Talk:Continuity editing

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Merge

Support. That way we will be able to compare them without doubling our efforts. --Adoniscik (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fact that there is an equally valid alternative to continuity editing needs to be stressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.54.198 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Na7 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Coming from an academic screen studies background in editing, both approaches to editing are yes in some respects similar but are also contrasting methods as the articles both point out. 'Continuity' and 'Discontinuity' as even the words suggest are different and hence should have each in their own right a page.

What's an "ellipse"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.86.147 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipse

So the editors decided to introduce ellipses to avoid having films of the length of days, months or YEARS? That's just a very silly statement. Kumagoro-42 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talk • contribs)

Fixed I fixed that, now it says "To occupy long periods of time" The creeper2007 (talk)