centpacrr (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know that it is not our intention to do any harm to this article and that there is no group. Several editors saw some issues with the article and recommended how the article could comply with guidelines to better fit in line with other film articles. Please assume good faith, as in addition to extensively discussing further improvement here, editors went a few steps further to significantly expand the article with new sources, images, and content as they were interested in the outcome of the article. We're all here on Wikipedia because we're care about contributing to making things better, and sometimes to reach that point, some changes are necessary. Nobody is ever completely happy with everyone's changes, as we all think we know what's best. My guess about Erik's comment regarding the plot summary was that he was glad to see that an attempt was made to bring the plot down from the 1,000 words it started at, and trimming a couple hundred words is always a great feat. I suggested an alternative on how it could be rewritten a bit more, and it would have been beneficial to hopefully find a balance between the two revisions. Now obviously we don't want you to stop contributing to the article, and still continue to invite further contributions in improving the article. I, along with the other editors that contributed to these discussions, take no joy in removing non-free images or nit-picking over small formatting issues in the same way you take no joy in defending it. Few editors take on the challenging and thankless task of trying to help standardize articles and making sure editors are aware of guidelines. Unfortunatley, with over 60,000 film articles on Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are in poor state and are only a few sentences long. The only way we can continue to see a rise in improved content, is if the articles are written to comply with guidelines and benefit from some standardization. Hopefully, as additional collaboration and expansion of articles occur, there will be more and more film articles that can serve as examples for new editors interested on working on a particular film article. GA/FAs are linked to because they have gone through extensive review and scrutiny to reach their designated status, and ideally we would continue to see a rise in these to encourage editors to further improve Wikipedia's content. This article had a great start to it, and with further formatting and cleanup, it can serve as an excellent example for editors to refer to when writing about older films or articles relating to this genre. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I really did not appreciate being called "ignorant" by your associate, nor by him basically notifying me that things "will be changed" irrespective of whatever views or reasons I or any of the several others who had helped develop and structure the article since 2006 might have to the contrary. So after four years of working assiduously on this article I think it best for me to just move along and leave it to your group to deal with it however you think best. However to save you the trouble, I have trimmed out some other details that I had added earlier that were either not fully supported and/or unrelated to the actual film itself. (I have not removed anything your group has added even if unsourced.) Centpacrr (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All my "creative writing", overwrought, colorful, unencyclopedic, unsupported, and unrelated material (including images) that does not conform to your guidelines has now been deleted. The article is now all yours to redevelop as you see fit. Centpacrr (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Several editors took the time to help develop the article with the interest in collaborating, and although I'm having a hard time of assuming good faith with your above comments, I'd prefer to instead move on to other projects. I will add the citations from the special features at the beginning of this week, but have no plans on further expanding the article. It's unfortunate that you were unwilling to take the time to look over the guidelines and non-free image policy instead of assuming that you and the article were being attacked by a group and removing yourself from the article. I commend everyone's efforts in the past and welcome anyone to further interested in maintaining and developing the article. This article is in good shape and has the potential to be better with a little more effort. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by your above comment. I simply trimmed down (or removed) the plot, character development, and aircraft background material that I had developed and added between 2006 and 2008 that participant members of your group recently objected to as incompatible with your guidelines so that you could replace it with something that you approve of. I gather from the above, however, that now that this information has been trimmed/deleted, you now intend to abandon the article without replacing it leaving the entry with essentially no information about any of these three elements of the film and thus in much less "good shape" then when your group decided to alter it. Is that your objective, or have I misunderstood your intentions? Centpacrr (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears suitable to me; I'm not feeling a huge hole where the much larger plot description had been. I bristle at your use of the term "your group" to describe everybody but yourself. Personally, I am no more connected to the other editors here than I am with anybody interested in both films and aviation. Asked to name such editors, I would include you in the group.Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• The group that I am referring to which the editors who objected to the article in its previous form are self listed as participant members is the"WikiProject Films/American cinema task force". (One of those same editors (Nehrams2020) is also identified as the "lead coordinator" of the overall WP film project.) I have never been a participant or member of either of these groups. I apologize for not making that clear.
• The current "plot" section is actually just a 78-word capsule serving as a temporary place holder which provides virtually no useful information about the what happens in the film and does not pretend to in any way comport with the provisions of the group's guidelines which appear to require a plot summary of "400 to 600 words." The capsule is there simply to hold the space for whatever the American cinema group chooses to replace it with that meets their requirements. Until (or unless) that happens, however, it seems that the article probably no longer qualifies as being "C" class and should instead be downgraded as a "Start" class entry. Centpacrr (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• C-class is sufficient. Start-class is too minimal; it usually has a very brief plot summary, a cast list, and maybe a couple of paragraphs of real-world context. This article is more than Start-class with numerous sections about the film, though I'd agree it is not B-class. I'll keep the article on my watchlist just in case. Regards, Erik (talk |contribs) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's actually all it has now. "Start" class seems much more appropriate, especially as your group apparently now plans to abandon it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Abandoning it has nothing to do with the assessment. There is much more than two paragraphs' worth of information outside the plot summary and the cast list. I will be monitoring the article via watchlist to ensure that it does not backslide. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• The "C-Class" assessment was made when the article still had a complete plot summary, as well as sections on its ensemble cast (and the hour plus of the film dedicated to the character development of that group of 22 passengers and aircrew), and another one on The Argentine Queen, which were objected to after being in place for several years. With all that material now removed, the article has been considerably degraded and should therefore be formally reassessed by whatever committee does such a thing to reflect its current state. Centpacrr (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• No. You demonstrate minimal knowledge about Wikipedia, film articles, or proper assessment. It stays. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• The stated WP film criteria that I found for "C-Class" are "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" whereas for "Start Class" they are "Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more" which seems to be a much more accurate objective assessment for the article in its current form. Editors may disagree about the assessment of this or any other article (although I am basing my understanding on the WP "film grading scheme"), however just because I read these criteria more literally and restrictively than someone else, that does not mean that I have a "minimal knowledge of Wikipedia." If you don't find the article to be degraded by the deletions of three sections you are, of course, free to have that subjective opinion. I don't see, however, how that would make the opinions or views of other editors which may differ from your (or anybody else's) views any less valid, nor does it make them ignorant, overwrought, or unencyclopedic. They are just different. Centpacrr (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the article, it easily passes as C-class. Worrying about the lower classes isn't that big of a deal, as it usually only take a bit of effort to move up from Stub to Start or Start to C anyway. The article adequately covers many topics related to the film including production, accolades, home media, impact, etc. This article is closer to B then it is to Start anyway. A more developed lead and a few more citations throughout the article (such as for the accolades table), would push this up to B. I've assessed thousands of articles (which takes too much time...), and this one fits nicely within C as it currently stands. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation which was certainly much more helpful than the approach taken by your associate. Based on the detailed criteria as spelled out in the "B-Class" guidelines, however, it would seem to me to be pretty far away from meeting those in many respects, although perhaps I am taking those stated requirements too literally. Centpacrr (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)