Talk:The Black Swan (film)

DVD Cover

Why was the DVD cover of this film deleted. It is well established in other articles that DVD covers are acceptable in demonstrating the films availability in this medium. I think this needs to be discussed if people are objecting to this. FrankWilliams 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a major enough change to warrant talkpage discussion. DVD covers are indeed perfectly acceptable as representation for a film, but I thought it would be preferable to have something more contemporaneous with the film that represented more of its character than the standard Fox DVD cover which looks exactly the same for all Fox releases, and moreover smacks more of advertisement than illustration to me. Ford MF 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for anything anyone wants to talk about; there is no set criteria for this. FrankWilliams 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True. And on the other hand... Ford MF 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Folks really need to learn to not be so POV and opinionated. Trivia information is perfectly acceptable in Wiki Articles. Furthermore it is not often that recent information can be accessed to old movies such as this. Also, Ms. O'Hara is up in age and accounts of the filming and making of the film could be considered valuable, as once she passes her unique perspective will be lost. Anyone who really loves this movie would be delighted in hearing the commentary and this is a way of letting folks know. FrankWilliams 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The trivia merely says that there is commentary on the DVD, which isn't exactly unusual nowadays. If you have info about the actual anecdotes, that might warrant a trivia entry. Clarityfiend 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Audio commentary on older films is unusual; most of the new commentaries are with newer films. I don't understand what the big deal is with mentioning the commentary it exist and people should know about; leave it alone for goodness sakes. FrankWilliams 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Casablanca has commentaries on DVD, but no mentions in the FA class article.
• Citizen Kane has DVD commentaries; content of Ebert commentary is incorporated in the article.
• The Maltese Falcon has commentaries; no mentions.

etc. etc. I repeat: simply mentioning that there is a commentary is not noteworthy in itself. Clarityfiend 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should be mentioned. I can't believe such a big deal is being made about this. FrankWilliams 12:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend. Nothing especially notable about this commentary (unless some important info in the commentary is cited in this article, which it isn't), and it should go. Ford MF 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain, there be barnacles on the hull. Scrape 'em off, matey! Aye, aye, captain, but they keep growing back. Arghhh! Clarityfiend 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford MF your are contradicting yourself. You said above "unless some important info in the commentary is cited" that is exactly what was done. Also, your other comment was that the section is too "unencyclopedic". I think a good contributing editor would just make the changes and improve it; but simply getting rid of it because it is easy is not a satisfactory answer.FrankWilliams 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is very little info; it's mostly just your opinions. The place for that is in a review on Amazon.com, not here. Clarityfiend 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is enough info to let others know what is there. Your comments are also your opinions. FrankWilliams 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FrankWilliams, the clear but small (2-to-1) consensus here is against including that section in the article. I wish other people besides the three of us gave a crap about this article so we could get a more sizable sample, but this is what we got. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, not stubbornness, and I know it sucks when something you dig about an article gets deleted, but it happens. Pretty much all three of us are now guilty of 3RR, and asking for arbitration seems silly given how minor a matter this is, but I don't really know what else to do. Ideas anyone? Ford MF 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you other editors just change it around however you'd like it to read. My objection is to simply discard the information is not satisfactory; it needs to be there. Don't really care how it's written (to a point). Also the darn article is so short I don't understand what the big deal is. But, seriously one of you should just write it up how you see fit. FrankWilliams 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have changed it the way we'd like it, but you keep changing it back. So why make an offer you won't honor? Also, what difference does it make how long the article is? If it doesn't meet official guidelines, it doesn't belong here. Clarityfiend 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FrankWilliams the DVD info is informative and should remain. If someone want to clean it up that's fine but there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the information. NathanielPoe 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...what information? It talks about "valuable historic information", "anecdotes" and "details", but provides absolutely none. If you have the DVD and are willing to add them, please do so. Otherwise, this is "a tale...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Clarityfiend 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is clear there is a 2-2 consensus here. Suggest we use other wiki options for resolution. NathanielPoe 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited hundreds of film articles, none with a DVD commentary section. But just to be fair, I went thru the AFI top 100 films, which presumably are better-than-average quality, and here is what I found: 13 had DVD sections, which listed either the dates of multiple releases (such as Star Wars) or listings of the extra features or both. None of them was anything like what FrankWilliams has written. If you want to start the WP:Arbitration process, go ahead. But until you can produce a similar example in some other film article or respond to the objections I have made on this page, I will continue to revert it. Clarityfiend 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is quite meaningless; just because there aren't any other articles with DVD sections doesn't mean there shouldn't be any. You are also quite wrong; there are many film articles with DVD sections that just don't happen to be in the AFI 100; who cares if they are on this list or not. Also this film is unique in that the included commentary is done by an orignal cast member well into her 80's. Are there any other commentaries that fall into this category? I think probably not; therefore this makes this information quite relevant. You really need to broaden your horizons and see the big picture. You are also quite near breaking wiki policies of reverting once too often. NathanielPoe 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This commentary is unique? Are you serious? And I didn't say there were no articles with DVD sections, quite the contrary; I said there were none like this one, dedicated solely to a single commentary, and with so little content. I welcome a third-party arbitrator to examine this little brouhaha, if you've even followed through on your "threat". I'll wait a few days to see if anything develops. Clarityfiend 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Clarityfiend really doesn't have a clue to what really is going on here. I had all but given up with this effort. Thanks NathanielPoe. From my perspective it just seems Clarityfiend is trying to control and manipulate his point of view with little regard to other's work; this really shows lack of respect. FrankWilliams 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinion from a third party

I saw this dispute listed on Request for Arbitration page. First off, this is a better candidate for a Request for Third Party Opinion WP:3O rather then Arbitration. So I will give my opinion in hopes it helps resolve the dispute.

Now, the disputed section of the article does indeed have problems with it. Its very POV and unencylopedic in the way it is written and some suggestions it makes. Particularly comments like "O'Hara still sounds like a young woman and comes across equally energetic", this is simply inappropriate.

However, there is abosolutely nothing wrong with including information in this article about the existance of this commentary track. Though as suggested by another editor it would be better if something useful from the commentary was used. But if that is not offered by someone who owns this DVD and can suggest something worthy of inclusion, then I suggest the inclusion of the commentary track in the article be reduced to a minor mention rather then an entire paragraph. Russeasby 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I just found this [1] scroll through the review and you will find that the paragraph being entered into this article is almost word for word identical as the paragraph in this review. Entirely inappropriate, I am removing the content from this page and suggest it remains removed until someone can write something appropriate. Russeasby 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch! That never occurred to me. Clarityfiend 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming in here a little late to the game, but

• Wikipedia:Notability. In the DVD version of the film Ms. O'Hara's commentary can be heard along with flim critic Rudy Behlmer. Many anecdotes are presented in the dialogue between the two.

In the considered opinion of this editor, the existance of a commentary track on a DVD is not notable.

• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words & ...
• Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. This is an exceptional commentary, filled with valuable historic information about the genre, the period and the movie but also full of anecdotes and information about the production of this film in particular. Despite her age, O'Hara still sounds like a young woman and comes across equally energetic. The details she remembers about the film – and others – or about the people involved is simply remarkable, especially considering that it was shot over 60 years ago. Considering that she was an actress on the picture and not involved in any technical capacity, her knowledge, insight and most importantly memory of these details are quite vivid.

The fact that MOST of that section is hilighted with weaselly peacocky words is, I think, evidence alone that it deserves removal.

Really, it boils down to the fact that, as impressed as you might be, you thinking it is impressive that O'Hara has a good memory, young voice, was just an actress, gee golly what a great commentary, &c? Is just your opinion of the commentary track, & thus not encyclopedic. --mordicai. 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)