Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/Archive 3

Is Portal:Film in the United States tangential to this article or not? (RFC)
I want to propose the addition of the Portal:Film in the United States. I created this portal as an adaptation of the fr:Portail:Cinéma américain.

Some editors believe this portal (Portal:Film in the United States) is tangential to an article on an individual film and are only relevant to general/overall topics, and therefore this portal should not be included. I argue that this film has been perceived as one of the best examples of American film by reliable sources and therefore this portal is relevant and not tangential. Since there has only been a limited number of editors in this discussion, I am putting this forward as an RFC. Discussion may take place in the article talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film a user has argued that the Portal:Film in the United States is tangential to this article and should not be included. I thought I would show that reliable sources have documented it as being an exceptional example of American film.
 * Curran, Trisha. "Gone with the Wind: An American Tragedy." In: French, Warren (editor). The South and Film. University Press of Mississippi, 1981. Start page 47. ISBN 1617035114, 9781617035111.
 * p. 47: "Nearly forty years after its first release in 1939 to tremendous critical and popular acclaim, 350,000 members of the American Film Institute voted Gone with the Wind the "greatest American movie," ranking it far ahead of[...]"
 * Browne, Alicia R. and Lawrence A. Krieser, Jr. "The Civil War and Reconstruction." In: Rollins, Peter C. (editor). The Columbia Companion to American History on Film: How the Movies Have Portrayed the American. Columbia University Press, August 20, 2013. ISBN 0231508395, 9780231508391.
 * page number not stated: "Despite these limitations, the American Film Institute recognized the film's enduring audience appeal and ranked Gone with the Wind fourth among its one hundred best films." - And according to http://www.afi.com/100years/movies.aspx the AFI seems to only include American films in its lists.
 * Rogin, Michael. ""Democracy and Burnt Cork": The End of Blackface, the Beginning of Civil Rights." In: Browne, Nick (editor). Refiguring American Film Genres: History and Theory. University of California Press, 1998. Start page 171. ISBN 0520207319, 9780520207318.
 * p. 172: "Far from being a blockbuster exception to New Deal cinema, David O. Selznick's Gone with the Wind (1939), the most popular film in Hollywood's history, proves the rule."

This single film is so critically acclaimed and held up as an example of quality American film, that I don't see how the subject "American film" can be tangential to it, or vice versa. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done on a) taking a step back to consider the points raised by others; b) splitting a discussion and removing all context from the thread; c) missing the point entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm not finished. I'm about to post about your viewpoints and everyone else's. Considering that adding too much detail on this film would muddy the discussion, this is a good split. Here is where the discussion about this specific film article and its portal happens. Over there is where the discussion about whether WP:Film has the right to control the use of the Film portal is in the original thread. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So just points a and c that you're ignoring then? - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Point a, considering other viewpoints I answered in the main thread. Point c., I feel I satisfy it by using a different example. Instead of using this article, I bring up the example of an obscure American film that hardly anybody knows about. It can be a placeholder for any article, and therefore an example of a common "tree".
 * On Wikipedia exceptions exist. This film is an atypical film in the amount of critical acclaim and in other fields, and even if the overall Wikipedia community agrees that Portal:Film in the United States should not be linked from an average film article, the same community could agree this article is an exception.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You should still take a step back for a day or so and try and look at this with a slightly more open viewpoint than the one you are currently displaying. You don't seem to be able to get to grips with any shade of grey on this at all, and can only see your viewpoint. Relentlessly banging the same drum in each thread—in whichever new forum you keep trying to push the point—isn't going to convince people of the supposed strength of your argument. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I am trying very hard to examine the gray, especially with Betty's argument when I brought up the guideline. She makes a point that people on WikiProjects know their subjects and may be best equipped to decide on how articles in their field are written. The impression I get of the sentiment is "We disagree portals so we don't want them in articles in our field" and this is not being related to in terms of the Wikiproject's expertise. I'm trying to reconcile that with how the overall community would feel about it. On the other project pages I've run into Wikipedians who strongly disagree with a project removing all portals from articles in its field. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The AFI is the American Film Institute, not the National Film Registry. Here is the AFI list: http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx (Gone with the Wind is No. 6) http://archive.is/1MZ40 WhisperToMe (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just using your link. And your new AFI list isn't "American" either. Still at least one British film on there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one? Is it a co-production? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you look through the list and try and work it out? You may learn something about the difficulty in trying to pidgeon-hole a film into a single nationality, which is something far more complex than it may first seem. (and that's one of the very good reasons why portals are used sparingly in film articles, despite all your protestations about "ownership". - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go through the list. I am already aware that films can be of many countries at once (production companies), and that's okay. For instance Bridge on the River Kwai is British and American at once. So therefore it counts as an American film. That's why I brought up "Is it a co-production?" WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. 7 on the list is: Lawrence of Arabia (film), a 1962 film described by its Wikipedia article as being solely British. I took a look at the page: http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx. The production company was Horizon Pictures (G.B.), Ltd. (obviously British) and the distributor was Columbia Pictures Corp. (an American company), though the page doesn't specify whether the film had a different distributor in the UK itself or in other countries.
 * For some reason apparently the AFI considers the film an "American film" since the end of the page says: "Lawrence of Arabia was ranked 7th on AFI's 2007 100 Years...100 Movies--10th Anniversary Edition list of the greatest American films, moving down from the 5th position it occupied on AFI's 1997 list." Suppose this list has several more movies that aren't co-productions that happen to be, say British or Canadian (I'm going to check on that). Does that take away from the point that Gone with the Wind is considered to be highly esteemed in its field of American film?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Results for first fifty films on the list:
 * British-USA coproductions: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Bridge on the River Kwai, Dr. Strangelove
 * Solely British (by production company): Lawrence of Arabia (I do not know how it ended up on the AFI list of American films)
 * Other: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is categorized as a "British film" on Wikipedia. However the two production companies are WingNut Films (New Zealand) and The Saul Zaentz Company (USA), and the infobox says "New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States"
 * All others are solely US films.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the next 50 (DONE)
 * Co-production of US and UK: The African Queen
 * British-only as described by Wikipedia: A Clockwork Orange (Hawk Films, production company, is British and it had a British distributor in the UK)
 * However http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=54041 listed "Polaris Productions Inc." as a production company but I don't know the nationality of that one. But...
 * Cook, David A. Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970 . University of California Press, 2000. ISBN 0520232658, 9780520232655.
 * p. 77: "His next film, a coproduction between Hawk and Warner Bros., was a perfect example of his ability to work the system. Adapted by Kubrick from the Anthony Burgess novel[...]"
 * Cocks, Geoffrey, James Diedrick, and Glenn Perusek. Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History. Univ of Wisconsin Press, Aug 1, 2006.
 * p. 302: States: "A Clockwork Orange (1971). Production company: Warner Brothers, Polaris Productions." -- So I opened a discussion here: Talk:A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason I pointed out the weakness of relying on the AFI list, was that you were saying that it was an argument for including the US portal. As you can see, when the AFI lists the 100 greatest American films, even they include non-American films. So we're back to not using the list as a justification, which is fine. It still doesn't justify the rather meaningless inclusion of the US portal on this page. Does it aid the reader? No. Does it add any understanding to the article? No. Is it too tangential for inclusion? Yes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider the intent of the list, even if there may be an odd no-coproduction British film or two that slips in (Of the 100 I counted I found: 4 UK-USA coproductions, 1 apparent UK-NZ-USA coproduction, and 2 that Wikipedia labeled as solely British). So you say the inclusion of the portal doesn't aid the reader even though it is to link the reader to related topics. Why? The portal is intended to add understanding to the overall topic of "American film" which this article is a part of, and the reader can see overall trends and practices in the US film industry by following the portal link. So by doing that the portal can aid understanding of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedian at Village_pump_(proposals) brought up a criterion:
 * "If it would be reasonable for the article to be used as a 'selected article' in the portal, it is reasonable to link to that portal in the article"
 * I can absolutely see this movie being selected as a featured article on this portal
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that the criticism of the AFI film list does not seem to address the wider point it's making. Even if you could argue it's flawed from having one or two British films by mistake or by an unrecognized process I don't think it takes away from the notion that Gone with the Wind is seen as an example of the best American film. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is now at the RFC stage: Village_pump_(proposals) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse the RFC discussion and survey is taking place at Village pump (proposals). It would be best to continue with the discussion there, since if the two discussions arrive at different conensuses then that just creates a bigger problem. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to RFC responders
 * We should probably encourage the people over there to express their views here. Several of those comments are about the general case ("portals are a waste of time and add no value to the article") rather than about the specific proposed link.  Actually, we should probably encourage only the people who haven't been involved in this discussion for weeks to comment here.  Discussions like these work best when we can get views from completely uninvolved editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is where it should have taken place and I would rather have the RFC in the archives here. The comments over there should probably be hatted and copied over here so it progresses like a normal RFC. Either way, I think one of the discussion needs to be shut down because parallel discussions are not a good way to build a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Do you support or oppose the inclusion of a link to Portal:Film in the United States in this article?


 * Oppose any addition of content, portals, categories, etc. that are not pertinent to the article . In fact, I see little advantage in having portals AND categories in articles as they can pretty much cover the same territory and give the same information on connected articles.  Many articles, IMO, have for the last few years been getting clogged with major info-boxes, minor-info-boxes, templates, portals, categories, long lists of "See Also's"; external links, and more.  Anybody who has edited here for a while knows this to be true.  Call me an exclusionist, but sometimes enough is just enough.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 06:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on Village pump (proposals)
 * Comment. To refine my answer, with the above said, I do not think GWTW needs the portal Film in the United States.  If it gets it, does every film playing in the United States get one?  If not, which ones do?  Which ones do not?  Who decides?  Better yet, how much editor time will we spend deciding these case-by-case?  There's a lot more here at WP that really needs doing, instead of spending countless hours debating inclusion criteria for esoteric additions to multiple articles, or even just one, such as GWTW.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. To refine my answer, with the above said, I do not think GWTW needs the portal Film in the United States.  If it gets it, does every film playing in the United States get one?  If not, which ones do?  Which ones do not?  Who decides?  Better yet, how much editor time will we spend deciding these case-by-case?  There's a lot more here at WP that really needs doing, instead of spending countless hours debating inclusion criteria for esoteric additions to multiple articles, or even just one, such as GWTW.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose These generic portals are a waste of time and add no value to the article. All these tags are found on the talkpage, and I see no value in an article having a link to a "film portal" or a "1980s portal". Spam under a different form.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on Village pump (proposals)
 * Oppose, as per all the very good reasons above. It's also overkill and stretching the point of the portal too far. I'll also add that this seems to be forum shopping by WhisperToMe. After receiving no consensus for the inclusion on the article talk page, or at the film project, or even at my talk page, he's decided to keep beating the issue to death. We're getting further into WP:IDHT-ish territory now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on Village pump (proposals)
 * in addition/clarify: Although this is an American film, it is not about American film, so the portal is not pertinent to the article in itself. As such it becomes generic and adds no value to the article. Adding the "Film in the United States" portal to this article stretches the point of the portal beyond what one would normally consider a natural connection, being unconnected to the development of US film industry itself. - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The portal is not "topic relevant". WhisperToMe seems to want to treat portals like categories but I disagree with this approach since categories do this job just fine. Yes, Gone with the Wind is a great American film but the article itself is not actually on the subject of American film. I believe portals should follow the principle of all internal wikilinks in that they should inform the reader on the subject of the article. For example, it would be ok to include something like the Star Trek portal on the Star Trek articles because other Star Trek content informs the subject matter of the article. In the case of Gone with the Wind I don't see how other articles about the American film industry would be particularly relevant to a reader; other Gone with the Wind articles would be relevant and we do have Gone with the Wind for that purpose. I accept that portals have their place but they should be used judiciously. Linking to other material on Wikipedia should be focused and relevant, since over-facing a reader with too many links can be counter-productive in assisting them in finding the information they want. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on Village pump (proposals)
 * Support adding Portal:Film At the very least, a link to Portal:Film should be included in this article (and all other film-related articles). This can be done with a link in the "See also" section or in the infobox itself. However, I do question the utility of more specialized portals, such as "Portal:Film in ", as entry points for their respective topics that isn't a duplication with the parent portal. This and the decade portals are indicative that Wikipedia does need a process for users to propose new portals before creating them, similar to WP:WPPRO, so that portals can be reviewed for their usefulness and have wider support from the community instead of a single user create a large number of mostly frivolous portals. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the point of that? I can view the portal from the talkpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because most people who may be interested in a portal will not go looking at a talk page. Links on a talk page is no a replacement for links on the article itself. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes! That makes sense... Let's just link everything to every-thing.  ~ GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Unnecessary details are not helpful and may cause information overload. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent infobox edits
An editor has been persisting with adding a clarifying sentence to the box office gross in the infobox.

There are several reasons why this is undesirable: Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not standard practice to add contextual sentences to film infoboxes. The purpose of the box is to summarise the key facts of the article and then provide the context for those facts in the prose. We could do this to a whole variety of fields and the infobox would soon become very cluttered. If anyone wants to find out what exactly these figures relate to they can read the box office section in the article which provides this background in some detail.
 * 2) There is also the issue of standardisation across film articles in general: if some articles have such notes then there is also the danger that readers will conclude the opposite on articles that do not provide such notes, which would be bad practise if we are inconsistent (which we usually are given the nature of Wikipedia).
 * 3) The majority of successful films released prior to 1980 accumulated their gross across multiple releases, and this parameter has always indicated the total, as is common on the box office tracking sites we use for sourcing. If editors genuinely do feel that the nature of this field is not clear then it's a problem that pertains to many articles, not just this one, and the issue would be better raised at Infobox film where a more intuitive label can be discussed and applied to all articles if thought to be necessary. Working through all the film articles adding notes is not an efficient solution, and it's messy too.

Note: For others, see more extensive backstory on this matter at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is anything wrong in adding a note that the box office gross is collective gross of all releases. Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done here. Maybe we can add the note in a different manner. You might know that technique of adding a note where a small number, letter or word is marked in blue along with a text and once a person clicks on that blue number, letter or word he is redirected that is usually at the end of the article or a section of the article where the text is. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need a note to explain what is already explained in the box office section. It is redundant. If the box office section didn't cover this you may have a point, but my response then would be to create a box office section and clarify the figures rather than adding a note. If you think the field itself is misleading or not clear in what it presents then that is a problem with the infobox itself, and you need to take that up at the infobox page. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why I should take it up on infobox page. It's not misleading but rather incomplete information. We know that $390 million is the collective gross of all releases however users who will just read a line or two or just simply take a look at the article will think that $390 million is it's real (original) gross. When I first saw this article Iyself mistaked the $390 million gross as it's original gross. i didn't know it was gross of all releases. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times do I need to explain this to you? We don't add clarifying notes to the infobox. We don't add notes to film articles stipulating it is the total across all releases. We don't add notes explaining it is a global figure. We don't add notes saying it is only the theatrical exhibition figure. The box office figure on all articles can be read in many different ways with the default being it is the worldwide theatrical total, and that is why we include a box office section to provide context for the basic figure. The purpose of the infobox is to provide a standardised summary across all film articles, not to provide crib notes for lazy readers who don't want to read the 3/4 paragraphs that actually explain this stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what about using the [nb] note system and have the explanation in the "Notes" section? I don't think it's the worst idea to make a mention since the default assumption is not that a film has been released several times. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And where does that leave us with films like Star Wars, Jaws, The Sound of Music, The Godfather, Disney, James Bond, The Sting, Butch Cassidy, The Graduate, Top Gun etc? The list is endless. Most films prior to 1980 have been re-released, so I would argue that the default assumption here is that this is the total figure across all releases. The notion of a film only having a single release has only been common since the early 80s. It's not a practical solution to add notes to all these figures. If it needs to be clarified then the infobox field should just be changed to "Box office total" or "Lifetime box-office" or something. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion. :) But a simple "(lifetime)" note would actually work well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik is speaking right. We can use the [nb] note system. This will not create any mess in the infobox and the article will remain organized. If there are no such notes in other films with re-releases we can still add it. I don't think it is correct to not include something just because it hasn't been before. That is a very archaic mindset similar to as a factory owner saying that we won't adapt new techniques because we haven't used the new techniques before and the old techniques are conventional and cheaper and we are more comfortable with them. This "not adapting new" just as you're displaying is a very archaic mindset and not a product of rational thinking. Those who don't take any risks in life always remain stuck at one place. I'm not giving any lecture to anybody here. I'm only explaining that we shouldn't discard a suggestion just because it is new and hasn't been used before. New suggestions should always be welcomed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did as Erik suggested. That note does not create any clutter and we can mention about the total gross in a convenient way. As I have already said this will help persons who just take a glance over the article otherwise they might think it's the original gross. I don't think it is negatively effecting the quality of the article. Actually it is improving it. I don't see any merit in removing edits that improve the overall quality of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is an issue of clarity that affects most films articles, and not just this one, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film so a project wide solution can be determined. You are welcome to participate in the discussion at the project. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Home video
An editor is repeatedly changing the release date from 1985 to 1980. Now, I don't know if this is correct or not but the source being used in the article states "The GWTW video that Windies hungered for hit the market in March 1985" (see ). If this incorrect then fair enough, but we need a WP:Reliable source for the 1980 date. Without one the edits will be reverted so they are consistent with the current source. Betty Logan (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The uncredited people in the infobox
Hello there, just saw this article for the first time recently. I noticed a recent revert of an IP by, and while I didn't restore the IPs edits, I somewhat agree with them. I'm sure there's a reason for their inclusion, but I'm not getting it. Why are so many uncredited people (seven in total) listed in the infobox? As far as I've ever seen, uncredited people are completely exempted. For instance, the article for Godzilla (2014 film) (admittedly not even nearly as high profile) only lists Max Borenstein as a screenwriter, but David S. Goyer, Drew Pearce, and Frank Darabont all did uncredited rewrites of it, and none of them appear in the infobox. I'm not going to restore these edits, but I am curious as to what inspired the infobox's inclusion. In my opinion, uncredited people are noteworthy in prose, but if they aren't mentioned on-screen or on the poster, they don't belong in the infobox.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take your points one by one:
 * There are three "uncredited" people in the infobox: George Cukor, Sam Wood and Lee Garmes. The four "offscreen" screenwriters were awarded credits after the film was released. I've changed my mind over the uncredited directors and cinematographer and removed them since Fleming and Haller did the majority of the work. However, the writers should be retained since they do have actually have credits (the Screen Writers Guild appended them to the official credit list) but did not receive them in time to be listed in the film.
 * I am aware Infobox film advises using the poster billing block because generally as a rule it is reliable for the correct billing order i.e. we use it because we want the correct billing order, not because we want the names in the infobox to match the poster; however, in this case the poster does not match the correct billing order as you can verify at here. This is probably due to the fact it was Leigh's first American film and audiences were unfamiliar with her. Indeed, the later posters correct the order of the names (such as File:Gone_With_The_Wind_1967_re-release.jpg).
 * The date is also confusing me. I am aware that IMDB lists January 17, 1940 as the release date but this is incorrect. After its Atlanta premiere the film had an extended "roadshow" from December 1939 up until April 1941, when it finally went on general release (see the "initial release" section of the article). I have no idea what the January 1940 date relates to, but it wasn't the premiere, roadshow release or general release.
 * Betty Logan (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to explain. I won't revert any further, as everything you said actually makes a lot of sense to me. Happy editing!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  09:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another good reason to always ignore IMDB! - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts: First, I'm puzzled by this term "off screen" credit. I've not seen that before. Is that an official term? Generally people who do not have screen credit are noted as "uncredited". I'm no expert by any stretch. Second, is there any primary source for the additional credit awarded to Hecht, et al, by the Screen Writers Guild? An official book of credits or a database? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An offscreen credit is simply an "official" credit that does not appear onscreen, as opposed to someone being "uncredited" as the case with George Cukor who partially directed the film. In this particular case the SWG appended the four writers to the official credit list, but since this occurred after the film was released then only Howard's name appears onscreen. This is covered in the screenplay section and is sourced to a biography about Ben Hecht. It's unusual but not unprecedented; in fact it has become commonplace in recent years with many blacklisted writers from thge McCarthy period being awarded official credits. Betty Logan (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I did see the Hecht biography ref. But I wondered where that author got her information. Where can one find the WGA's officially sanctioned credits? I looked at their website, but it didn't seem to have a searchable database, at least not one that is available to the general reader. Just curious. Best, Markhh (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to have publicly searchable database. Maybe the SWG co-operated with the author, or MGM provided the information. I am assuming that the author is correct in this instance since they are pretty specific about who was added. If you would like I am happy to email the writers guild and ask them for verification of the claim, but obviously personal communication can't be added to the article, it can only be used to corroborate the claim in the book. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's up to you. It would be interesting. It just seems that if the WGA confers official film credits that are in addition to the published screen credits, then there should be a way to look them up. A question for a good librarian! Thanks for all of the interesting info. Markhh (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Off-screen" vs "uncredited"
Betty, what's your source for the term "off-screen"? Did the Ben Hecht bio use it, and more importantly, does any other RS? I know what you mean by it, but I think most readers would find it confusing. It's certainly not common, and whatever the Writers Guild ruled after the release, those names are still uncredited on the film itself and the poster. Most sources use "uncredited", and I would vote for consistently using that clearly understood term in the infobox for names deemed worthy of including (and that's another subject), and as always readers can look at the proper section in the article for details. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what the MacAdams states in his Ben Hecht biography: "In the official credits filed with the Screen Writers Guild, Sidney Howard was of course awarded the sole screen credit, but four other writers were appended ... Jo Swerling for contributing to the treatment, Oliver H. P. Garrett and Barbara Keon to screenplay construction, and Hecht, to dialogue ...". The problem with "uncredited" is that it is not actually correct in this instance, if we take MacAdams at his literal word i.e. the names were appended to the official credit list. George Cukor, for instance, is "uncredited" in that he received no formal credit for his work but this doesn't seem to be the same for the writers. The situation with the four writers is closer to that of the McCarthy blacklisted writers who have been awarded official credits in recent years. I think being awarded an official credit following the film's release is distinct from simply being uncredited. I am open to suggestions on this but I do think some type of distinction needs to be retained. If the problem is that you think the book is incorrect then that is a different matter altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit further (rather difficult - a Google search brought up nothing beyond what I already knew), I don't think the quoted passage means what we first took it to mean. We cannot take it at its literal word because it is casually worded. When was it appended? By whom? For what purpose? I don't think MacAdams meant his text to be taken as an official change in the credits. I now think this was not even retroactive, but instead was filed with the guild in 1939. It doesn't say otherwise, we were just led to assume that because of what happened decades later with the blacklisted writers. That would mean the intention at the time of filing was that the four additional writers be uncredited, but were being acknowledged as uncredited for whatever media wanted to make note of it. And over the years, many sources have listed writers other than Sidney Howard, but always as "uncredited". We should be consistent with that.

The blacklist re-crediting situation was different in other ways as well. The names of the blacklist-era writers were actually added to subsequent prints and posters for the relevant films. For example, the "Screenplay by Robert Bolt" credit on Lawrence of Arabia became "Screenplay by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson". So clearly secondary sources and WP don't list Wilson as "uncredited" anymore.

If this one MacAdams book is the only source for these "official" credits, then yes, that is a problem. All indications look to me like these are not official credits. If they were we would have known about it, and we would see them listed as such, because the media would have reported it, like they did when the blacklist re-crediting occurred. That was widely reported and is easily researched.

This is not how the Writers Guild gives out credit determinations. It only uses "Written by", "Screenplay by", "Story by", and on very rare once-a-decade occasions "Adaptation by". You never see Writers Guild-designated onscreen credits like contributing to the treatment or screenplay construction.

But again, I don't even think MacAdams meant for this to be taken as an official change in the credits.

Finally, these four names are not even the same as what are often listed. Secondary sources often give John Van Druten instead of Barbara Keon, who actually is credited as "scenario assistant" (this does not belong in the infobox).

Unless a RS can be found that spells out that this is an official Writers Guild determination - and if it was there should be well more than one - the four writers should be listed as "uncredited" or perhaps removed from the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, to get a clear cut view of what is a "official" or not I emailed the WGA to ask what their official credit is. I realize their email is not RS but it would at least clear up the confusion about the source. This is what they replied verbatim:
 * The WGA writing credit for “Gone With the Wind” is as follows:
 * Screenplay by: Sidney Howard
 * Source Material: Based on the Novel by Margaret Mitchell
 * The WGA's stance is that Howard is the sole credited writer. I am inclined to remove the other four names fully since we only tend to record the "principal" or credited writers, and we have removed everyone else without an official credit. I'll go ahead with that since I figure you'll be ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what I expected they would say if asked. The WGA doesn't list "uncredited". Since there's some inconsistency with which four uncredited writers should be listed, perhaps it's best not to list any. But given that many sources do include them, it's possible someone will try to add them in later. Many sources also list cinematographer Lee Garmes as uncredited.


 * Let me say you're done great work with this article. My only remaining issue is that the director is usually included in the opening sentence. Here it's a bit complicated, but "directed by Victor Fleming" should be slipped into at least the lead paragraph. Then The original director, George Cukor, was fired shortly after filming had begun and was replaced by Victor Fleming, who in turn was briefly replaced by Sam Wood in the second paragraph should be amended to make it clear Fleming was not also fired, as in turn implies. If it's too verbose to add a couple of words like "due to exhaustion", Sam Wood could be dropped from the lead section, as he did not influence the screenplay (while Fleming did, and Cukor was very important in pre-production). I'd rather keep Wood in it. I'll take a shot at implementing this in a few days, unless you want to. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have clarified that Fleming left voluntarily. Garmes probably made the greatest contribution out of those not credited having shot one third of the picture but I am reluctant to include uncredited contributors unless they are proven to be the principal author/contributor i.e. its mainly their work. The problem with this film is that there are more uncredited contributors than credited ones since Selznick kept firing everyone! I think it's best to just cover these people in the prose where we can provide the context for their contribution. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's sort of refreshing that the WP infobox here is one of the few pages on this film that doesn't list any of the uncredited names, but sticks to the film's onscreen credits. I have now made the changes I mentioned in the lead. I do think "due to exhaustion" is important, and makes it a more dramatic read as well. One minor point - the lead says Filming was delayed for two years due to David O. Selznick's determination to secure Clark Gable for the role of Rhett Butler, and the "search for Scarlett" led to 1,400 women being interviewed for the part. But we know the film was not ready to shoot two years before it did. Production began before the script was finished. The excellent Turner documentary on the Making of GWTW makes it appear that pre-production almost never stopped while production was underway. I'll leave it to you whether to address this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trailer
My addition of the trailer was reverted as having 'no encyclopedic value' by Betty Logan. My point of view is it has a great historic value. And a great educational value, as the film itself is not PD. Other opinions ? Cheers, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;&#128229; 18:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to the trailer, under "External links", may be a better option. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I should first point out that isn't the 1939 trailer anyway, but the trailer for the restored BFI release last year to celebrate Vivien Leigh's centenary (the voiceover man even mentions the ten oscar wins). I concede various parts of the trailer are educational which is why various aspects of it are already used as supporting materials: we include the "burning of Atlanta" segment in the Filming section where that sequence is discussed in detail, and we also lift some of the music for the Music section where the main theme is discussed, so the two main things the trailer can offer the reader some insight into are already used. There are many items (i.e. the trailer, posters, publicity stills, photographs) connected to the film that a reader may enjoy looking at which are not intrinsically linked to educating us about the film, and as Markhh indicates that is what the "External links" section is there for. In fact, we already have a link to the Commons where the trailer can be found among other items. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the trailer's version at Commons. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;&#128229; 10:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The timestamped version you added doesn't work in my browser, it simply plays the whole trailer. If it is meant to just play the Atlanta sequence the aleration is pointless anyway because the current video does this regardless. I don't mean to be rude but it seems your only goal in regards to this article is to dump in the trailer you uploaded to Commons rather than basing the validity of the edit on the actual merits of the article. If every editor did this with something they uploaded to Commons the article would be swamped by videos and images. The files on Commons are available to use should it be deemed in the interests in the article, but in the case of this article we already have what we need from the trailer. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Webm is the preferred format and the syntax I used, with the  and   parameters, is appropriate for fragments. Your comment lacks of AGF. Cheers nevertheless, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;&#128229; 12:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical re-evaluation
It's certainly true that there are critics who don't like the film after the re-evaluation, but when I look at Rotten Tomatoes - where the film holds 95% with a high score of 8.7. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gone_with_the_wind/) - those critics are in the minority. Stanley Kauffman is one of only four critics "against" the film, while there a 71 critics "pro". Although the article here is great, I think the section leads to a wrong conclusion for the reader that most critics today think mixed or negative about the film. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cast credits
An editor has made three changes to the credit listing:


 * Irving Bacon changed from as the Corporal to as the Corporal at jail
 * Cliff Edwards changed from as the reminiscent soldier to as the reminiscent soldier (only voice)
 * Olin Howland changed from as the carpetbagger businessman to as the carpetbagger businessman in Atlanta
 * Robert Elliott changed from as the Yankee major to as the Yankee major at jail

The original descriptions are directly sourced from the American Film Institute but the editor making the alterations argues that the film itself is a more appropriate source. The problem though is that the film just credits the actors, and does not provide the role (you can see this at Youtube [2.52 in]), which is why the cast is sourced to the AFI in the article.

In addition to the AFI, this is how the British Film Institute credit the four actors:


 * Irving Bacon – the corporal
 * Cliff Edwards – reminiscing soldier
 * Olin Howland – a Yankee businessman
 * Robert Elliott – the Yankee major

This is how Turner Classic Movies (who own the film) credit them:


 * Irving Bacon – The Corporal
 * Cliff Edwards – Reminiscent soldier
 * Olin Howland – A carpetbagger businessman
 * Robert Elliott – The Yankee major

And the New York Times:


 * Irving Bacon – Corporal
 * Cliff Edwards – Reminiscent Soldier
 * Olin Howland – Yankee Businessman
 * Robert Elliott – Yankee Major

As you can see these authoritative sources have a standardised set of credits for these actors, and the only real discrepency is Olin Rowland's credit, but none of them match up to the changed credit. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to construct cast credits and doing so constitutes WP:Original research. We should either list the actors without specifying their roles (as per the film) or defer to descriptions provided by a WP:Reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted these changes once again. They also included an error: that Cliff Edwards is only heard off screen. This an old mistake. Edwards is seen fully in the lower third of the screen as he talks to Melanie in the hospital. However sometimes he is mistakenly listed as voice only because his image did in fact disappear from the 70mm widescreen edit where he was cropped out of the picture. This version is rarely, if ever, seen today. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I use the film's credits as the most reliable source (with the poster being second), but when the film does not list the character roles (as many from the 1930s do not) I would agree with using RS like the AFI. In this case I support the position of Betty and Markhh, particularly in regard to the (only voice) designation. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen this discussion only just. I don't think that you find much detailed descriptions of the roles but I now gave some pictures of the actors in the film which I would call a proof for identification. The websites may not be completely reliable but the film pictures and their descriptions. My target was that the reader can remember to those roles, otherwise the listing of those actors wpuld be nearly useless from my point of view. I have a passion for identifying bit part actors and it took a while until I could identify all of them. Please trust my word and the pictures. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I support keeping the credits simply as they are listed in the film. I understand the impulse to include more information, but these additions can, and have in the past, get out of control, making the whole list overlong, unwieldy and unhelpful to the reader. All of the actors have a link to an article specifically about them for readers who would like more information. Best to stick to the current format duplicating the onscreen credits. That can't be faulted. (Except for the error regarding the Tarleton brothers, which is clarifed.) Cheers, Markhh (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Linking to screencaps and stills on websites and formulating your own credits violates both WP:RS and WP:Original research since it boils down to the editor analysing visual information and making claims about it. Ideally the cast should be sourceable to the film itself (and handily it does provide descriptions for the main roles) but in cases where it does not descriptions should be taken from authoritative sources. The consensus does not seem to have changed since we last had this discussion. Some of your corrections were legitimate though, so while I did temporarily revert them to retrieve the old cast list I have have since reinstated them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

including Butler's "Frankly, my dear" quote in the Plot synopsis?
If anyone could find a way of working Butler's quote into the plot synopsis, I think that that would be useful. I'd done so, but was told that referring to the line as the film's "most famous" was editorialising. (I note that the box listing the AFI's "100 years" series lists it as the #1 movie quote over the past century.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Rowat (talk • contribs) 09:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a plot summary, and therefore the point of the section is to convey the story to readers. If you look at other articles about films they rarely included prominent quotes. In this case I think the AFI box is more than sufficient; however, there is an article covering the quote and its context so I've come up with a compromise: Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Uncredited credits.
Hi I have reverted the recent good faith edits of a contributor who understandably thinks it would be valuable to add some of the many officially uncredited performers and directors to the credits section. I believe this has come up before, and at the time the concensus was to limit the credits to exactly those presented in the film. Multiple conflicting sources and potentially hundreds of uncredited personnel on this film would seem point the advisability of this decision. But perhaps this has changed? Would other editors like to weigh in? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I only wanted to include a few of them, for example notable actors like Richard Farnsworth or memorable small roles (like Tommy Kelly). There are numerous sources for those actors who agree that they were in the film. In fact, articles like Casablanca (also featured article) or Citizen Kane in it's casting section include lots of uncredited actors. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you have a history of disruptive behavior at this article and it needs to stop. I don't want to have to seek a topic ban against a fellow editor but I will if I feel it is justified. Secondly, user edited websites such as IMDB are not reliables sources per WP:RS/IMDB (and Fandango isn't much better). And finally, per WP:FILMCAST Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information i.e. we don't include entire cast lists in articles. Each film is considered on a case-by-case basis, but given the size of the cast (hundreds of extras) the list is limited to the credited roles only. Does that mean further additions won't be considered? No. If there is something interesting or noteworthy to say about somebody's role or casting then we can consider mentioning them but it does mean we are not going to list uncredited cast members just for the sake of listing them. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Betty Logan, you sure have another opinion at To Kill a Mockingbird where you belong to the main editors of the article. There the uncredited roles are listed in a lavish way without any citations. I also wouldn't include the whole cast, just a few well-known uncredited cast members like Richard Farnsworth&Frank Faylen or actors with memorable roles like Tommy Kelly as the crying member of the boy band. --Clibenfoart (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not a "main editor" (I have edited it at most half a dozen times) and that article is not graded a "Good article", unlike this one. My stance is the same there as it is here, as you can see at Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird_(film): "When we provide a full cast list in the article it should adhere to the cast list in the film as much as possible ...  But when we explicitly present billing credits or cast lists these should factually reflect the credits and casts lists as found in the film itself." What we list depends on the nature of the film itself. If a film only has a handful of unbilled cast members there is no harm in adopting a completist approach and listing them but if you have hundreds of unbilled extras it would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list all of them, and an arbitrary selection based on an editor's opinion of what is memorable is just an arbitrary selection. As I pointed out in my previous comment, if there is something substantive to say about an unbilled cast member's casting or role then we can consider their inclusion, but the criteria is what sources consider worth documenting, not a single editor's opinion of what is memorable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

misleading references to MGM
I have deleted recent additions that have crept in referring to MGM as a co-producer of GWTW. Nothing I have read about the film supports this. MGM did indeed play a pivotal role in loaning Clark Gable in exchange for the rights to distribute the film. They also loaned Victor Fleming and invested $1.25 million. However creatively it was entirely the work of Selznick and Selznick International Pictures. MGM was not part of its production. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but crediting MGM I think is misleading as they had no part of the film's development and production except as noted above. I think this is important because as the company later assumed ownership of the film, it is often mistakenly thought of as an "MGM production", but it absolutely was not. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Thanks, Markhh (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be worth looking at the opening credits here: . The film opens with "A Selznick International Picture" followed by "Selznick International in association with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer". It was clearly "made" by SIP, and MGM was an associate producer (basically Hollywood lingo for an investor). Clearly SIP had a far more prominent role than MGM, but that's not to say MGM's role was negligible, so I'm receptive to both interpretations. Personally I thought the original version of the article struck the correct balance i.e. just mentioning SIP in the lead as the company that actually made the film and including MGM in the list of companies in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty, I stand corrected. There it is in the second title card! I agree then regarding leaving MGM in the infobox but not in the lead para, which gives a bit too much prominence. Thanks. Markhh (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ray Rennahan
An editor is repeatedly adding Ray Rennahan to the infobox on the basis he jointly won an Academy Award with Ernest Haller. It is in fact WP:Original research to draw conclusions on the basis of awards he won. Yes, Rennahan jointly won the cinematography oscar but for his role as the Technicolor consultant. It was not uncommon at the time for the Technicolor consultant to be jointly awarded the color cinematography oscar, but advising on the color process does not make you the photographer of the film. According to IMDB Haller was the cinematographer (it also lists Lee Garmes who was fired a month into shooting) and it lists Rennahan as the "technicolor associate". This is also backed up by the American Film Institute who also credit Rennahan has the "technicolor associate". Unsurprisingly, "technicolor associate" is also the credit formally assigned to him in the actual credits as can be seen at Youtube (1 min 40 seconds in).

Rennahan's formal role was as a consultant on the colorization process. He did not photograph the film and both the film credits and secondary sources are specific about his role: he shared the cinematography oscar for his role in the colorization process as was common at the time because it was a new technology, but he did not photograph the film which is what the "cinematography" field is for. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Last surviving cast members
A recent edit removed the list of surviving cast members from the "cast" section on the basis of being "irrelevant trivia". I don't know on what basis something is determined to be trivia or not but the claim is explicitly sourced and the subject is commonly reported in the media (you can see the number of publications that report on it from just a basic Google search). The upshot though is that when the media write about the GWTW cast they often list the surviving cast members, so secondary sources obviously do not consider information to be trivia. I also think it will be very relevant next month when Olivia de Havilland celebrates her centenary and I think there will be plenty of discussion in the media regarding her and other surviving cast members (in this case Mickey Kuhn and the odd extra). Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevent because it doesn't help any reader understand anything significant about the movie. Old people die.  This is an old movie, people who worked on it have gotten old.  A tally of who has died and who hasn't yet may be able to be referenced, and may be discussed somewhere (let's face it, in the modern world, someone discusses everything somewhere).  The issue is not if it's true, nor is it if someone else has noticed.  The issue is whether or not including it makes this a better written article.  It doesn't, it makes it objectively worse by being a non-sequitur that doesn't directly impact the reader's understanding of the film or its context or impact in the world.  Including it adds nothing to the understanding of the topic, and removing it reduces nothing.  That's the very definition of trivia.  -- Jayron 32 14:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things in the article that don't directly inform about the movie, but are included because they are often discussed by the media in relation to it. I don't think the article would be damaged by removal of the information, I just felt your basis for removing it was slightly flawed and we are only talking about a single sentence at the end of the day. Honestly, it's not a huge deal for me, but can we just leave this discussion open for a week? If no-one else objects to its removal (an dthe article has plenty of watchers) then I will withdraw my objection. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see nothing inappropriate about this item. It answers one of the most often asked questions about the film, is simply stated, and cites a source. Cheers Markhh (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Markhh. It's not irrelevant given the film's importance and the fact so many are interested in that information. Coinmanj (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)