Talk:It's a Wonderful Life/Archive 2

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

Building and Loan or Building & Loan?

Which is correct? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Checking three different resources, Stephen Cox, Mary Cahill and the original script all identify the Bedford Falls "Building and Loan". FWiW, for consistency, one form should be used throughout. Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Latest edits

While not opposed to the latest edit on principle, major changes such as these should have some discussion initiated on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

The "Plot" section was overlong and excessively detailed, and required an overhaul. Your knee-jerk reversion - on reflex rather than principle - was unconstructive, and seems to be part of a pattern of serious ownership issues. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
To be sure, the plot section now is 1,200 words, not overly long for a major or complex article, while the revision is 791 words. The original plot was 5,091 words in 2006. Please see this version to see how dramatic a revision the current plot represents: 2006 version. Please note that the revision at present is not my work but the composite of many editors' efforts, so I direct you to redact the above comments. As I already explained, I am not opposed to the changes, but I am diametrically opposed to major changes without discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it used to be worse doesn't make this version sacrosanct. It's still too long. It's full of scene descriptions and subplot details irrelevant to the main story. As for your demand that I not say things you don't like being said, I redact nothing. You reverted changes with the rationale "ediotr's choice, but not an improvement"... in other words, the only thing wrong with the new wording was that it wasn't any better. So what? That's no reason to revert. Except that it wasn't the version you approved of, which you apparently think is. See WP:OWN. Then you reverted again, again not because of any problem you could point out, but simply because I hadn't gotten your approval for the new version yet. See WP:OWN. And now you've reverted a third time, removing a legitimate issue tag from the article. Why? Apparently because I did something in addition to what you told me to do. See WP:OWN. Now, I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that your editorial oversight of this article will make it better, and that changes made without your approval stand a good chance of making the article poorer. But that opinion is inconsistent with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Please cut it out. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Read my comments above, there is nothing wrong with the revision other than it was a major change to the article, and should have been the subject of a discussion on this page. Looking at the original edit made, it did not appear to be a substantial improvement, but that's a subjective issue. This is where you begin if a major change is warranted. Did you look at the earlier version of the article? I reiterate, this is not "my" article, it is a product of collaboration and cooperation between interested editors. Putting a tag on the article is not conducive to a discussion, it merely is affirming your viewpoint. FWiW, stick to the substance of the talk page, i.e. making the article better. Bzuk (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I've been active on this article but one thing that sticks out is the over-proliferation of wikilinks to common words that populate the plot. I'm making an effort to look at this as a first issue, and I invite other editors to join in, especially since the plot section typically is not extensively linked or cited, as it is considered a summary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
This might be a good time to remember WP:AGF. An edit war is not going to help this article. In my opinion the section is not excessively long nor beset by inessentials, and yes, it is the result of long-term work by many hands. In the spirit of collaborative editing it might be helpful to make any further edits in small chunks rather than perform major surgery. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree, and I have purposely left the plot section to others as it was mainly production details that interested me initially. Small bits to chew on is fine with me, and reducing wikilinks is my first effort in this regard. Most of them seemed to be "add-ons" such as "angel", "librarian" and "bank examiner" that probably didn't need further amplification. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
Bzuk, reverting every change another editor makes isn't conducive to discussion either. In fact, unilaterally removing a tag like you did is rather contemptuous of the person who put it there, obviously in good faith. Someone perceives an issue, he tags it, it gets discussed and resolved, and then the tag gets removed. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As for your justification of Revert #2, trimming cruft out of a section of text isn't the kind of "major change" that requires the prior approval of other editors. Demanding that is uncalled-for. My edits were incremental changes (as is clear from looking at the text) that left alone a lot of wording even if it wasn't how I would've expressed it. But there was a lot there that simply doesn't belong in a plot summary. There were passages describing how particular scenes played out; that doesn't belong. There were random bits of characterization mentioned (e.g. Sam's catchphrase); again, that's not plot. There was a list of the things George sees after his life is restored; not plot. A plot summary is a list of what happens, not a dramatic description of how it happens. "On Christmas Eve, while on his way to deposit $8,000 for the Building & Loan, Uncle Billy encounters Mr. Potter and, bursting with pride, shows him the newspaper article about his nephew Harry, about to be honored by the President. Absentmindedly, he leaves the deposit envelope with the $8,000 in the folds of the newspaper; Potter discovers it later in his office and keeps it," is a scene description. A plot summary is, "On Christmas Eve, George's doddering Uncle Billy misplaces an $8,000 deposit, which is discovered and kept by Mr. Potter." WP:PLOTSUM (which I ask you both to please read if you wish to contribute to this plot summary) recommends 300-500 words to summarize a movie; the version you're protecting is several times that, and even with my edits was too long. With all due respect to the many hands who contributed to that total, it's an objectively overlong "summary". I spent some time this afternoon trying to improve it; frankly it still needed more trimming beyond that. Now are you going to collaborate on that, or stop it? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The relevant quote is: There is no set length for a plot summary though many editors generally recommend 300 to 500 words for a typical novel, movie, etc." In practice, the plot summaries for major film articles end up at between 700- 1000 words. Checking any Academy-award winning film that is featured in a Wiki film article and you will see that pattern. Again, the issue was not the edit, it was the major change it dictated without any referral to the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
So even by the standard you're inventing here, it's still too long. And I'm afraid I don't find the "other articles are almost as bad as this one" argument very persuasive. Let's be frank here: this so-called plot summary is simply and objectively not very good. The fact that it's so ridiculously long drew my attention to it, and sure enough: it was (and again is) littered with cruft. I've pointed out examples of what's wrong, and WP:PLOTSUM (if you've read it) explains more of how it simply fails to meet the assignment of a plot summary. If you want to keep complaining that I crossed some arbitrary and imaginary threshold that required me to consult you before making changes to this article, and continue your protectionist reversion tactics, I can leave this C- summary as it is, and unwatch this article (and people can use this article to justify rambling scene-synopses in other articles). Because I don't know how you expect me to "propose" these changes without actually making them. ("And in paragraph 3, in the middle of the sixth sentence, strike 'and then he turned around and walked away'"? What is this, Congress?) On the other hand, if you want to collaborate, and make changes to the version of the (IMHO improved) article I submitted in good faith, then please restore it, and have at it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You've got a long road ahead as the majority of major film articles include plot summaries as long or longer than this one. Many of these articles have reached FA and GA standards, and the "standard" was established by practice and comments, observationas and recommendations from reviewers. This article did indeed have an extremely long plot, which led to a complete revision that was accompanied by a great deal of back and forth discussion. As is, the plot section is appreciably smaller than its original version but over the years has again grown exponentially as individual editors added details. It can be "pruned" again, neither of us is disputing that point. BRD simply means, Bold-Revert-Discuss, not anything else. You acted as you saw fit, which again, as was noted, was not an issue. What was next established was a discussion "string" to determine the way forward. The issue in question is the article. You've explained your case, you consider the plot summary is not well written, and is too long. I agree that the plot elements are not to be confused with a scene-by-scene summary, however, the overall length is not the final determinant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
I'm not trying to fix them all, just this one. BRD isn't a procedural requirement, but a way of dealing with actual disputes over content; it doesn't justify knee-jerk reversionism as you seem to be practicing it. I've offered my improvements to the article, but since I'm just a visitor to "your" article, I've reverted them, and I'll leave it alone from here on out. Good luck with the control issues. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the discourse appears to be revolving around nonproductive issues, the response is on the editor's talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

I have to say that I find Jason's version much better than what's currently here. As it stands now, it's not a wonderful summary. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be the preferred version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
I think not. I'm going to slice and dice it in stages without reference to Jason's version. I've done just as drastic culling with The Maltese Falcon, The Big Country, and god knows how many others, so whatever else you may think, I'm at least consistent. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Violet?

The plot summary mentions an "after" Violet, but who was she "before"? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

  • I noticed under the Popular Culture section, there weren't very many references of the film in popular culture listed, with the header "Due to the proliferation of these references, only a few examples will suffice to illustrate the film's impact." Considering the sheer magnitude of the film's impact and all of the references that exist, it is my personal opinion that a separate "It's A Wonderful Life in Popular Culture" page be made, so that all of them can be listed. This has been done for numerous other films on the site, so why not this one? Ttc817 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what existed but in short order was PRODed and disappeared. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
I don't recall seeing any other such pages (nor do I believe they there should be any). Can you supply an example? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a page of the sort for Star Wars (link above), the best example I could find. If you don't believe there should be any, though, there's probably a good reason for that. Ttc817 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason is I'm a WP:DELETIONIST. (See my horns and forked tail?) I'm not sure you can really compare a franchise like Star Wars (or Star Trek or James Bond) with Wonderful Life. For one thing, they have multiple films and books, games, toys, notable catchphrases, etc. It's very hard for a single film to have a comparable impact. Still, I could be wrong (gasp). I'd be interested to see what you could whip up in your own user space. P.S. Have you read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles? Keep in mind it's only an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Communist Plot?

This section is a complete and obvious fabrication. The website linked for 'proof' does not link to any other sources, uses a barely readable scan as its 'source', and then falsely attributes the unproven claim of an unproven source to 'the FBI'. 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.188.9 (talk)

Original movie deleted from Commons

The deletion discussion is at

I do not think the discussion was deep and I fail to recognize a deletion argument being made, but then also, I think other people in that discussion know things about this file that they did not discuss. Whatever the case - if anyone is interested in the original movie, then they might start by looking there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Christmas film?

Is there a bit of weight we could add that would discredit this film as being a "Christmas film"? Other than the final moments with the tree at the end there isn't anything in the film that points towards Christmas. Yeah you can argue that the last part takes place during Christmas Eve, but the film doesn't run with that as a theme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's "atheist, Communist propaganda! But seriously, no. You can always find somebody to go against the tide, but Roger Ebert called it "sort of a 'Christmas Carol' in reverse" and "pigeonholed as a 'Christmas picture'",[1] some Guardian grinch named it "my most overrated Christmas film",[2], the Mirror described it as "the classic Christmas film",[3] etc., etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cast list bloating

Clibenfoar, As has been advised in a couple of places, it would be best to discuss possible additions to the cast list, rather than just try and fill in some of the truly minor roles. Many of those you added recently are too minor to be comfortably added. – The Bounder (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cast list bloating

Clibenfoar, As has been advised in a couple of places, it would be best to discuss possible additions to the cast list, rather than just try and fill in some of the truly minor roles. Many of those you added recently are too minor to be comfortably added. – The Bounder (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cast list bloating

Clibenfoar, As has been advised in a couple of places, it would be best to discuss possible additions to the cast list, rather than just try and fill in some of the truly minor roles. Many of those you added recently are too minor to be comfortably added. – The Bounder (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And again, Clibenfoar, if you could discuss this, rather than slow-burn edit war, you'll find life much more rewarding. As I mentioned in an edit summary a month or so ago, the list now replicates the constituents and order of the opening credits. If you'd like to discuss this further, it would be more profitable than just warring. – The Bounder (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Onel, could you explain why you think the Rotten Tomatoes "rating" is useful for a film released 60 years before the website was launched? RT has flawed metrics at the best of times, but particularly when it comes to older films. – The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, while I personally don't think is that valid, is viewed on WP as a valid source, and is used in many film articles. The info is current, therefore is valid. In fact, the age of the film might actually make this data more impressive, as many old films don't continue to hold their ratings. Since it is cited, (by the external link at the bottom), your removal of it might be construed as WP:IDLI. But let's see what other editors have to say. Please leave until consensus is reached, as per normal wp process. Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the RT score holds much value here. Just because you can source something doesn't always mean we should include it, and aggregators hold limited value for older films. The main purpose of the RT score is primarily to tell us something about the film's reception. In the case of this particular film most of the reviews aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes come from the 21st century so the score doesn't really tell us anything about its reception. The 94% score tells us a little bit about the film's reputation, and I think we can do a better job of contextualising the film's reputation with other sources. For example, the BBC's poll of international critics ranked it among the top 100 American films of all time, and there are many films that score over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes that don't enjoy that standing. Also, the members of the American Film Institute ranked it among the top twenty American films on the two occasions it has polled its membership. It also ranked among the top 10 in a Harris poll of America's favorite movies (statistically weighted for demographic bias). So on that note I think there are far better sources around than Rotten Tomatoes for documenting the film's standing. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless there are any editors who pop in and support this, I'll remove this in a day or so: two editors who think it completely wrong, and Onel saying they "personally don't think is that valid", which is not a terribly stong reason to keep it in there. - The Bounder (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That's hardly consensus. On an article that doesn't have that much activity, like this one, three to four weeks might elapse before consensus can be reached. Remember consensus is not a vote, but a discussion based on policy and guidelines. So far, haven't seen any of those to suggest it should be removed. Betty Logan's viewpoint is certainly valid, especially because she does so much good work on film articles. I'll put a note up on the film group's talk page, letting folks know about this. (Oops -- see you already have -- let's give this some time. Onel5969 TT me 17:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
A better idea would be to remove it and see if anyone else comments. Older films are always problematic with new websites. And there has been a discussion of guidelines: Betty has provided that, and no-one has given any good reason for inclusion. If you would like to make a positive case for inclusion, that's great, but without one, there really is no need to wait for weeks. – The Bounder (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, per BRD, the proper wp process is to leave the status quo until a consensus is reached. I'm not saying that consensus will not eventually lead to it's removal, simply that there's no reason to rush it. Let's see what other editors have to say. If the discussion were closed at this point, it would be no consensus, which would mean that the material should be left in the article, per wp guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
We can leave it if you insist, but my point still stands: can you make a case for inclusion? So far it seems to be there because other stuff exists, which is the weakest rationale. Are there any benefits you can see? – The Bounder (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I've already made the case, based on wp policy -- it is valid, cited information about the film. Pure and simple. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you've made no comment in support of the information based on policy (of whioch there are surprisingly few on WP). You have said that RT is "a valid source" which justifies inclusion, but just because something is true, or from a valid source, that does not mean we should include it: that's quite a tenuous reason for inclusion (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Betty Logan has come up with something much more pertinant (on her comment on the film project page), which deals specifically with the use of RT for older films, "caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates". Why are we ignoring this very pertinant and direct guideline? Can you focus again om what you think is a case for inclusion? Set aside that RT is seen as valid (guidelines say it's questionable for older films), or that RT is used in other articles (OSE, and it's a weak argument). Can you say how the inclusion of this information actually helps readers understand the subject any better? Surely Betty Logan's suggestion above of using curent sources to exemplify the legacy and ongoing attraction of the film is so much better? - The Bounder (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I had hoped we'd have more input from other editors, but no sense waiting longer. I find Betty Logan's argument persuasive, and have no issue with removing the RT information, as long as it is replaced by the more pertinent information. Thanks for the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that while you are prepared to use BRD as a weapon to retain your version of something, you're happy to ignore it to edit war over something you want to add to the article. Have a happy time owning this one - your modus operandi is not conducive to the development of the article, and your recent changes are not really good enough quality. I had hoped to work on this article in the new year, but as you battle agains every change, I'll leave it to you to look after. - The Bounder (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Really have no idea what you are talking about. I just agreed to make the change you wanted. How is that edit-warring? Have attempted to engage in constructive conversation with you, regardless, take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Rather obviously the edit warring of you ignoring BRD on a different matter. – The Bounder (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not so obvious, since you really need to understand what that term means, since there was no edit warring. We disagreed on the article, I asked you to take it to the talk page, you did. That's how WP is supposed to work, and is kind of like the opposite of an edit war. Anyway, as I said, take care. Onel5969 TT me 23:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on It's a Wonderful Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on It's a Wonderful Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It%27s_a_Wonderful_Life/Archive_2&oldid=852308402"