Talk:Enchanted (film)

Usage of screenshots

Yesterday, I removed two screenshots from the article: File:Enchanted opening scene.jpg and File:Enchanted ballroom scene.jpg. I removed them because the fair use rationales did not seem to comply with WP:NFCC. For the opening scene image, the rationale was that it illustrated traditional animation, but is there a reason to show this image to reflect the animation? Traditional animation, live-action, and even computer-generated animation are pretty commonplace in society, so descriptive text could have sufficed here. For the ballroom scene image, the rationale was to demonstrate the aspect ratio and to show the main character. I think that the difference in the aspect ratio could be illustrated with a free image (showing two outlines against each other -- one labeled animated, the other labeled live action). In addition, unless there is critical commentary about the look of a character, especially one portrayed by a living actor for which free images exist, showing the scene is not necessary. A free image of Amy Adams could be used in the "Cast" section, and perhaps the opening scene image could be placed beside the second paragraph of "Animation" and the rationale rewritten to match what filmmakers intended with her appearance. Also, either a screenshot of Pip or Narissa could be shown in the "Effects" section. Let me know if you have any comments about my assessment! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted in Disney Digital 3-D

Enchanted is never re-released into theatres in Disney Digital 3-D in the US on November 21, 2012.

So it is or isn't to be released? If it is, can you please provide a source? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. What I'd like to know is what started that rumor in the first place? - Jasonbres (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP's talk page. This user has made a number of constructive edits, but at the same time posts stuff like this. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, but if you hear something first, please let me know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Adams singing

My research indicates Adams did her own singing. I saw the movie tonight, she was fabulous in the Central Park "That's how you know" production. Have we missed any facts found here? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so you know all about WP:NOR, right? —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Geez-Louise! Did you read my (article) edit? There's no opinion in the edit! Caraumba! Admonitions like yours are what make this wiki a dreary place sometimes. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted; agree with Duncan regarding your edit being WP:OR per your earlier comment above. SpikeJones (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, you guys are really way out there - perhaps you should read this. FYI: Your criticism of my ARTICLE edit, based as it is, solely on my TALK PAGE comment, really is a logical fallacy. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have walked into something I don't need to be in, but this seems to be getting too heated for what it is. Based on the edit summary for this edit, the only problem appears to be the formatting of the citation. I fixed that, so hopefully that much is taken care of. As to the content of the edit, I kinda have to go with the IP on this one ... the edit merely says she was praised for her singing, and the review in question does note her singing (if the reviewer was being critical, or at least giving her an "A" for effort, they'd have said something like "she sang her heart out, but it just wasn't enough" or something like that). It doesn't extrapolate and say "everyone has praised her singing ability", just that it has been noted. Of course, if this was the only praise and every other reviewer said her singing stunk, then it may not be appropriate. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time to understand the validity of my edit. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To the point - a single casual reference from a non-noteworthy source that praises her singing is not encyclopedic, and the entire edit should be removed. Besides, it is entirely misplaced in the paragraph... and if retained, should be relocated in the article to a more apropriate section. That said, I respect McDoob's opinion and trust that McDoob is correct in this case. SpikeJones (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your respect is duly noted and appreciated, Spike. And as is often the case, you do raise another valid point that should be discussed. Do we possibly have a more noteworthy reviewer who has praised Ms. Adams' singing in Enchanted? While this particular review does not appear to be fan-written (and further, while positive, it wasn't glowing), it doesn't really have the notability of a review by the likes of Gene Shalit, Roger Ebert and so forth. Can the IP possibly provide another, more notable source? At the same time, let me look and see if another location for this citation would work. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I checked the reviewer's credentials here. While not as notable as some of the heavies in the critics community, she does appear to have a significant background as a critic (i.e., it's not some employee at the website that was asked "so, do you wanna review movies for us?"). The puzzle will be trying to fit this into the "reception" area instead of where it is now. I'm thinking it belongs in the paragraph discussing the praise heaped on Amy Adams' performance, but I'm having a time getting it to work. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am utterly appalled at the amount of mincing and prancing around such a minor edit. That so many editors have recently leaped into the fray, following me from page to page, reverting perfectly harmless edits of mine, is astounding. I took the time to draw attention to the quality of Adams' singing as I found her to be quite good in the Central Park scene and I estimated that others likely felt the same way. That I found a reasonable source which modestly praised her should not come as such a surprise - she was indeed very delightful in that number. Frankly, this episode highlights the essential flaw in Wikpedia: There is an esconsed loose confederacy of admins who seem to think that all knowledge can indeed be referenced back to profoundly surperb web links. However, such a thing is simply not possible and never will be. The zealous persuit of reference perfection makes some old-timers on the wiki jaundiced towards "good enough" and overemphasized towards "perfect". It's this, more than anything, which keeps me as an anon. I do not want to be known by anything other than my edits. If my edits are true and meet wiki standards, my desire is to see them posted and stay posted. I have no interest in fighting the zealots who run roughshod in imposing their petty wills on others here. Look at my recent edit history and see the fanaticism recently meted out on my edits by a few. It's petty foolishness and is symptomatic of clannish myopia. PS: My talk page is indeed mine - because, as I have stated before (see history there), I lease my IP and no one but me can post from that address. And frankly, it's the petty stalking of me page to my talk page which I find most offensive of all. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that came out of left field, didn't it? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to do. In my opinion, when it comes to Wikipedia's pop-culture articles, it's not about perfection but more about "does this person's words carry enough weight?". I looked it up, and like I said, while Ms. Murray is not a heavyweight critic, she is still a qualified movie critic and thus is a—wait for it—good source for the edit.

Now my problem is the flow of the paragraph. I want to use this item, but at the same time I want it to read well and fit within the rest of the article. Where it stands now, in the paragraph about Amy Adams' role as Giselle, it stands out too much. I don't recall any of the other actors' sections describing the praise they got (and in some of the reviews I read while looking for another singing reference, James Marsden got more than a few accolades for his performance, too). In the "reception" subheading, there is a discussion about Adams, where I believe this type of information belongs. This paragraph, however, flows very well on its own, so I'm trying to figure out how to add it without putting words in other critics' mouths, if that makes any sense. I think it can work, but frankly it was rather late when I was reviewing it and maybe wasn't as focused as I could have been. I'll try again today.

That said, during my research I was looking for someone else to say they liked her singing. Unfortunately, I didn't find one. So that leads back to a concern I had earlier: while this reviewer is qualified to make such a statement, is she the only one making it? Praise for Amy Adams' acting was pretty much universal, even if the reviewer wasn't keen on the film as a whole. That is a notable aspect of the movie: reviewers may not have liked the movie very much, but they loved her performance in it. So, is one reviewer praising her singing ability, however modestly, merely a statistical hiccup?

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if anyone else likes her singing? There's plenty of things in Wiki articles which link back to only one source. The fact his Adams WAS praised for her singing by at least ONE reasonably competant assessor of singing talent. If we applied the same level of "proof" some seek about Adams singing to all other content on this Wiki, we'd have to excise about 80% of the content. People tire of belaboring such things. I know I do. Frankly, I really don't have a dog in the fight and before seeing this movie, had never heard of her. FYI: The VERY FIRST time I heard Carrie Underwood's voice, I predicted she would win American Idol. Along those lines, from my perspective, Adams sounded very nice in the Central Park scene. That I found one reputable source should be enough to vouch for her singing. Why it's not puzzles me. The bottom line is, I liked Adams' singing and if it's possible to draw attention to praise she's received, I feel it's the right thing to do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP said I am utterly appalled at the amount of mincing and prancing around such a minor edit.. Yes, it is a minor edit. That means that it can be removed just as easily as it was added, so why the strong insistence that it remain included? SpikeJones (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are looking at this completly wrong. If an edit is factually true, has no particular POV and has a reasonable source, then BY DEFINITON an internet encyclopedia should include it. The essential ethos of low cost publishing is that one should add MORE information whenever possible, not less. Certainly, the fact that Adams' singing was well received is a fact worth publishing. The correct question to ask is: Why such a perverse insistance on keeping valid information OUT of this or any Wiki article? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Amy Adams is a terrific actress and singer" [1] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that either Spike or I are trying to keep the information out of the article. In my opinion, articles on pop-culture, and Disney articles in particular, are ripe for fan-centric editing that strays from being encyclopedic. I know that my first edits on Wikipedia were as a fan, but during my three years here, I've learned to focus more on the substance and improve how they read and, further, what information is relied upon for them.

For what it's worth, I finally had the clearness of thought as to how to revise the paragraph in the "reception" section and incorporate the information you provided. The second source was added, but it would have been fine with the one already provided, too. Take a look at it and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks McD. I think your edit is great. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks McDoob. Continuing to beat the dead horse...the IP said If an edit is factually true, has no particular POV and has a reasonable source, then BY DEFINITON an internet encyclopedia should include it. The statement "Adams shaves her legs and armpits" is factually true and could very well have a reasonable source ("her hair-free skin glowed on camera" says Movie Dude).. but is encyclopedically worthless. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Spike - your kind of snide mockery is one of the things which ruins this wiki. Now, to answer your inane hypothetical... If this were an article about the intimate personal hygine and grooming habits of red-headed actresses named Adams, the shaving details would indeed be relevant. But... since this is an article about a movie - one with LOTS OF SINGING - then certainly the quality of the STAR'S singing IS RELEVANT. You do understand this, right? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I will reply to your direct comment about me here as that is where you decided to make the post: if you don't like the wiki or the people who try to maintain some semblance of sanity in the pop-culture-focused articles, then don't participate. Bullying and insulting editors into accepting a minor edit (one that was poorly sourced, originally presented as WP:OR, and placed in the wrong part of the article at that) is not the way to win friends and influence people. Instead of becoming instantly defensive/accusatory whenever any of your edits are toyed with or rejected, try learning why that's the case and adjust your edits accordingly so you can begin playing well with others. Just a suggestion. SpikeJones (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Spike, you are not being accurate nor collegial here and frankly, I think your tone speaks for itself. You were indeed snide and mocking in your comment and my reply is on point - a movie with much singing lends itself to commentary about the singing ability of the stars. Additionally, there was nothing "POV" or "OR" about my article edit and your inability to see that is your problem - and your problem alone. At this point, McD has helped me with my edit and there is no reasonable basis for you to continue to harangue me. Therefore, unless you are interested in being nice to me, please stop speaking to me on this page about this edit at this time. Thank you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)