Talk:A Christmas Carol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / 19th century (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Holidays / Christmas  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Christmas task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Christianity / Christmas (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Christmas task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Scrooge McDuck?[edit]

No mention of Carl Barks's Scrooge McDuck? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I just added a sentence mentioning Scrooge McDuck in the "Adaptations" section. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm ... lots of problems there. For one, Barks didn't create the character for the 1983 animation, he created it in 1947 for Disney comic books (Barks retired in 1968). Now looking at the section, it really needs to sum up Adaptations of A Christmas Carol in general—summing up the most prominent adaptations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed it with the summary of "inappropriate." Please look again at the section, "Adaptations." It is merely a portal to the main page on the topic and not a list in itself. Out of respect to the prior edit, I added the word "animation" to the media of adaptation and left the redirect as it was. In addition, this section was intentionally left blank except for the redirect. It had turned into the messy link farm that the actual adaptations article has become. And there is absolutely no way at all to determine what "the most prominent adaptations are," which is OR and POV by its very nature. regardsSensei48 (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That is absolutelysolutely untrue. Take a look through WP:FA to see how it's done. A black section like that is absolutely unacceptable---the article's a GAN right now, and that there in itself is a quick fail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Bit of a problem there, because the only FA that presents a situation roughly analogous to the CC situation - a story of some age that has been adapted scores of times and continues to be adapted - is Romeo and Juliet, and that article devotes about 40% of its length in the "legacy" section to extended discussions of some of the stage and screen adaptations that someone or other has deemed worthy of inclusion - without a stated rationale for inclusion within sight. The focus in the film section of R&J on three productions as "the most notable theatrical releases" without explanation or source is POV, FA or not. I'm going to guess that you would like to avoid that pitfall here, so perhaps you could glance at the CC adaptations article and suggest some unassailably objective criteria for precisely how to sort through 27 listed television shows that are direct adaptations of the tale, along with the 21 films, 16 radio programs, numerous recordings, plus scores of theatrical presentations and even more pastiches to include here. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
An article with a blank section simply will not pass, and not giving an overview of adaptations will fail the article over lack of comprehensiveness. You're taking the idea of "POV" to untenable extremes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I have quick-failed the GA review over concerns with stability, unsourced content and an overlong lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You've jumped the gun on this. There is no unsourced content, there is no edit warring, and the lede has been trimmed per your concerns. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
To Curly Turkey - I think you may have misread my comments, to a degree at least. I am not arguing against adding content to the currently near-empty "Adaptations" section. To the contrary, I am asking you to establish some criteria for creating just such a list - criteria that unlike some parts of the R&J article depend upon verifiable sources and not on the mere and unsupported assertion in that article that some versions are more "notable" than others. What would the basis be for selecting some versions over others? What struck me as irreproachably objective would be to list the first appearance of the story in each of the media detailed in the CC adaptations and leave the rest to the adaptations page. There is no untenable extreme about requiring a Wikipedia article to avoid the shallow, recentist, fanboy types of judgments that are far too common in arts articles on this site. Also - please note that the GA quick-fail lists other causative factors in its judgment. Repairing the Adaptations section is a worthy goal, but one that in and of itself will not promote this article to GA status. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Two things: (a) we give emphasis to those adapatations the source tend to emphasize, and (b) we follow the principles we would with the lead (per MOS:LEAD), using our editorial judgement to determine what to summarize. There is no such thing as an article without a POV—the issue is with editors pushing their own POV rather than neutrally summarizing the POV of reliable sources. "First appearance in each media" is entirely arbitrary, unbalanced, and unhelpful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hardly - quite the opposite. It is in most every case for each medium a verifiable and sourceable fact. Determining which adaptations are "notable" beyond that is where the article risks becoming, as you say, arbitrary etc. However - my primary point above was to request that you lay out what criteria you believe useful for creating a list of "notable" adaptations appropriate for this section. That seems like the logical next step to pursue and I look forward to your ideas for it. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You're confusing mere verifiability with the weight sources give. I've already given you the widely-followed criteria—stick to the sources, and highlight those adaptations they highlight. What you're suggesting would result in no lead ever being writable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Adaptations[edit]

Adaptations are limited to "dramatic" adaptations such as movies, musicals, operas, etc. Adaptations do not include statues, paint by number kits, and other commercial stuff. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet to Come's trembling hand[edit]

I have added in the mention of the Spirit's trembling hand - I read the book myself, and also observed the hand trembling in the George C Scott film and the 1971 cartoon. Many Christmas Carol film viewers generally consider the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come as an ominous creature devoid of character. Careful readers know that Dickens subtly shows us this is not the case. Even this solemn spirit is moved by Scrooge's case and if you read closely, after Scrooge pleas, the Spirit's kind hand trembles- if ever so slightly. Even Scrooge called him "good spirit".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.223.76 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)