Talk:The Palm Beach Story

Regarding the placement of images in this article

I've done a fair amount of work on expanding this article, including putting in additional images. One of the problems with film articles is that presenting the cast as a list, really the best way to do it, creates a lot of whitespace to the right. That's why I like to put images there, if I can find them and make a rationale for their use. The problem with putting them all the way to the right, however, is that if the plot section isn't long enough to push the cast section down below the infobox, the images will force the cast section down, thus introducing even worse whitespace between the "Cast" header and the cast information. This may be ne evident when you view the image under a smaller resolution monitor, but with a sidescreen monitor (where the plot text takes up even less vertical space) it's quite evident. This is why when I make those kinds of changes, I check them under both monitors settings to ake sure they work -- the goal being to have the article not have interruptive blocks of whitespace in it.

User:Hru692 has been removing the formatting I've used to create this balanced presentation, thus creating one where under widescreen, disruptive whitespace is created. I've asked the editor to discuss it on their talk page, but I've received no answer. I'll post this message both on the article's talk page and on User:Hru692's talk page in the hope that the editor will come to understand the purpose of the formatting, and will stop reverting it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by User:Britneysaints

I've reverted changes made by User:Britneysaints for number of reasons:

I am second to none in my admiration for William Demarest's performances in the films of Preston Sturges, but in this film he has really a minor role, one of a gang of character men playing drunk rich guys in the "Ale and Quail Club". They're funny, and Demarest is good as always, but there's no way he deserves a photo in the article.

Similarly, sinply because a free image is available is not justification enough for including it in an article. In this case, the free photo of the title of the film in the trailer simply clutters up the article. It is also not the same as the title card of the film itself, which can be seen on the TCM database site.

On the other hand, the photo of Joel McCrea and Claudette Colbert really is central to the movie, considering that it's their relationship that is the driving engine of the plot. To have an article without a photo of the two of them together does not well represent the film, and a photo of Colbert alone is not an adequate substitute, especially one that presents her in such a poor light.

The addition of an associate producer to the producer list is not necessary, and the addition of William Demarest to the list of stars is just factually incorrect.

Changing the standard phrase "written and directed" to "directed and written" not only runs contrary to usual practice, it's also contrary to the nature of Preston Sturges, who began as a writer and moved into directing. "In the beginning was the word", and the writing comes before the directing.

Having an entire new section for the single listing of Penn Station as a filming location is a waste of space, it should be worked into the production section (although it's only the second unit that shot there for background, not the main unit).

For these reasons, and because cumulatively they degraded the quality of the article, I have reverted these changes, and have requested User:Britneysaints to discuss his edits here before he inserts them again. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In thinking about it, I'd like to offer a compromise in two respects:

Because Sturges had an ongoing relationship with Paul Jones, I've re-added him to the producer slot as associate producer, only after Buddy DeSylva, who was the de facto producer on the film (if anyone except Sturges has to be considered that).

I've put the Penn Station info into the production section, although second unit filming really isn't all that significant.

I've also asked User:Britneysaints to comment here rather than edit warring over the changes. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Britneysaints has once again deleted the image of Claudette Colbert and Joen McCrea on grounds that it doesn't satisfy NFCC#1, but since he has already nominated the image for deletion, its NFCC status can be decided in that venue, and shouldn't be an issue here. I have also asked, again, for the editor to participate in discussion here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Ed Fitzgerald is crazy film fan. See the discussion -- Britneysaints (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly enjoy classic films – and The Palm Beach Story is one – and my wife has indeed questioned my sanity on more than one occasion, but I don't think that either of those have any particular bearing on the question of whether your edits are improvements to the article or not. Would you care to comment on that, rather than speculate on my mental state and hobbies? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This film can be seen on the TCM database site, YouTube & DVD/VHS so that an redundant unfree image File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert.jpg isn't needed. -- Britneysaints (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britneysaints : your reasoning is very hard to follow. Almost all films are available on DVD or VHS and this is not relevant to their copyright status, nor is it relevant to the images being used here under a fair use rationale. This film can not be seen at TCM - a trailer can be seen there though. As for YouTube, I'm not even going to bother looking. I'd be surprised if anyone has uploaded the entire film, and YouTube is no respecter of copyright. What exactly is your point? This comment makes no sense and does not support removal of the image. It makes even less sense when I look closely at the images you have kept that are no different in terms of copyright status or usability.

Secondly, you need to be very careful and keep your personal comments to yourself. Ed may take it in good humour and reply accordingly, but you give no evidence of acting in good faith. Keep to the issue. It would be good if you could discuss your reasons here. What you've said so far does not address the issue. Rossrs (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some alterations as an option, which included removing the oft-returned occluded and deleted image which Britneysaints continues to return with each reversion he/she makes. The "redundant unfree image" to which you refer should not have been nominated for deletion, which Britneysaints did prior to embarking on this change spree. It is as appropriate and should be identically licensed as each and every image which was uploaded to WikiCommons, since they all have the same history. In fact it should be transferred to WikiCommons with the rest of the "free" images you are endorsing, Britney. An image which clearly shows the two major stars of the film together in the film adds much more understanding to the article than a solo one of Colbert, which actually could be from any film. Meanwhile, I endorse Rossrs' comment that you need to keep the personal comments out of this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support these changes. I think that Ed is well qualified to determine which are the most suitable images, from the point of view of relevance to the film and its discussion, and I think he has explained his position quite clearly. This is aside from the copyright issue. The article does not need to be cluttered with a bunch of irrelevant images simply because they are free. The William Demarest image for example is superfluous. I think there is justification to use the Colbert/McCrea image - they are, after all, the centre of the plot. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]