Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 29 July 2010

The High and the Mighty (film) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Film: American C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article has an archived peer review.

Non-free images

I removed the non-free images from this article back in January, but it looks like it was reverted. Per WP:FILMNFI, non-free images cannot be included in articles for decorative purposes. Although it's great to have images to break up the text and support the information, we can't just use non-free images to do so, unless there is a valid reason to include them. Non-free images should only be included if there is criticial commentary within the article discussing the importance of the image. Looking over the images included in this article, I would say that maybe File:Damaged engine.jpg and also File:DC4 engine fire.jpg should remain in the article and only if there is a section that focuses on the special effects in the article that specifically names the engine fire. Everything else appears to me as decorative or could be replaced with a free image (for example, consider the Douglas DC-4 category at Wikimedia Commons. I'll wait to remove the images again for a response to be included here if there is opposition to removing the images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: There are only eight total images in this article of which five are screenshots from the film. As required, the images include detailed fair use rationale statements on their file pages which explain why "generic" images would not suffice as replacements as each is used to illustrate specific (and unique) aspects of the film described in the text, The essentially pro forma removal or replacement of any of the article's images -- all of which have all been illustrating the it for more than two years without complaint -- would materially diminish the descriptive value of the entry and would thus be unjustified. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not for removing all non-free images from articles, I like them as much as everyone else. But to be able to use non-free images, we have to ensure that they are being used appropriately. Just because images have been here for years doesn't mean they meet fair use requirements (there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that have non-free images being included for the wrong reasons). Eight images is quite a lot for a film article, when only two or three are necessary. The poster is long acknowledged to be included in film articles as it provides details on the film's release, cast, marketing style, as well as possibly providing some details on the plot. However, the DVD cover included here seems to be there just to point out that there was a DVD release (which is common for most films). The only way that the image should be included for example is if there was some commentary pointing out critical praise for the design of the cover or how it significantly differed from the poster. The image in the plot section shows a plane which could easily be replicated from one of the free images in the above category (the same goes for the first image in the "Douglas DC-4 N4726V" section). The image of the cast members could be replicated with free images of the actors. This could remain in the article if for example there was a section that talked about costume design or how filming took place in the cockpit. For the image of Williamson behind the camera, that could also be replicated from a free image and is not that vital for a reader to see the director with a camera as that is something we'd expect for most films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

After dealing with many challenges about non-free images, I concur with Centpacrr as the images follow the text carefully, amplify and not "prettify"; the other issues are easily debatable. The standard for large articles established by WikiAviation group is 10 images and this article falls into that range. The Wellman image is indicative of the hands-on approach used by the director. The image of the aircraft is important as this was the first postwar disaster film set on an airliner and the image of the aircraft would not be readily apparent to a later generation, while the other images depict critical junctions in the plot as this is considered a "classic" aviation film and has been the subject of a major restoration and recent re-release of the DVD version, hence the illustration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

• I must still strongly oppose removing and/or replacing any of these images. Just because other film articles may or may not have more or fewer images then this article does not make eight too many -- or for that matter too few -- for this one, so that argument seems to be at best a straw man. The article has eight images because the consensus of the various editors who worked assiduously on expanding this article over many months in 2007 and 2008 found these eight that were appropriate and that each materially enhanced the article. (I am also not aware of any guideline or policy that defines exactly how many images are "necessary" to illustrate any particular article as this would necessarily be purely a subjective consideration which would be different for every article.) If you read the text about the DVD you will find that this was not a common reissue, but quite an important one for the studio in that the film had been out of circulation for decades before being digitally restored at great expense and released on DVD with considerable fanfare much the way The Manchurian Candidate was after a similar long absence.
• The images of N4726V, the DC-4 in the varnish of the fictional airline ("TOPAC") used in the flying sequences, are there to illustrate this particular aircraft, not just the type. N4726V was both a key "character" in the story, and it was ironically also lost in the Pacific on a flight from Hawaii to California ten years later after suffering a malfunction similar to that of the fictional flight in the picture. Using images of some other unrelated DC-4 when those of the actual aircraft described in the text are available would be both inadequate and inappropriate. The group image of the aircrew is key as this is an ensemble cast picture in which the characters are far more important as a group then they are as individuals. This image illustrates that much better than unrelated publicity shots of individual actors as the image is meant to illustrate the aircrew, not the actors playing the parts. I also see nothing wrong with the image of the director either. I suppose it could be replaced with something else, but it illustrates what it intends to perfectly well so I see no need to change it.
• In sum there is long time consensus for all eight images being in the article, each well illustrates something important and specific which is also discussed in the text, and all are supported by legitimate fair use rationale statements. That being the case, I see no reason whatsoever to make any changes, deletions, or substitutions to any of the images illustrating this article, and substance should also always be given greater weight than arbitrary process. Centpacrr (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some issues. Images in the plot section are just about impossible to justify, mainly because the plot doesn't have critical commentary on the image in question, which is a requirement of non-free images. Thus, if there exists critical commentary on the images in the plot section (e.g., the second image talks about special effects which obviously are not discussed in the plot), then those images need to be moved next to the text in the article that provides that commentary. If there is no such section of the article, then obviously these images fail WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because critical commentary is a must. Simply putting a decent fair use rationale on the image page is not enough. On a side note, why is the cast listed in the plot and in the cast section? That needs to go. Anyway, back to the images. The image of William Wellman doesn't appear to be necessary at all. It doesn't add any understanding to the readers, it's more decorative. The DVD image is also decorative. There is no critical commentary on the DVD cover art and how that is somehow special enough to warrant illustration in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Bignole and Nehrams2020 about the images. Also the article is so confusing. I don't know if I'm ready the plot, casting, or the development of the film. Or at the same time. I think the article is doing everything opposite of what the WP:MOSFILM recommends. Mike Allen 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As to the use of images; I can see the relevance wherein the naysayers are quoting one "statute" after another? Just removing all non-free images seems to be a prevailing attitude, while their inclusion to support and explain key aspects of plot and production are summarily dismissed. Sheesh... Wellman was a hands-on director and the image accurately portrays that; the aircraft in question is also an important "character" while I agree that the image commentary can be more effusive and that is the obviously the job of the editor who put in the images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

We don't want to remove all non-free images from articles, we just want to ensure they are being applied correctly. I know it's difficult to see images removed from articles, but we can't just keep them because we like the images. For film articles it is difficult to secure free images to provide illustrations for commentary within the article, so we usually have to rely on non-free images. Although the plane might be different from one of the free images we have of similar planes, can't we just say in the caption that a similar plane was used for filming (such as File:Douglas C-54A TF-ISE Flugfelag LAP 02.06.53 edited-2.jpg in place of File:N4726V.jpg)? For the screenshots and DVD cover we have been listing, they just don't have enough justification to remain in the article. I provided examples above on how the article could be expanded to justify keeping some of the images. This also isn't a numbers game where we want to keep x images. If there were eight images that all had strong justification with a really well-developed article that may be a possibility. At times, only one is needed, it all depends on the article. For examples on articles that are using non-free images correctly, see Changeling, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Transformers, or The Simpsons Movie. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, the increasingly narrow straw man arguments evolving and being advanced above by those apparently bent upon deleting images (and now apparently even other content) might carry more weight if any of their proponents had ever shown any interest in (or had previously contributed any material to) this article in the past, but that is certainly not the only reason I find these arguments wanting. While I am sure these new views about the appropriateness and validity of the images are being offered in good faith, the arguments being advanced also appear to be beginning to take on the unhelpful characteristics of "Wikilawyering", especially as they relate to making narrow technical interpretations (or perhaps even misintertprettions) of some Misplaced Pages guidelines which, if blindly accepted, would have the negative result of overriding the underlying principles they express. A review of the article's long history reveals that the majority of the entry as it now exists was developed, intensely debated, tweaked, fact checked, and (after much additional discussion) broad consensus was reached on all of these issues -- including the images -- several years ago.

• As previously noted, this article has been mature and stable for several years now, all of the challenged images carry the required fair use rationale statements, and the reasons for their selection and inclusion in the article have been explained above for which broad consensus was long ago achieved. Each image in the article is there for a specific purpose and illustrates one or more key plot, production, or genre elements of the film. In the absence of some compelling supported argument to the contrary (i..e., especially other than just subjective personal opinion), I strongly oppose the deletion of any of the eight images from this stable, well sourced, and mature article as simply not being justified. I also strongly believe that substance should always be given precedence over the arbitrary application of "process" which is all that seems to me to be being advocated here. Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that there needs to be discussion about the validity of non-free images in the article. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to be a 💕, so when we include non-free content, there has to be clear-cut contextual significance. Most films are copyrighted, so this means when we sample copyrighted content, we must do so with care. For this reason, Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films make sparing use of non-free screenshots. While there was discussion about this article's copyrighted images in the past, Misplaced Pages's consensus policy says that consensus can change. There is interest in revisiting consensus for these images, and my recommendation is to discuss each image separately, as there are different arguments available for each one. Some images may be kept as-is, some may be deleted, and some may be kept with contextual improvement. Let's start with one image. I recommend discussing the DVD re-release image first. In terms of contextual significance, the film is already represented with the original theatrical poster, so one image suffices instead of two. In closer relation to the sub-topic of restoration and re-release, the image does not provide significance. We can write in text that the film was re-released on DVD. Seeing the cover does not add anything. My suggested adjustment is to remove the redundant cover art and to move the "digital watercolor" image to this section as more contextually significant media. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am really much more interested in the views and consensus of the editors who took part creating, researching, and building an article then those who appear years later who have no previous demonstrated interest in an article or know anything about the discussions and process it underwent during development. This has nothing to do with "ownership" which none of the editors who worked on it are claiming, but with understanding the article's background, why the particular images were selected, and why removing or replacing them with inferior substitutes would diminish the article. Detailed fair use rationales have been supplied for the images on their file pages as have the background and reasoning (see above) for why they best illustrate key elements of the subject film. Also be aware that "guidelines" on Misplaced Pages are meant to be just that -- guidelines -- not "requirements." They are not designed to be hard and fast "rules" meant to prohibit the use of "non-free images" or anything else, especially when the latter provide the best alternative to illustrate the topic. I agree that "consensus can change", but it has to be for some good and compelling reason, and after-the-fact second guessing is not really one seem to be one of them. Claims such as "Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films make sparing use of non-free screenshots" or "Images in the plot section are just about impossible to justify, mainly because the plot doesn't have critical commentary on the image in question, which is a requirement of non-free images" need some evidence that that these contentions are true to be credible. (The images are there to illustrate material covered in the text, not the other way around.) I don't see that any compelling case for change has yet been made. Centpacrr (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's called an unbiased opinion. Regardless, you cannot ignore the rules of the WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because they are copyright issues. If an image fails to comply with those pages, it can actually be deleted on the spot. Please read NONFREE, it clearly says "Screenshot - for critical commentary". If you don't have critical commentary, then the image fails the criteria and has to be removed. It's as simple as that. If there is no information in the article about special effects used in the film, then an image intended to illustrate special effects clearly lacks the critical commentary necessary to justify why we need the image. If we don't understand where the image is coming from, which requires prose information detailing the subject, then it's just decorative. So, put the image next to critical commentary, or go find critical commentary and add it to the article if it doesn't exist, and be done with it. Otherwise, the image will most likely be deleted when they are all put up for non-free image review and it's shown that there is no commentary in the article discussing the image in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article has been edited to incorporate "critical commentary" relating to the images. Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...not really. Critical commentary is not merely identifying what is in the image. It's a discussion of what the image illustrates. If the image of the engine on fire is supposed to illustrate the effects used in the film, then there needs to be detailed (reliably sourced, and not personal observation) prose discussing those effects. Critical commentary is not critical if it's coming from editors on Misplaced Pages. We cannot be the source of critical commentary, it must be from reliable sources, and needs to be more than just a single line. For instance, you have to ask yourself, "Is there something special about this image of the engine on fire that is somehow different than the average readers' understanding of an engine on fire that we somehow need this image or else the reader will lose significant understanding of the event?" Another way to tell that you lack critical commentary is that the only mention of "digital effects" is in the caption for one of the pictures. There is no mention of digital or computer generated effects anywhere else in the entire article. And no, saying there is "new cover art" for a DVD is neither critical commentary nor is it necessitate the need for a reader to know what that cover art looks like. We're not here to sell a product, and unless there is a significance to said cover art the image is purely decorative (I've never really seen a DVD cover pass any non free review when it was used in the body of the article, because rarely if ever is there actual significance to the cover art to a DVD box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion continues to go back and forth on the intentions of wanting to remove the images as a whole or keeping them. As Erik recommended above (and probably what I should have just done at the beginning) is to divide up all the images and focus one each one, stating the rationales for keeping or removing it. Although the editors commenting here may not have been here helping to improve the article in the past and not know of prior discussions related to these images, the editors do have experience working with non-free images in many articles and strive for uniformity and quality among WP:FILMS' various articles. This article does have some issues that conflict with MOSFILM (namely the plot and cast sections), which we should focus on after the images are addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, in this topic, the film is a primary source. When the plot of the film is described, WP:PSTS says, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." We cannot base theories or purposes of copyrighted images on the primary source, which is not critical commentary. In addition, to answer your question about the claims made about other articles, please review the Good and Featured Articles at WP:FILMSPOT. If this film was in the public domain, this number of screenshots that would be free would be understandable. However, given that copyrighted images are being used just as liberally as public-domain images, it seems that there is not enough restraint in this kind of use on a 💕. (Please note the infrequency of copyrighted images in the Good and Featured Articles I linked you to.) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate unfold and I can see that there are good reasons for keeping the infobox poster and the slanted engine image. The other images would have to have their own discussion in the article body to merit keeping them. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

File:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg - Movie poster featured in the infobox

I see no reason to remove this as it is a valid use of a non-free image in summarizing the film's release, marketing style, cast, plot, and release. It identifies the film for the reader when they first visit the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Poster is fine. They typically always are, assuming this is the original poster (which it appears to be).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the poster image is acceptable. There is overwhelming consensus across Misplaced Pages to use this kind of representative image (like cover images for books and albums). Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:TOPAC DC-4 (film image).jpg - Screenshot

The current image caption reads "Passengers waiting to board ill-fated fictional TOPAC Flight 420 at "Gate 4 in Honolulu" for an overnight hop to SFO". Plot sections do not need non-free images to support the details as there is no critical commentary included, it is just a summary of the film's plot. I do not think that this image could be used elsewhere in the article to support any other sections so it should be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I think the original caption for this image had something to do with fake color schemes for the TOPAC, but even that really isn't a necessity for an image. It doesn't add anything to the plot and a single sentence saying they had to change the color scheme because _____insert reliably sourced reason for the change___ is all that is needed in a production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This image is being used to illustrate the plot, which is the primary source of the film. Description of primary sources need to be basic, and guidelines show that screenshots ought to be for critical commentary. It is baseless to point to any scene of the film and argue on one's own the importance of a screenshot. Outside of film, we show famous photographs not because we editors think it is famous, but because it is acknowledged as famous. There needs to be similar relevance with copyrighted images in film articles, not necessarily fame, but relevance established outside. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DC4 engine fire.jpg - Screenshot

The image is also included in the plot section, and although a brief statement was included in the plot talking about the film's special effects, it doesn't really elaborate. In addition, the plot section should not have details about the making of the film, but should just focus on the events that take place. If special effects are to be covered, that would be best served in the production section. I am for keeping this image, if there can be adequate details about the special effects in the film. Are there any DVD special features or newspapers at the time that cover this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree in all fronts. Production info is best suited in a production section. Putting it in the plot section becomes confusing when it's interlaced with plot related info. I agree with its inclusion if information regarding the special effects used for this scene can be found, as I'm not sure there is anything in the article about effects at this moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image should demonstrate contextual significance in relation to the production of special effects for that scene. As it stands, it appears to be part of a plot-based narrative where copyrighted images are picked without non-primary source relevance. I ask those who have edited the article historically, do you know if there are any major details about this scene on the DVD commentary or in one of the books? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Thehighandmighty'54.jpg - Screenshot

Located in the plot section, it focuses on three cast members. Unless there is a section that focuses on the costume design to focus on authenticity or how a filming technique was used to get this view, I don't think it is valid for inclusion within the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree. If there is information on this specific scene (as it poses the question of, "why isn't scene X with these characters used?", thus creating the doubt of its significance in general), then it doesn't have a lot of necessity either. There are free pictures of John Wayne and Robert Stack on Wiki, and I'm sure we could find free pictures of Wally as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the contextual significance of this screenshot? It shows people in a cockpit, and like Bignole said, with two of three people who have free images. Is there a reason why we cannot entrust readers with imagining this scene in their mind's eye? This is a 💕, and the use of copyrighted content needs to be compelling. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:William Wellman.jpg - Screenshot

Located in the production section, shows the director using a camera to film a scene. As this seems common for most films, there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why this would be a special event to warrant inclusion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Most directors will get behind the camera at some point. Saying that "Wellman was a hands on director who often filmed scenes personally", or something like that is all that is needed. The average reader can comprehend that basic concept without the need of a visual image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the rationale for this image in this article. While I understand that the director is hands-on, this particular image is somewhat indiscriminate here. This kind of statement could be made at the articles of different films he directed, so it would be best to use it at the director's article. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:N4726V.jpg - Altered screenshot

The screenshot from the film that has been modified digitally using a computer program. I don't see the encyclopedic value of modifying the screenshot, is there some significance to the modification? If the image is being used to illustrate the plane being used in the film, then I think any one of the free images at Wikimedia Commons could be substituted instead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur, though if there is significance about the digital effects used then this goes hand-in-hand with the fire engine image in needing a section to discuss effects. There currently isn't one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this screenshot could be used in the "Restoration and re-release" section if we can pull together enough details. The problem with editors working on this article is that the use of these copyrighted works is not self-evident. (Which is why I cannot ascribe old discussions; if you're not convincing a batch of new people here, then it seems that images came from personal choice.) However, there could be relevance here, as I'd like to know more about why this shot has digital watercolors, especially compared to the "normal" shot of the other plane. Was this shot damaged and subsequently cleaned up? It is just not self-evident, especially when the images were used to illustrate the plot (which is the least important part of a film article, IMO). Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Damaged engine.jpg - Screenshot

This one's a toss-up for me. There is commentary about the modification that was required for filming, but it may be difficult for readers unfamiliar with the engine layout to see the difference. Further elaboration may be helpful for the image to remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This one certainly has more going for it as far as critical commentary is concerned than any of the others. My only issue is similar to Nehrams, the lack of explanation. Why is the 30 degree slant important? If I understand why this was significant, than seeing an image to show me would better than understanding in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Like Bignole asked, "Why is the 30 degree slant important?" Hopefully the editors of this article can explain that and provide citation of its relevance. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:High and Mighty DVD.jpg - DVD cover

The cover does not seem to have any justifiable reason to be included as it is merely illustrates that there was a DVD release to the film which is already conveyed in the text. As I mentioned above, if there was a large amount of praise about the cover or if there was something really special about it. I haven't been able to find anything online to support this and think it should be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a DVD cover image in any film article that was special enough that it needed mentioning and illustration.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I had the DVD cover for Fight Club! Granted, it's gone now (as I wanted to appease a FAC reviewer). It's not completely impossible to show DVD covers, though. I think the Alien quadrilogy and that one Evil Dead "Book of the Dead" cover art are candidates for inclusion. Here, though, like I said before, the DVD cover of the re-released film is not illuminating. Nothing that writing in text cannot accomplish; we must remember this initial option available to us when we consider copyrighted images. Can it be conveyed in text or with free images? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• The images in the article are there to illustrate and enhance the reader's understanding of the topic (the film), not for the article to "illustrate" and explain the images. The usage of each of these copyrighted images is explained in the fair use rationale statements on each image file's page, and each clearly falls well within the meaning of 17USC§107 (The Copyright Law of the United States of America) which provides for the fair use of copyrighted material by stating that any use "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Each image also meets the criteria specified in §107 for determining the parameters of fair use which are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
• The five images derived from "screenshots" were not put there haphazardly nor do they exist in a vacuum. Anyone who has actually watched and knows the film would easily recognize that each image illustrates a key element in its plot development or production, and each enhances the understanding of the overall topic for the reader which is the whole point of the article in the first place. (This usage also exactly conforms with the language in the Misplaced Pages "movie screenshot template" on each image file's page which specifies that the image may be used to "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", but says nothing whatever about being limited to critical commentary and discussion of the image itself as claimed above as the main reason for deletion.) Whether or not the number of images falls within an undefined range for images in order for the article to be placed in some arbitrary category unrelated to its topic ("good". "featured", or whatever) seems to me to be another straw man. The article was not developed, written, and illustrated to win merit badges, but to serve as a good source of basic information about the picture for those interested in its history, background, cast, plot, characters, genre, etc. Removing images to meet arbitrary technical minutia of guidelines (which are not policies) which have nothing to do with the real purpose of the illustrations being there would significantly diminish the article as a whole and thus would be antithetical to Misplaced Pages's goals as an encyclopedia. Centpacrr (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages's policy of non-free content criteria states that one of its goals is "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Since non-free content by policy requires contextual significance, it is clear here that the significance of the copyrighted images used here is not immediately evident. One should not have to be familiar with the film outside what is written in the article to see why an image is significant; it should be evident in the article. We are trying to be a 💕, so the article would much more benefit from the accumulation of information from various reliable sources than the gratuitous display of copyrighted images. The point of mentioning Good and Featured Articles is that they have been reviewed by independent editors, and these articles use copyrighted images very selectively. We will gather more opinions about the images in this article and determine what is contextually significant and what is not. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am truly puzzled by the inability of the proponents of deletion to see the "contextual significance" of these images which illustrate and enhance the understanding of key points of plot and/or production which are specifically discussed, described, and are evident in the article's text immediately adjacent to each image. (Each image also has a descriptive caption.) I really don't see how any of this could be more clear. There is no pretense that readers need to be "...familiar with the film outside what is written in the article to see why an image is significant" as each image relates to what is written in the article. (Also inclusion of these images is certainly not "gratuitous" but was made to enhance understanding of the text.) As noted above the usage made of each clearly falls within the provisions of 17USC§107 (see above). It also meets all ten of Misplaced Pages's criteria for the fair use of non-free content, the guideline for screenshots, and the provisions of the "Non-free image screenshot template" for motion pictures that appears on each image file's page which specifies that such images may properly be used to "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents". As I noted above, the images were not added in a vacuum but are meant to be viewed and understood in the context of the article. Their significance to the film and its contents are all fully discussed in both the article's text to which each is adjacent and in their captions, and all three (image, caption, and text) are meant to be considered together. Centpacrr (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The film is a primary source, so with the plot summary in this article, we are providing a basic description. Articles are supposed to be based on secondary and tertiary sources, so it is a problem when the contextual significance of many copyrighted images is being tied to the primary source. This approach is inappropriately scalable; an argument could be made for providing a copyrighted screenshot for every scene and every character on the vague premise that it helps the reader "understand". Since this is a 💕, we have to practice restraint with non-free content, and that is not being practiced here. I assume good faith that the content was added to illustrate the article, but with the overuse, it is not in compliance with the Misplaced Pages policy to ensure that this is at its core a 💕. If you have time, please review each image above so we can decide each one's fate. In addition, I did a little research and recommend checking out The Lost Films of John Wayne by Carolyn McGivern; it has a lot of information about The High and the Mighty that could be used in the article. It's possible that there would be information in this source where a copyrighted image would benefit readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concerns expressed and can address lot of them in a week as I am presently away from home on a trip to Newfoundland to "trace the steps" of Amelia Earhart. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see how four screenshots from a two-and-a-half hour film could arbitrarily be considered excessive, nor do the four images seem to me to be in violation of either 17USC1§107 or any of the the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on non-free images in that: 1) there are no free equivalents available; 2) the images are not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; 3) only four images are used to illustrate an article on a complex two-and-a-half hour ensemble cast film; 4) the non-free content has been publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages; 5) the images meet general Misplaced Pages content standards and are encyclopedic; 6) the images qualify for fair use under 17USC§107; 7) the content is used in at least one article; 8) the images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and their omission could be detrimental to that understanding; 9) the images are used within an article; and, 10) each file's description page contains the appropriate tags, templates, and fair use rationale. I am not trying to be difficult, but in the light of the above I just don't see how any of these images violate any Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, nor do I see how they do not enhance the article for the general reader. In the interim I suggest awaiting the comments of Bzuk (see immediately above) who is one of the long time principal contributors to this article and has a great deal of experience in dealing with non-free images in film and aviation related articles. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the precedent is that copyrighted images are very rarely used in plot summaries because the summaries are basic descriptions of the primary source, the film itself. I recommend reading WP:FILMNFI for guidance. I also doubt that you have taken any time to look at our Featured Articles to understand just how sparingly we use non-free content, so I will be happy to link you directly. Changeling (film) uses one screenshot and has an entire section devoted to it. American Beauty (film) has a screenshot that is contextually significant in the "Imprisonment and redemption" section. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has two screenshots displayed where contextually significant. Not One Less only has one non-free image in the film infobox. Tropic Thunder uses non-free content to illustrate the makeover of characters. Fight Club (film) has a screenshot related to themes and a screenshot related to visual effects. All of these Featured Articles do not use any copyrighted images in the plot summaries, which are kept to a minimum. (An exception is Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which covers visual effects and not plot detail.) In most of these instances, though, you can see how free images are being used and how minimally non-free images are being used. When we compare your article to the Good and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films, we can see that the use of non-free content here is excessive. You want your article to be excepted from the guidelines, but I cannot see what makes this article so special that we should let it use so many copyrighted images on a 💕 with unconvincing reason. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the examples Erik pointed out to refer to, I want to clarify on the issue of "there are no free equivalents available". I have provided a link to the category of multiple free images, and we also have several free images of some of the actors which could be included. Centpacrr, could you please leave comments after each of the above listed images so we can get a better idea of what your rationale is for keeping each one? So far, your comments seem to be about the group of images in general, and it would be more helpful to determine why you think each image warrants inclusion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

I was going to implement the Bosley Crowther review in the "Original release and reception" section, but I am finding the current paragraph to be lacking in citation. Only this is used as citation for the following passage: "John Wayne provided a critically praised role "against type" while supporting actresses Claire Trevor and Jan Sterling earned 1954 Academy Awards nominations for Best Supporting Actress. The film earned additional Oscar nominations for director William Wellman and film editor Ralph Dawson, along with composer Dimitri Tiomkin and lyricist Ned Washington for the film's title song. Tiomkin received the film's only academy award, for the film's original score. The popular title song by Tiomkin and Washington was included on only one print of the film so as to qualify it for an Oscar nomination. It is not heard on the prints issued for general theatrical release." The passage has more detail than what is available in the citation. Do we have the citations for the other details, such as where "against type" came from? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

While we have a discussion about the article's images going on, I would like to create a separate discussion about improving the article, whether images are used or not. I have some recommendations below:

• The lead section needs to summarize the article more adequately, especially highlights of production, the film's lack of availability, and the eventual restoration and re-release.
• Per guidelines, plot summaries in film articles are generally 400 to 700 words. This is a long film, so the latter end of the spectrum is understandable. It would depend on the complexity of the film as well; some films can be long but are easy to summarize in just over 400 words.
• The list of characters is out of place in the middle of the plot summary; it disrupts the flow of following the story. The list should be merged with the "Cast" section in an amalgamated "Cast and characters" section. I do have concern about the "flavor" of the character descriptions, though. We are supposed to write neutrally, but almost every character reads less like an encyclopedia and more like a puff piece for the film.
• It seems overly playful to treat the airplane as part of the cast. It is a setting that changes and affects the character. I'd rather see it outside of the "Cast" section. It can either be its own plane-centric section or be partially in the "Production" and "Loss of plane" sections that existed before.
• "Production" section has strong potential since research shows that a lot can be discussed about the development, casting, and production (such as music) in this film. We will not see much about critical analysis. We do need to improve citations here and elsewhere in the article, though. It is hard to tell where some information comes from, like I reported above with the passage in the "Original release and reception" section.
• We could sample more reviews, both contemporary and retrospective. I was going to include the New York Times review, but it was negative, and I didn't want to punctuate the reception section with just that. It would be better to pull together a paragraph or two sampling multiple reviews.
• Would anyone mind converting references to a link-friendly format? Such as seen in American Beauty (film)#References? It would be quicker to jump from the footnote to the full citation.

If others have a response to my recommendations or any additional thoughts, feel free to share! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to gather from these comments that you have never actually seen this film and have no familiarity with it, its genre, and its history. First the film is almost two-and-a-half hours long in an era when features were often not more than 90 to 100 minutes. It is in fact a landmark ensemble cast film in which the detailed development of the many characters is given huge weight with most of the first half devoted to nothing but that. Everything in each character description comes directly from the film, its script, the words of the characters themselves, and/or from expensively produced flashback segments included to establish their personalities and motivations. Understanding what happens in the second half of the film, and how (and why) the many characters react and interact to the crisis as they do, is based on knowing all of the information about their backgrounds which was developed in the first half (or what you call "flavor") and is briefly summarized in the list of characters. Understanding and identifying with the personalities of the passengers and crew are in fact the very essence of what makes the film work for its viewers. The aircraft itself is also treated in the script and production as every bit as much of a "character" as are any of the passengers and crew, much the way the RMS Titanic is in A Night to Remember or Titanic, and in fact might even be considered its MacGuffin. You appear to be trying to pigeon hole put this film in some category in which it does not belong and to "dumb down" the article to the lowest common denominator by removing much of the information central to what makes it the character driven action/adventure disaster ensemble cast film that it is. Centpacrr (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Misplaced Pages's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information includes this: "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." Guidelines recommend that plot summaries in film articles be between 400 and 700 words in length. Are you telling me that the plot of this film cannot be summarized in less than 700 words? Allmovie does this succinctly. When we write about a fictional work, we write with a real-world perspective. You are assigning a lot of importance to a section that is intended to complement real-world coverage about this topic. Are you saying that your article is an exception to every guideline mentioned on this talk page this past week? You think that every aspect of this article should be untouched? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have no problem with quoted descriptions from the film for the characters. However, outside quotes, it is creative writing with words like loqacious, avuncular, unctuous, shrewish, infuriated, philandering, placating, exuberant, logorrheic, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the film as a landmark production in a variety of genres (multiple character driven plot, action/adventure, disaster, ensemble cast), the extraordinary emphasis placed on character development in its production, the irony of the real world fate of the actual aircraft that was itself a "character" in the film, and how all of these elements relate to how the film was viewed, accepted, covered, "disappeared" for decades and then resurrected and expensively restored as an example of all these genres, etc., the material should be left exactly as it is. The article in its current form is the result of many months of work in 2007 and 2008 of a group of editors during which all of these issues were discussed at length and consensus was reached. Guidelines are exactly that,guidelines, not statutes on inflexible rules.

Nothing in the article as it is misrepresents the film or is false. It provides a succinct description of a complex character driven film providing the reader with an accurate understanding about the many things that the film is and why they are significant. If Misplaced Pages were a "paper and ink" encyclopedia in which printing and page count considerations were crucial for fiscal reasons then I could see editing down some of this material for space considerations would be appropriate. However Misplaced Pages in an on line encyclopedia which makes it possible to provide each individual subject with the space it needs to fully cover it. The length and detail of the article is appropriate to provide its readers with the information needed to fully understand what this film is. Just because it is longer — or shotter — then articles about other films is irrelevant as each film (or any other topic of an article on Misplaced Pages) is unique. and should be as such as opposed to being run through a cookie cutter. Also please note above thatUser:Bzuk, another of this article's historical editors, has indicated above that he will be commenting on this issue next week when he returns from a trip to Newfoundland and his views deserved to be waited for. Centpacrr (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision history statistics of the article show that you, Bzuk, and Gwen Gale have edited this article extensively. This shows the same level of involvement. I assume this is the "group" you keep mentioning? An older discussion reflects that Gwen Gale took issue with the character list. Regarding your defense of the plot summary and the character descriptions, Misplaced Pages's policy of no original research states, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." The plot summary needs to be a basic description of what happens in the film, and it needs to be concise. Are you disputing Misplaced Pages's policy of keeping plot summaries concise with your argument of "We should be able to write as much as we want about the primary source because it's not paper and ink"? Also, if Bzuk is vested in the article like you, do you believe that his views would be impartial? I see that you're dismissing policies and guidelines and indicating that the article as-is should be unchanged. It is bothersome that you're willing to ignore policies, guidelines, and even examples of well-reviewed articles in favor of this current draft. I'll be helping to improve the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This provides a synopsis of the film across a couple of pages, and I've tied screenshots together for this. (To the right are the page numbers.) It's an example of how the film can be summarized. Are you saying that this is impossible? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I don't understand why you keep commenting that just because we haven't seen the film we are unable to improve the article to meet the guidelines that all film articles fall under. I have seen plenty of films in the disaster genre, of longer length, and more "landmark" than this one (if it is a landmark film, it would be great to have citations to add that to the article for the release section). A film, no matter its entertainment value, length, cast, plot, box office performance, etc. holds it above all other articles. This isn't a fansite, but an encyclopedia that provides a reasonable overview of a topic. Without the guidelines that all other film articles follow (well, that we constantly try to ensure they follow), readers would see extensive irregularities between the articles, as each would be organized according to its fans/critics. There's films I love on here that I've worked on, but I've made sure they follow guidelines for the benefits of readers. Heck, there's even films I hated (see Evan Almighty), and it still gets the same treatment as any other film article. Any of the featured articles we've linked to above have found a way to keep the plot under a manageable level, while keeping other details in perspective. We want to have readers to have an overview of the plot, not go over every single detail. Allow the readers to have interest in the film so that they can go watch it. Please realize that we are not here to destroy the article and move on. We have worked on thousands of film articles, and have strived to improve the articles so that there is consistency in providing quality examples for new editors. I moved this film to the top of my queue, so I'll probably be able to watch it on Sunday or Monday to assist in cutting down on the plot. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a "Genre" section to cover that ensemble aspect of the film and trimmed the plot section to 726 words. (Your suggested maximum is 700.) Centpacrr (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce! Let me know if you have any comments on my changes. The flow might be affected since new details could not be added cleanly, but we can work to order the details better. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What does everyone think about merging the list of characters with the "Cast" section to basically have a "Cast and characters"? I was going to do it myself, but each list has a different order, with some character items neighboring each other. We could basically establish the list of characters as a "Cast and characters" section. (We can worry about the wording in the character descriptions later.) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging these two lists does not work as the they have completely different structures and purposes, to-wit:

• Ensemble List: The first list located in the Genre section, includes only the 22 souls on board the flight (17 passengers and 5 aircrew), and is there to describe how and why the characters of each of these were carefully and extensively developed in the production over the first half of the film in order to create the ensemble grouping characteristic of this genre and which was necessary to establish in order to make the "disaster" portion (i.e., the second half) of the film work dramatically. (The adjectives and other descriptive terms used in the thumbnail summaries of each character in this listing are all derived directly from the film's script, come from the mouths of the characters themselves, and/or are stated in the flashback sequences about them.) The real (or screen) names of the actors who portrayed each of these 22 characters are only included in this list parenthetically as they don't have anything to do with the development of the characters they play, or with the personalities that those characters become to the audience.
• Cast List: The second is strictly a listing of all the credited actors in the film's cast (i.e., including those who play the parts of characters located on the ground in HNL and SFO, the radio operator on the cargo ship, and the USCG ASAR pilots) with the actors' names both Wikilinked and appearing ahead of the name of the character each played. The actor's names are also listed there in the order in which they appear in the screen credits which has no relation to the characters they play but was instead determined contractually. The two lists therefore have completely different purposes, orders, and styles, and thus do not lend themselves to being merged. Centpacrr (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should a list of characters belong in the "Genre" section? Discussion of the film's genre is an out-of-universe perspective, while descriptions of the characters are not directly pertinent to the film's genre and are in-universe. I can understand the need for a list of characters due to the ensemble cast, but I'm not sure why you don't think a "Cast and characters" section would work. Do you think the readability is difficult? Perhaps we can restore the table format with three columns; Actor, Character (or Character, Actor), Character Description. We can use sub-headers in the table to group by the 22, then by the rest of the cast members. (We do not have to provide character descriptions for the rest of them.) It would address the redundancy without taking anything away. Thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When you see the film (as I understand that you've indicated you plan to do) you will understand the reasons I have provided as to why these lists are not the same thing. One is a list of a specific group of characters (not of actors or cast members) while the other is a straight forward cast list. The two lists have completely different purposes, are of different things, their orders are based on different criteria, and trying to "combine" them will destroy the understandability of both. The reason for the "Genre" ("ensemble") section, by the way, is that this is what the entire first half if the film is about and what establishes many of the premises for what happens in the second ("disaster") half of the film. Centpacrr (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have problems with that entire section. At the moment, it sweats original research. There are three sources in the entire section, the first two in the first sentence. The section reads like someone's personal interpretation of the film, and not like an accumulation of various professional opinions. As such, I think anything cast related should be with the cast. There is no reason to have two character lists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are not "two character lists" in the article. One is a list of a specific group of characters (the "ensemble" group), and the other is a cast list based on the screen credits—two completely different things. Centpacrr (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They look identical. The only difference I see is that one list explains (albiet, with some OR) who the characters are, while the other does not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference, but I repeat one is a list of a specific, limited group of characters in the film who make up the dramatic "ensemble characters" on board the flight which include thumbnail summaries of who they are as ensemble figures in the film, while the other is a list of the real (or screen) names of all the actors who appear in the film who are listed in the screen credits. "Character lists" and "cast list" are not the same thing. Centpacrr (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The second list has 9 extra names, and most probably shouldn't even be there. So, that makes the lists identical save for the character info. Both contain the main cast. Both contain the character names and the actors who played them. The second list just includes minor characters that should be saved for IMDb. That means they are redundant to each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely and utterly disagree with you, but I am not going to carry this discussion on any longer so I have just removed the cast list which you consider redundant. Centpacrr (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Using Google Book Search, I included details from John Wayne: American, where it covers The High and the Mighty in pages 406 through 409. I was not able to view 408 or 409, so if anyone could try to view these pages for added detail, that would be great. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it either, but I just placed a hold on it at the local library so it'll probably be shipped over in the next few days. Will hopefully have it at the beginning of next week. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to The Lost Films of John Wayne? Half of it is about this film, according to Amazon.com, but I could not see many pages of it. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, added that one too. Any others? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; that ought to be a big one. I'm just going through Google Book Search, as you can see. The Lost Films book might have critical commentary for hosting a non-free image. Maybe we can get a screenshot from the DVD for the article? I'm kind of curious about seeing the film now, as I research it more and more. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 02:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if any other John Wayne books are available. Once I finish viewing the film, I'll see if there are any more relevant screenshots that can be included. I've been avoiding reading the plot and the recent additions you guys made until I see the film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• The early film criticism of François Truffaut, Truffaut talks about the film. Cannot really add it now. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Filmcracker is a sockpuppet for a user with a long history of disruptive editing

Edits made by Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for 64.252.0.159 and many other anonymous IPs, are not legitimate and are being made for the purpose of Wikistalking. He/she has been repeatedly banned for engaging in these activities over a period of more then three years. A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and overt Wikiststalking by the this editor and the many anonymous multiple IPs he/she has used for this purpose can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Attack the editor for disruptive editing, not for making the sensible changes to this article that were made. I prefer the version arrived at by Filmcracker, where content is reorganized into the correct sections. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The way the plot and casting sections were reorganized earlier was done so because other editors objected to their being combined as they said it made the plot section too long. I don't really care, but some agreement has to be arrived at so that the text makes sense and is not redundant. (I have again adjusted it to make sense in the the format you prefer.) However any disruptive edits made by the sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" or his/her anonymous IPs (who has been stalking me and many other editors for as long as three years) will be promptly reverted and reported to AN/I as his/her record of misconduct is longstanding, egregious. and extensive. Centpacrr (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Further article improvement

I went through and added citations from the three books that I got from the library. In addition, I shuffled some of the sections around and added more headings to help break up the text and improve the flow. I think this article has the potential to go onto GA, but there are still some areas that need to be further improved. I started an impact section, and that could definitely benefit with expansion. The plot has ballooned in length again, so we should get that back to what it was when it was trimmed down. I'm thinking that it may be helpful to incorporate the casting section within the production section (after script) and leave the list as its own "cast" section. If Bzuk gets a chance to look over further improving the article, we can hopefully soon get back to going over the non-free images. I still don't think the current ones work, but I think we can include one in the filming section that talks about how filming was done using CinemaScope (the director, faced with small quarters in the plane, placed the camera in one spot and had the actors walk in and out of the frame). In addition, for the restoration section, if we can find an image of the damage to the film, a frame of that would be helpful. Is this available on any DVD special features? This article is continuing to get better and better, and it will be a great example for other older films once we address the remaining issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The plot has "ballooned" again because others (started by a now indefinitely blocked wikistalking sock puppet) undid the reorganization I did a couple of weeks ago to shorten it. This article had its major development in 2007 and 2008 and was stable for more than two years. If you want to add new material that's fine, but it strikes me as being unhelpful to keep rearranging and rewriting long standing sections wholesale as this upsets the carefully crafted flow and interdependence of the material of this complex film and confuses the "ensemble" nature of its characters and plot development. Major changes in text and structure (as well as "trimming" of detail) need to be discussed and agreed upon in advance if this article is ever to achieve stability again. Centpacrr (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, just because there were decisions in the past, does not mean that this article is set in stone. The cast formatting was reverted because it was "long standing". Was there a discussion about bolding the cast list that can be linked to? If that was something that was decided in the past, WP:FILM consensus has developed the formatting in the style guidelines of all film articles, and there is no notable reason why this film's cast section would be any different. With so many issues with the article, I really don't think that the bold formatting is the priority. Would you please comment on the other points above regarding the further expansion and images? Do you have the second disc of the DVD to look at the featurette regarding the restoration? Blockbuster mail only provides the first disc. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This list is not a "cast list" of actors, but a list of the 22 characters who make up the "ensemble group" of passengers and aircrew on the flight. Its purpose is to describe how their characters were introduced, developed, and began to interact over the first half of the film before the introduction of the "crisis" event to the plot. The format of bolding the names of the characters (not the actors) of the this key group makes it much easier to read and understand quickly who they are as characters in the film, and how they relate to each other. The format of the list has never previously been a matter of controversy over the more than two years it has been there. (There was an actual "cast list" in the article listing the actors in the format you like, but you removed it on July 11. You are, of course, free to restore it.)

With regard to images (and 17USC§107 issues) I made my views on this subject clear above and they have not changed. I have no view one way or the other on adding well sourced new material to the article. I do object, however, to the deletion of well sourced accurate detail and other material as doing so only serves to pablumize the article. Centpacrr (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to look up "pablumize", but couldn't find a definition, could you clarify? That sounds like an interesting word to add to my vocabulary. Call the list what you want, it still details who the actors are, what characters they portrayed, and include brief background information. We could call the plot something else, but it would still be a summary of the film and still have guidelines it would fall under. There are numerous other films that have ensemble casts but none that required that they have a cast list and an "ensemble list". There is no added benefit of using the bold font as each cast member is being broken up by bullets anyway. We see how they relate to other with the headings "crew", "passengers", and "additional cast". Again, I don't understand why this article is deemed special over all other film articles just because there were discussions several years ago about formatting that solely pertains to this page. I also don't understand why there would be no interest in further adding to the article. Could you clarify what well sourced information was deleted so that could be addressed? Regarding the images, you still did not ever reply to each corresponding image in the above section despite several requests, so I'm still not sure of the rationales you have to support each image. Again, do you own the DVD that has the special features disc which could be used for further improving this article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pablum is an essentially tasteless processed cereal for infants the name of which is also used metaphorically, especially in literary criticism, to refer to writing that is bland, homogenized, and lacking in detail and substance. I have modified the character development list to remove the actors' names and restored the cast list in the format you like. I didn't say there was "no interest" in further adding to the article, just that I don't have a particular view one way or another on how you do it. The rationales for each image can be found on their file pages. I am away on vacation and don't have the DVDs with me but you can get them on Amazon.com. Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you return the character list to the redundant version where the character Dan Roman (for instance) is listed twice, once as a character, and once as the role played by John Wayne? That version is very much suboptimal. Please trim it back until there is a single listing per character. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually only one "cast list" which is in the casting section. The other list is of the ensemble group of characters only and is located in a subsection of the plot section. It describes only how their characters are developed as a group within the film but does not specify the actors who played them. The two lists have completely different purposes and are not duplicative. (Also the sockpuppet user who stalked me to this article and moved them has now been indefinitely blocked in all of his/her registered accounts and is likely to soon be "community banned" from the project altogether. See ) Centpacrr (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are pointing out that which is plain to see, telling me the sky is blue... If you don't correct the redundancy, I will. The easy fix is to put the actor or actress name in at the point of first introduction. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it your position that there should be no cast list at all? What is your justification for that? Not all of the characters in the film are included in the plot section. There is no redundancy here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This version of Nehrams2020's from July 11 shows what I am talking about. The Ensemble cast list is accompanied by actor names in parentheses. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the actors' names no longer appear in the group character list having been removed because of your and Nehrams2020 redundancy objections. Centpacrr (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the term, I was curious. I created a sandbox of the article and modified it to merge the cast list and ensemble description together. I struck through text located throughout the article I think that should be removed (that's not set in stone) and put in bold the text from the ensemble section that I incorporated into other sections. I think the layout helps to improve the flow of the article and the changes help to cut down on the length of the plot. Regarding the non-free images I removed them all (well, the sandbox is located in the user space!), but I just had a miraculous, smack on the forehead, breakthrough. Movie trailers that were released before 1964 were not placed under copyright, so screenshots from those trailers will be free and can be included in the article (as this film was from 1954). I just placed a hold on the DVD at my local library so when it arrives, I'll work on getting the screenshots from the trailer (as well as getting the non-free image from the restoration featurette). Thank goodness for older films! Anyway, please let me know the thoughts on the potential formatting and layout of the sandbox so we can see if those changes can be incorporated here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of pablumization I am talking about. You are proposing to remove a great deal of accurate, well sourced detail (especially as it relates to the plot and the development of the ensemble characters) as well as images that fully conform to the guidelines for the fair use of non-free images (extensive, detailed rationales for which appear on those images' file pages) and the provisions of 17USC§107. The only reasons you give above is your personal views on "flow" and to "cut down the length of the plot section" that had already been cut down to 790 words, a length which is certainly not overlong for a film as complex and with as many sub-plots as this one. If you want to add material to expand the article's other sections, that's fine. However the wholesale slash and burn truncating, homogenization, and pablumization of what has been carefully developed there over a period of more than five years now (I personally have been working on it off and on since late in 2006) is completely unnecessary, unjustified, and counterproductive. I really don't see that you have made any case whatsoever to do this other than you like it better. The article is fine just the way it is. Centpacrr (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the so-called pablumization. This is an encyclopedia, not Creative Writing 101. The "accurate, well sourced detail" is the result of watching the film and being overwrought and colorful with descriptions, where the primary source should be described in a basic manner. Nehrams, I support the implement of this revision. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but I do want to point out that the argument of five years of careful development is a null argument if the results of that effort do not satisfy the need for an encyclopedic article. Nobody is challenging the fact that Centpacrr has worked hard on the article; instead, they are giving it a hard look and evaluating it as it stands now. I move that we drop the ownership stance and deal with the text from the point of view of the casual reader who is looking for a brief and accurate account of the film. Though I do not encourage creative writing, I do not want well-intentioned improvements to rub out any fine writing of a scholarly nature. At Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria, the very first requirement for a featured article is that it be "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In the revision, it's not about what I like, but what goes with the accepted guidelines that consensus has developed through numerous discussions on a project-wide scale. The sandbox revision does not remove a great deal of sourced content. There was a split up of the details about the ensemble cast (with a few sentences being cut) which is best covered in the cast list section along with the casting details (which helps to better explain the search for so many actors to play the roles). I cut out some of the details that are already covered in the plot or in other areas of the article, but I'm sure we can still leave some of it (like I said, the suggested changes are not set in stone). In the case of plot sections and explaining the cast, we're best off going with the Dragnet's "Just the facts, ma'am". We don't need our own interpretations of the characters nor to go into excessive descriptions. The plot isn't that intricate to necessitate a large plot, it's okay to leave out details. If readers want to know everything about the plot, there are plenty of movie spoiler sites out there. As Binksternet said above, I do recognize that a lot of work has gone into this article, and it's great to see an older film that isn't a stub. The suggested changes merely help to move the article towards film article guidelines concerning layout and formatting. Regarding the non-free images, I don't think that you understand that we will be able to replicate the same screenshots (or very similar ones) from the trailer (which would definitely render the current non-free screenshots as being replaceable and would have to be deleted). The only non-free image that I'd be for removing would be the DVD cover, which the section would benefit from a restoration screenshot instead (readers may be more interested in seeing how extensive the damage was rather than seeing a generic DVD cover they can find on Amazon). I do plan to expand this article, but I'd like to see the article to continue to move in line with accepted guidelines before I can spend more time on further research. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am truly puzzled by the apparent contention that a description of the plot of this (or any) film should not be based on what happens in the film. (If not that, on what then should it be based?) Does anyone really think that vast majority of film plot descriptions on Misplaced Pages were not created in exactly the same way? (If so, what is your evidence for that?) The 790-word plot section of this article is not a dramatic, psychological, or critical analysis of the film, but is instead a straight forward factual recitation expressed in declarative sentences of what the characters do and say during a flight from Hawaii to San Francisco which is interrupted by a mechanical failure that imperils their lives. It is hardly "creative writing" with "overwrought and colorful descriptions." Many of the words which I presume are being objected to as "too colorful" to are taken directly from what the characters say (which means they are also in the written script), as well as from statements made on the "commentary" audio track of the DVD which are spoken by (and credited to) Leonard Maltin, William Wellman, Jr., Karen Sharpe, Pedro Gonzales-Gonzales, and Vincent Longo. Simply because their source was the spoken word as opposed in written word does not make them less valid or render them "unencyclopedic".
• The adjectives in the descriptions of the ensemble characters also came from the same two sources and were spoken by the characters themselves, were said about them by other characters, were said in the flashback sequences, and/or were stated by the commentators on the secondary audio track. I have no problem with removing material from articles on Misplaced Pages if they are inaccurate or unsourced, but so far I have seen nothing anyone has said here that challenges the accuracy of anything currently in the plot and character development sections. Instead the only "complaints" seem to be that the writing is not bland enough and contains too many facts and details. That hardly seems to be adequate justification for removing anything, or to call them "unencyclopedic."
• I never in any way have claimed "ownership" of the article, and much of what I am defending here I didn't even write. Instead what I am objecting to is the dumbing down (i.e., "pablumization") of the article to the lowest common denominator, or as I guess Erik would call it, reducing its writing to being in a "basic manner" whatever that is supposed to mean. I would be interested in knowing what exactly he finds to be so "un"basic about the language in these sections. It is made up exclusively of declarative sentences that accurately relate what the characters do and say, and is written using standard English vocabulary. It neither analyses the film, nor does it critique it. There is nothing esoteric or "unencyclopedic" about the language or writing style of these sections, it just isn't written for an elementary school age audience. It assumes that those who would be interested in this article would be at least able to read and understand English at a high school level.
• I am equally puzzled about the continued objections by Nehrams2020 to the three remaining "non-free" screenshot images. Each of these images have extensive fair use rationales on their file pages and fully comply with the both the spirit and the letter of 17USC§107, the "fair use" provisions of the US Copyright Law, as well as the applicable WP guidelines. (With respect, I am constrained to observe that the objections seem to me to be more like Wikilawyering then anything else.) Please explain how the images used in this article are any different in character, copyright status, manner of creation, or fair use rationale, than the multiple non-free screenshot images that User:Nehrams2020 uploaded to Misplaced Pages and placed in the Little Miss Sunshine, Forest Gump, Evan Almighty, Night at the Museum, or Crank (film) articles. I can see no difference whatsoever. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bruce, I'll get to the point. The plot summary is a complementary section in a film article; policy says that a concise summary is appropriate as part of larger coverage. This means we provide readers an overview of what happens in the film. Look at how briefly the Featured Articles American Beauty (film) and Changeling (film) summarize the films' plots. There is too much focus on trying to describe the primary source; we have an opportunity here to provide that "larger coverage" in an article that used to be half-filled with plot detail.
• Also, Bruce, the images that Nehrams uploaded are both free and non-free. Where they are free, they do not need contextual significance evidenced. Where they are non-free, they exist in the proper context. There needs to be similar context here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering if you could tell me please, sir, what has changed your view about the length and character of the plot section of the article between July 8 when you described my trimmed plot summary (747 words) as "Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce!" and today when you now seem to find the almost identical summary (43 words longer) completely unacceptable as being too long and/or against some other unspecified guideline(s). However at 790 words this plot summary is 641 words shorter than the summary for Apocalypse Now (1,431), 406 shorter than Seven Days in May (1,196), 301 shorter then Dr. Strangelove (1,091), 263 shorter than Gone With the Wind (1,053), 165 shorter than Night at the Museum (955), and just 93 longer than Forest Gump (697), so I really don't see how its current length is much of a legitimate issue. I do not know the average length of film plot summaries on Misplaced Pages, but to find the above examples I only looked at the summaries in a dozen articles about American films which I selected at random (the shortest summary was 553 words and the longest 1,431) which clearly puts the length of the summary for The High and the Mighty at the lower end of the scale. Thus your July 8 comment above that "...plot summaries in film articles are generally 400 to 700 words" seems to be clearly way off the mark.

• Also the six images that I referred to that were uploaded and used by User:Nehrams2020 to illustrate the Little Miss Sunshine, Forest Gump, Evan Almighty, Night at the Museum, and Crank (film) articles are all identified by that user as "non-free screenshots" and contain "fair use rationales" on their file pages that are virtually identical to those on the file pages of two similar screenshots and one derivative original illustration in this article. I don't see any material difference whatsoever in the "context" of how any of these screenshots are used in those five articles and the three images in this one. Centpacrr (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The unspecified guideline you may be looking for is WP:FILMPLOT. Apologies for not linking to the guideline earlier, but hopefully that will clarify on some of the points you raised. Thank you for linking to those articles with the bloated summaries, although you may have been better off looking to the FA articles that Erik linked to above, which do comply with the guideline. If you come across film articles with extensive plot summaries, then you can either tag them with {{plot}} or take a stab at reducing them (which isn't an easy feat, but is feasible). You initially linked to Crank, which in my early days here in 2006, I had created an 1,800-word monstrosity (Don't look at the trivia section, or the taglines, or the non-free movie poster sections, those were all rookie mistakes...). It was through several years of developing guidelines that we worked down plot lengths to a manageable size that can adequately cover the details while avoiding mentioning every minor detail. For new editors or IPs, who are unfamiliar with WP:FILMPLOT, plot sections seem to be the most edited section of any film article, and as they months go by, a few sentences are added here and there, and eventually the plot turns into the film in words. The articles you linked to so far have not reached any GA/FA levels, so they haven't gone under that much scrutiny regarding the length of the plot (I do plan to work on Dr. Strangelove in the distant future, so that will be reduced in time). Plot sections do require the occasional trimming and possibly even reverts to prior revisions to ensure there is compliance. Unfortunately, too much focus of editors' time is spent on the back-and-forth of expanding and trimming the plot, when the more pressing issues of articles is sections such as production, reception, themes, etc. The initial plot reduction I edited, cuts the plot down to 620 words. Looking over it, I can clearly understand that there is an emphasis on the individual characters prior to takeoff, and then the reactions and response to the disaster. There is little loss in detail with cutting out the quotes and several side stories.

Regarding the non-free images you linked to, each of those screenshots follows the critical commentary within the article (maybe not the Night at the Museum one, and I'm likely considering removing that one). For the Forrest Gump image, the visual effects section details how Hanks was incorporated into archival footage, and this is demonstrated with the screenshot. The screenshot in Evan Almighty helps to cover the content regarding the costume design as well as the controversy over the human-like God. For this article, I provided two examples on non-free images that would work in this articles and we have invited other suggestions, but there has been no indication on whether those images would work. For some of the articles you linked to, I worked to secure permission for multiple free images that would render non-free images unneeded to help meet our goal of being a 💕. For example, I was lucky to stumble across the images of Forrest Gump and Lt. Dan taken on a filmset instead of including a non-free cast image.

Anyway, I just got the DVD tonight and will start uploading the images from the trailer so they can be worked into this article. I'm amazed at the amount of special features that are available on the DVD and how they haven't yet been used here for sources. I'll either add those tomorrow or later this weekend. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Images are available here. Will probably upload a few more tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't actually see any of the plot summaries that I pointed to as examples of their length in relation to that in this article to be either "bloated" or uncommon in length or detail, but instead informative and helpful in describing the plot as well as much closer to the norm for American film articles on WP. The two that you directed me to, on the other hand, seemed to me to be rather thin and bland in comparison, and also not like what appears to be how most others on WP are structured based on a random survey of about a dozen or so. (I was surprised, however, to find how "bloated" the intros of the two "FA" articles are at 518 and 403 words compared to The High and the Mighty's much more concise 168 words.) That being said, even the 790 word existing TH&TM plot summary does not seem to me to be very far out of the range even for "guideline" parameters, or is it overly detailed. The few quotes from the film that are contained parenthetically in both the plot and character development sections are both important detail as well as providing reliability to the sourcing of the information they relate to as the "spoken word" does not otherwise lend itself to normal WP citation formatting because they are not to written documents.

• For these reasons I still oppose truncating the plot and character development sections, or changing the formatting of the "character" list to a "cast" list which defeats its purpose. Instead both should be left as they are and not be combined. They certainly have not been demonstrated to be "out of the norm" for other similar articles on WP, the information is accurate and well sourced, and they provide readers of the article with a good background understanding of the film. The character development section also describes the techniques that its creative group (producers, director, writer, etc) used to develop the "ensemble" group of characters in the film's first half needed to support the dramatic interactions among them in the second ("crisis") half of the picture. The modifications that you suggest would both diminish and confuse both of these and thus would make the article less informative to its readers. Centpacrr (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• You should be looking at the best articles that Misplaced Pages has to offer, not the run-of-the-mill articles. In addition, if you are complaining about the lead sections of these Featured Articles, you should read WP:LEAD and look at a random survey of Featured Articles' lead sections. What you ignorantly call "bloated" is the norm with Misplaced Pages's best articles. I'll let Nehrams2020 judge if the plot summary can be shortened based on his viewing of the film, but the cast and characters will be combined to avoid redundancy. It is more direct to have a "Cast and characters" section identifying the actors and their roles. Regarding character development, I assume that the last sentence of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph are dependent on the commentary track? If so, they would be fine but need citations at the end of each. Do you think you've incorporated everything possible from the commentary track, or is there more to add? BTW, Nehrams2020, nice job with the public domain screenshots! We should definitely replace the non-free images with these. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is or is not "best" as opposed to "run of the mill" is, of course, subjective. You have not, however, responded to my question as to why you completely changed you view about the length and character of the plot section of the article between July 8 when you described my trimmed plot summary (747 words) as "Nice job with the plot summary, Bruce!" and now when you seem to find the almost identical summary (43 words longer) completely unacceptable as being way too long. As your group ("we") has apparently decided to assume ownership of this article to the exclusion of all other views, however, I will gracefully withdraw from further work on it and take my ignorance on to other areas about which I hope that I am better informed. Centpacrr (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (The word "bloated" BTW was first introduced into this thread by Nehrams2020,)

• In order to provide you with a fresh slate, I have restored the original 500 word plot section, deleted the redundant, inadequately sourced, and "overwrought" character development section, and removed all "non-free" and unrelated images. Your group is now free to redevelop the article in whatever way you think best. Thanks for considering my views. Centpacrr (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know that it is not our intention to do any harm to this article and that there is no group. Several editors saw some issues with the article and recommended how the article could comply with guidelines to better fit in line with other film articles. Please assume good faith, as in addition to extensively discussing further improvement here, editors went a few steps further to significantly expand the article with new sources, images, and content as they were interested in the outcome of the article. We're all here on Misplaced Pages because we're care about contributing to making things better, and sometimes to reach that point, some changes are necessary. Nobody is ever completely happy with everyone's changes, as we all think we know what's best. My guess about Erik's comment regarding the plot summary was that he was glad to see that an attempt was made to bring the plot down from the 1,000 words it started at, and trimming a couple hundred words is always a great feat. I suggested an alternative on how it could be rewritten a bit more, and it would have been beneficial to hopefully find a balance between the two revisions. Now obviously we don't want you to stop contributing to the article, and still continue to invite further contributions in improving the article. I, along with the other editors that contributed to these discussions, take no joy in removing non-free images or nit-picking over small formatting issues in the same way you take no joy in defending it. Few editors take on the challenging and thankless task of trying to help standardize articles and making sure editors are aware of guidelines. Unfortunatley, with over 60,000 film articles on Misplaced Pages, the vast majority of them are in poor state and are only a few sentences long. The only way we can continue to see a rise in improved content, is if the articles are written to comply with guidelines and benefit from some standardization. Hopefully, as additional collaboration and expansion of articles occur, there will be more and more film articles that can serve as examples for new editors interested on working on a particular film article. GA/FAs are linked to because they have gone through extensive review and scrutiny to reach their designated status, and ideally we would continue to see a rise in these to encourage editors to further improve Misplaced Pages's content. This article had a great start to it, and with further formatting and cleanup, it can serve as an excellent example for editors to refer to when writing about older films or articles relating to this genre. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I really did not appreciate being called "ignorant" by your associate, nor by him basically notifying me that things "will be changed" irrespective of whatever views or reasons I or any of the several others who had helped develop and structure the article since 2006 might have to the contrary. So after four years of working assiduously on this article I think it best for me to just move along and leave it to your group to deal with it however you think best. However to save you the trouble, I have trimmed out some other details that I had added earlier that were either not fully supported and/or unrelated to the actual film itself. (I have not removed anything your group has added even if unsourced.) Centpacrr (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All my "creative writing", overwrought, colorful, unencyclopedic, unsupported, and unrelated material (including images) that does not conform to your guidelines has now been deleted. The article is now all yours to redevelop as you see fit. Centpacrr (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Several editors took the time to help develop the article with the interest in collaborating, and although I'm having a hard time of assuming good faith with your above comments, I'd prefer to instead move on to other projects. I will add the citations from the special features at the beginning of this week, but have no plans on further expanding the article. It's unfortunate that you were unwilling to take the time to look over the guidelines and non-free image policy instead of assuming that you and the article were being attacked by a group and removing yourself from the article. I commend everyone's efforts in the past and welcome anyone to further interested in maintaining and developing the article. This article is in good shape and has the potential to be better with a little more effort. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by your above comment. I simply trimmed down (or removed) the plot, character development, and aircraft background material that I had developed and added between 2006 and 2008 that your group recently objected to as incompatible with your guidelines so that you could replace it with something that you approve of. I gather from the above, however, that now that this information has been trimmed/deleted, you now intend to abandon the article without replacing it leaving the entry with essentially no information about any of these three elements of the film and thus in much less "good shape" then when your group decided to alter it. Is that your objective, or have I misunderstood your intentions? Centpacrr (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears suitable to me; I'm not feeling a huge hole where the much larger plot description had been. I bristle at your use of the term "your group" to describe everybody but yourself. Personally, I am no more connected to the other editors here than I am with anybody interested in both films and aviation. Asked to name such editors, I would include you in the group. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Film articles with archived peer reviews
• WikiProject Film articles