Talk:Substitution splice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Stop trick)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Requested move 5 October 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. While I think SmokeyJoe makes some interesting comments, Lemuellio's reasoning in favour of simply "Substitution splice" is stronger (in terms of the article titles policy) to my reading. Also, there is a slight majority in favour of that title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop trickSubstitution splice – Searches on Google Books suggest that "substitution splice" fits the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA much better than the current name: it's used by most writers on the subject, occurring many more times in reputable sources than the term "stop trick" (Recognizability); it accurately describes the technique in question, and can't be confused with the card manipulation technique called the stop trick (Precision); and it's still plenty short enough (Conciseness). Indeed, as a couple of the sources in the article demonstrate, "stop trick" was a misnomer to begin with, since the technique involves splicing film rather than stopping the camera. Lemuellio (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support but prefer Cinematic substitution splice. The proposed is excessively shortened beyond concise. It is a descriptive, not proper, name and the description needs enough information for recognition. Google substitution splice and see the chaotic set of results. Google Cinematic substitution splice and see an identifiable subject. Substitution splicing can be done in a variety of things, genetics in particular as illustrated by the google results, and this subject relates only to cinematic applications. The choice of "cinema" over "film" or other options is appropriate to the time period of its popularity. With this change, the unfortunate last sentence ("This technique is not to be confused...") can be dropped. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I get no Google results at all when I put in "cinematic substitution splice" as a phrase (i.e. with quotes). In other words, to move to this title would be to create a neologism, which seems best avoided.
In addition, when I run a Google Books search for the words "substitution splice" (again with quotes), I don't see a chaotic set of results; on the contrary, the cinematic technique appears to be the only meaning of the phrase. A few search results seem at first glance to imply usage in other fields, but on a closer look I find that they're "garbage" results caused by the words "substitution" and "splice" happening to occur next to each other.
So, it seems to me that "Substitution splice" is easily precise enough.--Lemuellio (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No google results, at least no coherent set of google results, result from any quoted search because there is no simple proper name for this topic. A descriptive name is required. Sometimes, Wikipedia descriptive names have not been used before, there having never been an article written on the subject from a board context. New descriptive names are not forbidden if a subject has no previously used name.
While I too get what you are saying, I still think that "substitution splice" is too brief, the subject is about a cinematic technique, and that "cinema" (or cinema-derived word) belongs in the title.
Alternatively, noting the article Film splicer, the title Film splicing might be better? It Googles well.
In any case, should my preferences not be agreed to, your proposal is better than the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the sources cited in the article (e.g. Moen, Lim, Yumibe, Gunning, Kessler); I think you'll find that "substitution splice" is indeed used widely as the name for this topic. So, I don't think there's any need in this case to coin a new descriptive name or to add qualifying adjectives.
As for Film splicing, that's something else entirely: the physical process of creating a "cut" transition by editing together two pieces of film, rather than a special effect created by means of a carefully designed cut.
Thank you for your continued thoughtful consideration of this article title!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree that "substitution splice" is used, but point out that its use is in the context of cinema. I think it is only used in the context of cinema? Article titles do not exist in such contexts. For minimal recognizability, both the current and the proposed, I think adding "Cinematic" is a good idea.
Unless I misunderstand, film splicing is not entirely different, but is the underlying technique enabling this substitution trick. True, film splicing would be a broader article than the current version. The current version could be called Substitution trick by film splicing? When done digitally, is it called something else? Is this an article on the conceptual method and result, or an article on the traditional technique? The second, I believe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but I don't see how it aligns with Wikipedia policy (WP:NC). Examination of the Google searches we've been referring to suggest that "substitution splice" is used pretty consistently for this topic, and is not used as a name for any other topic. Under these circumstances, coining a new multi-word descriptive name would seem to go directly against the guidelines for Recognizability, Naturalness, and Conciseness; nor would a new name satisfy the other guidelines, Precision and Consistency, any better than the term "substitution splice" would. Am I missing something obvious here?--Lemuellio (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I consider the naming criteria (WP:NC), as written, to be non-exhaustive, and I don't think anyone has argued they are. "Recognizable" can be read as implying, and should be, that a title should not be readily or reasonably "mis-recognized" as another unrelated topic. Yes, "substitution splice" can be recognized as the name of this technique by anyone familiar with the technique, but, in molecular biology it can be misrecognized as a major type of gene splicing, where gene fragments are swapped in and out (substituted) between introns, related to subject of gene transfer. It can be plausibly recognized as such if not already in the context of film/cinema. Alternatively, it might be argued that "substitution splice" fails the Precision Criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the criteria are exhaustive; rather, I was referring to the instruction at the top of this section, "Please base arguments on article title policy." My concern was simply that our discussion was less grounded in WP:NC than was optimal for mutual understanding.
I've searched on both Google and Google Books, and haven't found any examples in which "substitution splice" is used as a name for a type of gene splicing (or, for that matter, anything other than the cinematic topic at hand), so I'm afraid I don't follow your arguments about mis-recognition and lack of precision. Perhaps, at this point, we had better just agree to disagree.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.