Talk:It's a Wonderful Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate It's a Wonderful Life is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2012.

Cast list bloating[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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