Talk:Rendezvous (1935 film)

Infobox information

I have corrected the information in the infobox to match the film credits. per Template:Infobox film: "Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." there were many changes you made with does not do that and also included redirects. In strarring: Barnes is credited as large as Russel so either include both in starring or remove both and just have Powell as the star. Notes on uncredited contributions belong in the Prodn section not in the infobox. There are many script doctors and early directors who work on the film and don't get credited and there is often a reason. Not all contributors to a story or direction deserve credit (and why they are uncredited). With citations (which you have) you can comment on them, but they should not be in the summary table. Also per Template:Infobox film, writer is "written by" credit. Screenplay is given. Writing = screenplay+story. In earlier films adaptation was sometimes used for the story credit.AbramTerger (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of an inforbox is to inform our readers, not to act as a carbon copy of the credits presented in the film. Especially in the "Golden Age" of Hollywood Films (1920s-1940s), many people who worked on a film were not credited at all for a variety of reasons. If modern investigation and scholarship, as presented in reliable sources, establishes who these people were, there is no reason in the world why we cannot and should not let our readers know who they are. The notion that this information is relevant in the body of the article, but cannot be put into the infobox, is not supported anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

In short, the infbox box is indeed a summary, but not of the film's onscreen credits, it is a summary of the facts presented in the article. BMK (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Binnie Barnes added to "star" field, per poster billing box. BMK (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't include in the infobox the assistatnt and location directors just because there are citations. We already limit even credited actors in the article. The infobox is a summary, not detail of all the information. We don't add Donner onto the infobox of Superman II or add Robert Towne to the writers of The Godfather, or add Carrie Fisher's name to all the film we can find citations that she script-doctored. And before you start an edit war you should review the WP:BRD procedures. You make a bold edit, I revert since I disagree, then we discuss and come to a consensus before more changes are made. You started an edit war, but reverting without discussing. You have not only added what seems to me to be adding an indiscriminate amount of details that is better put in the production area (where it is included) and not in a summary table, but some of the edits as mentioned are going against the established policies of Template:Infobox film: people are credited with the names as listed in the credits and you don't create links to redirects as you have done. I also think you need to start a discussion and get a consensus from the Template:Infobox film talk page about what uncredited names are appropriate. I think you should make your case, so we can comment on it.AbramTerger (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think providing accurate information on who wrote the film and who directed it is "indiscrimanate information" you have a really poor understanding of what that means, and it's hardly worth my while to try to educate someone whose lack of understanding is so gigantic in scope. I suggest you go back and actually read some of the policies and guidelines you quote, and tyo do so without the preconceptions that you have apparently built up over time, because this discussion is going to go nowhere as long as you and the rest of the Wikipedia community are on two different planets. BMK (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The accurate more trivial information is in the article. I have not argued to remove it from the article. I have argued against putting the trivial information into the infobox of uncredited assistant directors, script doctors, and other contributions that were not significant enough to be fully credited. The infobox would get so bloated if we made this the practice. In current film crediting, those additional directors and cinematographers are now credited in the film, but we don't include them in the infobox or even note them in the trivia. And uncredited scriptwriters are also not included in the infobox and only included in the produciton information if it is more than trivia. Additionally, the adaptation is not part of the screenplay, but is the Story writer for the infobox and has no need for the extraneous bold information of "adaptation". That is what storywriting with a based on credit is.AbramTerger (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have updated some of the information in the Infobox as detailed earlier (eliminating the redirect, correcting music credit, and putting the adaption by credit into the story). I also adjusted the formatting a little. They adapters did not get screenplay credit. They were credited as adaptation which is the story (presumably a story outline or first draft from the memoirs). There is no need to label it as adapted by since it is in the story credit which is an adaptation of a based on. I still disagree with the 3 uncredited groups as it seems more trivia and unneccessary in a summary, but I leave them for now and will see if there are other comments to reach a consensus. We may have to ask for more opinions if no one else comments on it.AbramTerger (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored. No consensus. BMK (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

. If that is your stance, it should have been kept at the original (before you changed it) and got a consensus before changing it. Instead you started the edit war. It also does not require a consensus to correct mistakes and make the information accurate, nor does it take a consensus to use existing style guidelines (MOS:BOLD, and MOS:ITALICS. The goal is about compromise, which you don't seem willing to do.AbramTerger (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I'm telling you

there is no "mistake". If you change the article without a consensus to do so, I will change it back to the consensus version. I suggest you move on, since your edit here is not accepted. If you continue to push for it, the end result will be a block. BMK (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: I agree (and disagree) in part with both of you. Significant uncredited people are SOP in my experience, especially when referenced. Inconsistent bolding and italics for uncredits are not, but I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. Threatening a block, when you're not an administrator and are not exhibiting exemplary behavior yourself, is more liable to get you blocked. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)