Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

Incorrect terminology needs correction.
In this article it states:
 * "This was the third film adaptation of Zane Grey's 1923 novel Wanderer of the Wasteland, which was published serially in McClure's magazine, beginning in May 1920. [5] The first adaptation was a silent two-strip Technicolor [emphasis added] film produced by...."

"Two-strip Technicolor" is actually a commonly encountered misnomer, but it is technically incorrect. I have several references to document this. (I realize that some of my references probably do not meet the strict standard for an article reference; but I believe they would suffice for the purposes of this discussion.)  The term is also misleading; anyone hearing that term and not already familiar with the process would probably conclude that the camera used two strips of negative film which was not the case. I would like to correct the article to use a proper term such as "two-color Technicolor" or simply "an early Technicolor process." But there is an editor who insists that "two-strip Technicolor," albeit an innacurte misnomer, is the correct term to use. (He reverted my change; rather than get involved in an "editing war," I contacted the editor to try to work out a compromise of some kind, but they would not budge.)  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to get to use one's favorite misnomers even at the cost of misleading the reader, but rather to provide clear understandable and accurate information. I would appreciate it if other editors would check my references and help build a consensus on this, one way or the other. My "references":
 * http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm
 * http://pandoramsbox.tumblr.com/post/103646228181/movie-330-the-first-feature-to-use-two-color (see the third paragraph)
 * http://thebigpizza.com/6c3d0a26ba395d87.html. (see under "History," the second paragraph)
 * http://technicolor.askdefinebeta.com. (see under History / two-color Technicolor)
 * http://s13.zetaboards.com/In_The_Balcony/topic/376122/1/  (see comments of Frank Hale) Richard27182 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'll paste my response from my talk page, since it's still valid: I think the difference is that you want the description of the process to be accurate, while I want the name of the process to be accurate.  While the name is a misnomer, it is still the name.  Sources of the time all refer to it as two-strip, and many film historians still use the term.  Their use of the term is not incorrect, since they are not describing the process, but simply calling the process by its common name.  Sort of like we say peanuts, even though they are not nuts, but legumes (peas/beans).  Or calling a Koala bear a bear (they're not). The two-strip process was what it was called at the time, and the name stuck.  The fact that it is no longer an extant process makes changing it's name a bit superfluous at this point, particularly since all the historical data uses that term.


 * Additional comments not from my talk page: "References" from sites with no editorial oversite, do not trump scholarly sites like AFI and UCLA film archives. Onel5969 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked by to weigh in here, as I assited him on a quite different matter recently. Film history and film technology are not subjects I know much about. I read through all the sources linked above. It seems to me that  has a point. If in fact "two-strip" is the commonly used term for the process, even if it is inaccurate, then it should be used in the article. If both "two strip" and "two color" are commonly used terms for the process, then the question is what is used in reliable sources about this particular film, in my view. In any case, whichever term is used, more informatiob should be provided, as many readers will not know of this process -- I had never heard of it. I have therefore linked to the relevant section of the Technicolor article. This is the usualy method for giving readers an easy path to a fuller explanation. With this link, I should think that the question of which term is used ought not to be as vital, I would hope.
 * By the way, at least two of the sources linked above appear to be partial or full unattributed mirrors of our article "Technicolor". Such sources are not considered reliable, and should never be cited in an article. They might be some evidence of what terms are in common use, but not of huge value. And even these sources indicate that the term "two strip" is widely used, even if they decry it as a misnomer. What other and better sources would say, I don't know. DES (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, (although asking specific editors to weigh in might seem a bit like canvassing).  Regarding references, if you check the AFI reference (which is cited in the article), in the notes section, you'll see that the process is referred to as a "silent two-strip Technicolor version". The Turner archive also uses the terminology, but that doesn't mean much since they simply mirror the AFI site. Onel5969 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He asked me as an exprienced Wikipeedia editor to take a look at the discussion and see if I could help, . I don't think that constitutes canvassing. For the matter of that, asking specific editors with an interst in the subject to join a discussion on an article talk page is common. its only when things get to the level of an RFC or an AFD discussion, or when a significnat number of peopel are asked to join a discussion and overwhelm others, esp if they act in concert, that canvassing is an issue, in my view. Particularly since I ahd no previous editiing history nor expressed interest in the topic.
 * On the substanticve issue, are there other more or less authoritative sources to check? Also since this is in part a question of frequency of use, a Google check for frequency of usae of the two terms might be worth doing. DES (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact WP:CANVAS says: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate."
 * 's request to me seems to fall under the "intent to improve" clause. DES (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - AGF, that's why I said "might seem".  The usual way would be to post a notice on the Film Project talk page, rather than picking and choosing editors (which he also did with another editor).  But, you're most likely right, and I speak from experience, having made the same mistake myself. But I get your drift. Other academic works which use the term include  Fred E. Basten's book, Glorious Technicolor: The Movies' Magic Rainbow (2005 - Perseus Distribution); it was also used in the TCM documentary Glorious Technicolor (Peter Jones, producer, 1998); the Harvard Film Archive, particularly in their 2008 retrospective on the history of Technicolor, Technicolor Dreams; The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler; and American Cinematographer which actually has an online link for an example of its use in the magazine. Regarding the google search, "two-color Technicolor" receives 7,870 hits, "two-strip Technicolor" receives 14,800. Onel5969 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also asked to weigh in on this topic by Richard27182 and, although I've worked in the film industry, this early Technicolor topic is not an area of expertise. It seems that reliable sources have used either term which seems to indicate the same stock.  I'm not going to have an opinion here as to which term should be in the article, although I personally lean more towards "two-strip Technicolor" per the discussion above..  I think the best place to seek advice would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.--Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are going to focus on scholarly sites like AFI and UCLA film archives, then please note that AFI and especially UCLA film archives do not exclusively refer to the Technicolor process in question as "two-strip Technicolor."  I've performed extensive searching, and found that AFI uses both terms, and UCLA film archives actually uses "two-color" much more frequently than "two-strip."  I'm listing a few references.  (I'm sorry but I do not know any way to link directly to a particular section in an article (unless it's Wikipedia, which of course these are not.)  But a browser search can quickly find the relevant parts.
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/blogs/archival-spaces/2015/05/22/dawn-of-technicolor
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/restoration/interview-bob-gitt-2006
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/events/2009-04-06/check-and-double-check-1930-pointed-heels-1929
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/events/2013-10-19/scarlet-empress-1934
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/restoration/becky-sharp-restoration
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/support/stan-laurels-life-laughter
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/events/2006-08-18/under-two-flags-1936-if-i-were-king-1938
 * https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/blogs/archival-spaces/2012/03/27/mamba-1930
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=13066
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=10367
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=1&Movie=3917
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=9655
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=1&Movie=5778
 * It seems clear that both terms are in common use, including by scholarly sites like AFI and UCLA film archives. And since, in that sense both terms are "valid" and we have a choice, shouldn't we use the more accurate one?  At the very least, I believe I have refuted the argument that "two-strip Technicolor" is the only valid term for the process.     In addition to giving this matter of terminology a lot more thought, I have two other requests to make.  First I would like to ask that all messages, suggestions, comments, etc. dealing with terminology be posted here in this section of this talk page, just to make it easier for all of us to follow the discussion.  I would also request that issues concerning "canvassing" be discussed on a different page, or at least in a different section. Richard27182 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello   I imagine you would probably like for this issue to be overwith as much as I would.  I have a suggestion that you might find acceptable.  I doubt we will ever agree on "two-strip Technicolor" vs. "two-color Technicolor."  But suppose we sidestep the issue and make the article a bit simpler for film novices at the same time:  Suppose the article were to say something like "The first adaptation was a silent film done using an early Technicolor process and produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924....." If any reader was interested in learning more about early Technicolor processes, they could use the link to the Wikipedia Technicolor article.  Of course the exact wording, as well as whether or not to include the Technicolor link, would be left up to you.  Would you be willing to at least consider such a solution? Richard27182 (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I thought it was over. The majority usage still 2-strip. The citation used in the article calls it 2-strip. I understand your viewpoint, and if either of those 2 facts were the opposite, I would agree to some change in vernacular, but since those are the facts, changing it to not show the process was named two-stsrip would be incorrect. I wouldn't oppose something along the lines, "The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, and which was produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924 ..." To me, that would be accurate and acceptable. Onel5969 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello  No it is not over.  I don't know why you thought it was over.  Did you read my posting that began with "If we are going to focus on scholarly sites like AFI and UCLA film archives, then please note that........"?   I have no way of knowing whether or not you read it, but you obviously made no reply to it.  In that posting I pointed out that UCLA Film Archive and AFI, two institutions that you yourself describe as "scholarly sites," themselves at least sometimes use the term "two-color Technicolor." I listed many of them as links in that posting.  In fact on my most recent attempt I was unable to find any references to "two-strip Technicolor" on the UCLA site while I found numerous references to "two-color Technicolor" there.    See for yourself and do a site-specific Google search.   How can you possibly claim that "two-strip Technicolor" is the only proper term for that process when UCLA film archives not only uses but appears to actually prefer "two-color Technicolor"?      Look, I'm not denying that "two-strip Technicolor" is one term commonly used to describe that process;  but "two-color Technicolor" is also a commonly used and perfectly valid term.  (If not then why is is used again and again in a scholarly site like that of UCLA Film Archives?)  And given that one term is a misleading misnomer (you have admitted it's a misnomer) and the other term is not, I feel very strongly that the non-misleading term should be the one used.      I would very much appreciate at least a brief reply from you that addresses these issues.  Of course I'd also be interested in the opinions of the others who have been participating in this discussion (including ). Richard27182 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought it was over because you're the only one still beating this dead horse. Your arguments, while on topic, still don't change the facts. Which I succinctly stated above.  This is my last comment on the matter. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're not going to address the specific issues I raise (like how the term "two-color Technicolor" could be invalid even when "scholarly websites" such as that of UCLA film archives freely use it), then I guess there is no point in your writing back. I guess it's time to move on to the next step.  See you there! Richard27182 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion of terminology
, it seems to me that 's aruments have a good deal of merit here. Also, please, don't adopt suh a combatitive tone. Perhaps you didn't intend to, it is easy to get carried away when one feels srongly about an issue. I do not know this field well enough to judge which sources should have greater weight, nor does the prospect of reviewing more than 15 linked documents to try to asses the relative frequewncy of use of these terms appeal. I second the suggestion made above by of asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film for additional editors with knowledge of this area. I will say that as long as a good linked explanation is provided, i wouldn't worry so very much about a misnomer. humans being what they are the world is full of misnomers ans we muddle along just fine. Prarie dogs aren't dogs; Fermat's Last Theorem wasn't a theorem (althouhg it has since been proved, so now it is); Poisen Ivy isn't Ivy; mountain lions aren't lions; and so on. As long as the reader can learn exactly what the process was, perhaps the precise name matters less. Since it seems tha both terms are used by reliable sources, reardless of their frequency, how about:
 * ""The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor or two-color Technicolor ...

with a link to the section of Technicolor where the process is discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 June 2015‎


 * First, I'm not even sure who posted the above message.  At least the way it appears on my browser, there is no signature of any kind; not even an IP address.  I suspect it was from because that user name is mentioned in the automatic email alert I got from Wikipedia.      Secondly I honestly do not understand what about my previous posting was "combative."  I simply indicated that I saw no point in further discussion on the article's talk page and I intended to move on to the next step (meaning Dispute Resolution).      But the main points are these:  I think all involved in this discussion agree that "two-strip Technicolor" is a misnomer; and we also all agree that we use misnomers in conversation, writing, etc. all the time.  That is not the issue.  The issue is which term ("two-strip" or "two-color") is appropriate for the article.  I honestly don't understand how you can say that Onel5969's arguments have a good deal of merit when those arguments consist entirely of opinions and undocumemted, unsupported, unreferenced claims.  Onel5969 is the one who first raised the issue of looking at scholarly sites like AFI, and UCLA film archives, sites with editorial supervision.  But Onel5969 cited not one single article from any of them.  I cited thirteen.  From the very sites Onel5969 suggested we look to for guidance.  I may not have been a Wikipedian for very long (and at the rate things are going I may not be one for much longer); but if there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia, it's that everything must be cited, documented, referenced, etc.  In all of the postings in this whole discussion, Onel5969 has cited or referenced nothing.      Concerning your suggested compromise, it's probably a moot point at this time, as I have already started the Dispute Resolution process.  Perhaps the possibility of a compromise such as you suggest may come up during that.  But I have a strong feeling that Onel5969 is not likely to offer any real compromise. Richard27182 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , dispute resolution is not like a court case that once started can't be stopped. (Come to thnk of it, neither are most court cases). The whole point of dispute resolution is to find a solution that all parties can accept. Often, but not always, this is some form of compromise. The question is, would the above suested wording, using both terms, serve the reader well? The object here is (or should be) not for anyone to "win" or to "get his/her way" but for the article to be improved and to bettter serve future readers. If, as you state above "It seems clear that both terms are in common use, including by scholarly sites like AFI and UCLA film archives." then why not use both terms in the article? DES (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i did post the commetn above that starts "it seems to me that 's aruments have a good deal of merit... and ends  "with a link to the section of Technicolor where the process is discussed?". It seems I failed to sign this properly when i posted. Looking at the page history shows that it was done in this edit. DES (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * by "combative tone" I meant such comments as "No it is not over." and "Did you read my posting...", which seem to consider this as a contest or conflict between you and . By the way, you say above that "{xt|Onel5969's arguments ... consist entirely of opinions and undocumemted, unsupported, unreferenced claims.}}" In the posting dated "20:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)" in this thread, Onel5969 cites a number of sources, not all via links, in support of his view. DES (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello      With all due respect, I don't believe I was combative.   stated in his previous message that he thought it was over, and I simply said that it was not over.  What's combative about that?  And when I asked "Did you read my posting" I absolutely did not intend it in any sarcastic or otherwise negative way; I was asking it as a literal question.      I will agree that Onel5969 did make some non-link references.  I guess the reason I missed them was the fact that they were buried in a discussion that had started about the charge of canvassing.  So I'll modify my earlier statement.  Onel5969 and I have both made credible references to back up our claims.      Maybe I shouldn't have suggested that compromise at this time was a moot point; I was just assuming that, with the dispute resolution started, it was necessary to see the process through to completion.  But as you point out, dispute resolution is not like a court case that once started can't be stopped.  So maybe it would be appropriate to continue thinking about a compromise.      You suggested the compromise of using both terms.  I would have no problem with something like:
 * "The first adaptation was a silent film done in a process referred to as "two-strip Technicolor" (technically a misnomer), or "two-color Technicolor," produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by......."
 * Since Onel5969 has already freely acknowledged that "two-strip Technicolor" is indeed a misnomer, he should have no problem including that information with the term.  My main concern all along has been that I believe most people are not familiar with exactly what that process is, and upon seeing the words "two-strip" would be mislead into believeing that the camera held two strips of film, which is not correct.   I believe that, as long as the "misnomer" disclaimer is included, that would solve the problem.  Another option would be to include neither term.  Something like:
 * "The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early Technicolor process, produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by......." with either "Technicolor" or "early Technicolor process" being a link to the Wikipedia article on Technicolor.
 * The term "early Technicolor process" is not likely to mislead the reader into drawing any incorrect conclusions; and if the reader was interested in more details, he could just click on the link.  By simplifying things, this could actually be an improvement to the article (albeit a very minor one); but the main thing would be that which term is appropriate for the article ("two-strip" or "two-color") would be a moot point and the dispute would be instantly resolved.  I wish to go on record right now as being willing to accept either of these proposed compromises.  I hope that Onel5969 will be equally open-minded about compromise.  The more I think about it, the more I believe that a mutually acceptable compromise would be the best way to handle the matter. Richard27182 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Perhaps you weren't combative, all I can say is that the tone of some of your posts here seemed rather combativeto me, and apparently to, albeit not as combative as many editors I have interacted with on Wikipedia. But the point here is the article, so let us procede to that. You suggest including the phrase "two-strip Technicolor" (technically a misnomer) The problem with that, as I see it, is that while you think it is a misnomer, and i don't disagree, unless we have a reliable source that explicitly says that it is a misnomer, I think that is original research, and so not ok. If one of the sources you have examined does say that, then I could support that wording. Failing that, you suggesat leaving out both terms and simnply saying that the film used an "early Technicolor process". That could work, the problem is that if any reader is interested in more detail on the point, it leaves the reader with no useful search term. A wiki-link could help with that, something like:
 * "'The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early Technicolor process, produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ...'"
 * That uses a piped wiki-link to go directly to the section of the Technicolor article where the process is described and its terminology defined. The one problem with it is that if the Technicolor article is ever re-written so as to change section names or rearrange the content, the link will become one to the general article, or to whatever section is named "Process 2", if any. But I think that is a low probability. Still that is why I would prefer to mention both terms, more or less like:
 * "'The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early two-color Technicolor process, (often known as 'two-strip Technicolor') produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ...'"
 * What would you say to that? There seems no dispute that the process was and is often called "two-strip Technicolor", and that phrasing, while not explicitly labeling this as a misnomer, somewhat implies this, while providing both the section link and both useful search terms to an intersted reader. An inline cite would not be amiss at this point either, to a source that clearly states what process was used for this film. What is your view? DES (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi (and while I'm at it, let me "ping"  too.)  It seems a little extreme to require a full-fledged reference for "misnomer," something we all agree on to begin with.  But let me say that my concern here is not that the specific word "misnomer" be used to describe "two-strip Technicolor."  Nor do I believe that it is essential that the term be avoided altogether.  I'd like to repeat what I said yesterday because it is the key to my concern here, and perhaps could even be the key to a solution.
 * My main concern all along has been that I believe most people are not familiar with exactly what that process is, and upon seeing the words "two-strip" would be mislead into believeing that the camera held two strips of film, which is not correct.
 * There are misnomers and then there are misnomers.  Prairie dogs may not actually be dogs, but just about everybody knows what they are.  Poison ivy may not actually be a form of ivy, but again, everybody knows (or should know) what it looks like and what it can do to you.  My point is that nobody is mislead by these misnomers.  But someone not already familiar with Technicolor processes #2 and #3 (the processes at the center of the dispute) almost certainly would be mislead to conclude that the camera held two strips of film, which is absolutely not the case.  This particular misnomer is not a harmless one; it has the ability to mislead the reader into drawing a totally false conclusion as to how the process worked.  And since the 1924 silent version is not even the actual subject of the article (the 1945 film version is), I don't see the necessity of going into detail about what process was used to film it.  But if we do go into that kind of detail, I believe it should not be in a way likely to mislead the reader as to how the process worked.  If the word "misnomer" is a problem, then some other wording should be added to clarify the fact that the camera used not two strips of film but only one.  You might argue that that would not be of interest to most readers; and to that I would say then let's not get into the specific terminology to begin with; just call it a silent color film from 1924.     No criticism intended here, but I believe you missed a major point I made when I made my second suggestion for a possible compromise.  You wrote:
 * "Failing that, you suggesat leaving out both terms and simnply saying that the film used an "early Technicolor process". That could work, the problem is that if any reader is interested in more detail on the point, it leaves the reader with no useful search term."
 * You went on to suggest a wiki-link to the Technicolor article.  Please look back at my previous entry; that is basically what I suggested.  I suggested that "Technicolor" or "early Technicolor process" could be a link to the Wikipedia article on Technicolor.  Personally, I feel that this would be the best solution of all.  But I would settle for just about anything as long as it did not falsely imply that the camera used two strips of film.  And using the term "two-strip" certainly does make that false implication, unless it is accompanied by some clarification.  (That's why I prefer "two-color"; it makes no false implications to begin with, and would not require any clarification.)     Your suggestion:
 * "The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early two-color Technicolor process, (often known as "two-strip Technicolor") produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ..."
 * has the problem that it still misleads the reader into drawing the false conclusion that the camera used two strips of film.     Use "two-strip," use "two-color," use both, use neither.  It really doesn't matter to me as long as the wording does not tend to create the false impression that the camera used two strips of film.  That is the essence of my case. Richard27182 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

, I think you overstate the likelyhood that a reader would draw an incorrect conclusion about the matter. I think most readers will draw no conclusion at all about how the process worked or what the camera contained. And most of those interested in this matter will follow the section link, if one is provided, and thus have full information. But it is true that some readers might be mislead into an incorrect conclusion. Yes, you had earlier sugested using neither term along with "a link to the Wikipedia article on Technicolor". The only diference is that I was sugesting a link not just to the article but to the specific section where "Process 2" is discussed and the terms for it are explained. Technicolor is a fairly large article, without a targeted link a reader would need to read through much of it to find the relevant information, and might fail to do so. That is the essential difference in my sugestion. So I will propose two diffrent wordings here, each of which would be acceptable to me:
 * Choice 1 (both terms with clarification and section link)
 * "'The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early two-color Technicolor process, (often known as 'two-strip Technicolor', although it did not use two separate strips of film) produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ...'"


 * Choice 2 (neither term with section link)
 * "'The first adaptation was a silent color film done in an early Technicolor process, produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by ...'"

Please note the exact link destination in each case. What do you think of those? DES (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to ping me, and please don't do so in the future. This discussion was over a long time ago.  Consensus was reached (not just here, but also on the talk pages of the editors which were canvassed by the dissenting editor), compromises offered.  The fact that a lone editor doesn't agree with either the consensus or the compromises was highlighted by the combative tone of that editor, as well as the dissenting editor taking this to DR, ignoring the consensus and compromises.  I think that DESiegel is being very kind to continue to dialogue with the dissenting editor.  And DESiegel, I would disagree with either of those choices you list above.  There are two good compromises which have been offered, one by you and one by me, both of which include both terms.  Either one of those would be okay.  Your verbiage in the first example is over-technical, and has nothing to do with this article (it's discussed where it belongs, in the Technicolor page).  The second is completely unacceptable, as is any version which doesn't reference the term in the citation. However, let me reiterate, that in my opinion consensus was reached to leave the current text as is. Onel5969 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello      As you can see from the above message by Onel5969, he has asked me not to ping him in the future, and I will respect his wishes.  (I was doing it as a courtesy, but if he doesn't want me to do it then I won't.)  I hope I'm not violating any Wikipedia rules by making this observation, but from the whole tone of his message, it really appears to me that he seems quite angry with me.  The last thing I wanted to do when I joined Wikipedia was to make a Wikienemy, but I'm afraid I may have inadvertently done so.      Anyway with the exception of your belief that I overstate the likelyhood that a reader would draw an incorrect conclusion about the matter, I am in complete agreement with everything you said in your most recent message.  And concerning the two compromises you proposed, I would be fine with either of them.  I have a slight preference for the second because it is simpler; but like I said, either of them (or something equivalent to either of them) would be fine with me.  It seems like at least the two of us are reaching our own consensus.      I see it's time for me to make my second statement on the dispute resolution page.  I'm going to say basically what I told you here (minus, of course, any references to Onel5969) and indicate that I would be fine with either of your proposed compromises.      As you know, I am a novice here, and I had no idea that being a Wikipedia editor could be so--    I'll just say "complicated."  Anyway I do appreciate your patience. Richard27182 (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * as to Onel5969, he obviouslky thinks you shoulkd have accepted hid views and ended this discussion long ago, but I doubt this amounts to his being your "wikiemeneny" or even to his being "very angry". I have seen interactiosn with far more apparent anger and drama, and indeed have b een involved in such. For an example, take a look at the recent message on my talk page about deletion of rado station articles, and follow it to WP:ANI. Then to top off, look at some of the other threads on ANI. I'm a bit pressed for time, and will probably respond substantivly this evening (US eastern time, aka UTC-4). 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - I don't think he should have accepted "his (my) views".  I think he should have accepted the consensus.  3 editors on this talk page disagreed with him.  Three others that he canvassed disagreed with him, but did not comment on this talk page.  Not a single editor took his point of view. If the results had been the reverse, I would have made the edit myself to conform with consensus. Once consensus is reached, all this further discussion is simply a waste of time. Onel5969 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi (and others)      I've just posted my third statement on the dispute resolution page.  In it I basically just reproduced the two compromises you had suggested, and reaffirmed that I would be satisfied with either of them.  I also asked if it would be possible to include additional editors in the discussion who have expertise in the subject.      Going back to the charge of canvassing, it was my impression that we all (you, Onel5969, and I) had discussed that and concluded that it was, at worst, a mistake by a novice, and that no harm was intended or done.  I would very much appreciate it if Onel5969 would stop bringing that subject back up every chance he gets.      Thank you again for all your help and patience.  For the sake of all of us, I hope the dispute can be resolved quickly. Richard27182 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Sentence About Earlier Version
Should the 1925 version of the movie be described as:

A. The first adaptation was a silent film done using a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process, produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by Irvin Willat and starred Jack Holt, Noah Beery, and Billie Dove.

B. The first adaptation was a silent film done using Technicolor (an early Technicolor process), produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by Irvin Willat and starred Jack Holt, Noah Beery, and Billie Dove.

C. The first adaptation was a silent film. It appeared in 1924 and was only the second all-color feature to use the early Technicolor process 2. That version was produced by Famous Players-Lasky, directed by Irvin Willat and starred Jack Holt (actor), Noah Beery, and Billie Dove. JonRichfield (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

D. Other (please specify)

List your !votes with concise rationale in the Survey. Do not enter threaded comments in the Survey, because they belong in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer a question, all comments on talk pages, and this is a talk page, should be signed. It is particularly important to sign entries in the Survey section, because unsigned entries may be ignored by the closer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * I like "B." It is concise, it gives the basic information, and it provides a link for the reader to follow if he wants more detail.  It also avoids the commonly used but misleading misnomer "two-strip Technicolor." Richard27182 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ADDENDUM: Since a new option has been added (the new "C.") I would like to indicate that "C." would also be acceptable to me. Richard27182 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A - per WP:CITE, includes both the terms found in the citations in the article. The historical name of the process, Two-strip, plus the accurate description of the process, Two-color. While not an accurate reflection of the process, Two-strip was the common name, and still is the most common name used (A google search returns almost a 2-1 margin for Two-strip - 14,800 to 7,870).Onel5969 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely "B." (or preferably C for easier reading and proper links). A violates the principle of avoiding duplication of technical information in multiple places, especially where it is of doubtful relevance. JonRichfield (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * B for the wording, but with the links as done in C, additionally copying the construction of "the early Technicolor process 2". —烏Γ (kaw), 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * C is my favourite, but B is also OK. --Slashme (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * B but edited as per Karasu's suggestion Kieran Tribe 12:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A, but with quotation marks around "two-strip". This uses the common name for the technology while indicating that it is a misnomer. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * B, but with Karasu's suggested additions above. It seems to be the most concise yet informative version for someone not familiar with the topic at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Concerning the second answer in the survey: Simply counting hits on a Google search is not considered a scientific way of doing research. The exact same published material may be listed on many different sites and end up getting counted multiple times. Also a negative comment about the search term would get counted as a positive hit. Also the proper "official" name for the process is "Technicolor process #2." Why not stick with the official name? Also aren't we supposed to sign our postings here including in the survey section? Richard27182 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

ADDENDUM TO MY PREVIOUS POSTING: I believe the language should be kept brief and to the point. If the reader is interested in historical names of the process, accurate descriptions of the process, etc. etc, they can always just follow the provided link to the Wikipedia Technicolor article. Please keep in mind that the old color film being discussed here is only mentioned in passing in the article. The article itself is actually about the 1945 version of the film. Richard27182 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Google search was requested by another editor as a way of determining the validity of the two phrases. That was part of the consensus which was reached on this talk page. When you didn't agree with that consensus you took the matter to Dispute Resolution. During that process, you continued to refuse to compromise. Your "compromise" was to have your viewpoint.  My compromise (of which option #1 above is one of two versions), offered a true compromise, including both the historical term, and your correct verbiage regarding the process. Still stand by the first option, which is the only option which offers: a) a compromise; b) conforms to WP:CITE and c) upholds the earlier consensus which was arrived at. And thanks for your snide reminder about my not signing my earlier post, although I'm not really sure you want to get into a discussion about what editors should or should not do on Wikipedia. Onel5969 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC))


 * It doesn't really matter who requested the Google search; I simply pointed out that doing a Google search and simply counting hits is not a very scientific way to research something.  I disagree with you that I am not willing to compromise.  My preferred way of handling the matter in dispute would be to refer to it as "Technicolor process #2" with no mention of so-called "two-strip Technicolor"; for me to settle for something less than that (which I am willing to do) would by definition be a compromise.  Since the heart of the issue is the use of the misleading term "two-strip Technicolor," and you are unwilling to budge on that issue (even something as simple as using the term and identifying it as a misnomer), if anything I would say that you are unwilling to compromise.  And please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you wrote "And thanks for your snide reminder about my not signing my earlier post," it seems like you intended it to be sarcastic and a personal attack.  That's how it felt anyway.  Is that how you intended it? Richard27182 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, wrong once again. On both issues. In your version of a "compromise", you didn't want two-strip mentioned, and viola, it's not mentioned in any of your "compromise" versions. Regarding your snide comment, it was simply an accurate assessment of your intent, since you could have simply politely asked me to sign my comment, instead of doing it in the snide way you did (which somehow got deleted, hmmmm...).  I was commenting on your attack on me, and somehow you take that as an attack on you?  And I did it as a lead-in to the final comment, that you don't really want to get into a discussion of stuff editors shouldn't do.  Do you?  I think not, since you've asked me not to discuss those errors. Onel5969 (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. Please do not make changes to my postings in this (or any other) discussion. If you have issues about anything I have posted or any changes I have made, please discuss them by posting your own messages. Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I re-added a deletion which was made by an ip address. Are you saying that that ip was a sockpuppet of you?  I have re-added it again.  Please see WP:REDACT, on how to deal with removing your comments on an article's talk page. On your own talkpage, the rules are different, as per WP:OWNTALK, but in public discussions, such as this one, you can redact, but not delete (except under certain circumstances which did not apply in this case).  And other editors, on public talk pages, have every right to revert your deletions.  Once you post on a public talk page, those words become the property of Wikipedia. Hope that makes sense to you. I've inserted the proper code around your comment, since you appear to want to redact it.  I did that as a courtesy, to show you how it's done.  Apologies if I misinterpreted your intent to redact. Feel free to remove the code, if that was not your intent. Onel5969 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  NEW  June 21st: Hello Onel5969.  (You always seem to assume the worst about me; I was not using my IP as a sockpuppet.  I'd simply forgotten to log in.)  Anyway thank you for doing a proper redaction of the part of my posting I wanted to remove because I felt it was no longer relevant.  (Thanks also for showing me how it's done; when the need arises again in the future, I'll know how to do it.)      On an unrelated topic, you are incorrect when you say that I've offered no compromises that include the term "two-strip Technicolor."  Check above in the old discussion (the stuff with a light purple background); there is a point where I wrote:
 * I would have no problem with something like:
 * "The first adaptation was a silent film done in a process referred to as "two-strip Technicolor" (technically a misnomer), or "two-color Technicolor," produced by Famous Players-Lasky in 1924, directed by......."
 * That compromise would have included the term "two-strip Technicolor," and would also have satisfied my concern about the reader being mislead.  But you gave me the impression that that wording was unacceptable to you.  But I did offer it as a compromise.     One more thing.  With the exception of the "sockpuppet" remark, I really appreciate the civility of your most recent posting.  I genuinely appreciate the information you provided and the redaction technique you demonstrated. Richard27182 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The way the process works is barely relevant in the context of this film. Whether it might be of interest at all to most readers is an open question, but as a throw-away comment in this article the detail is of little value even to readers who might want it. Mentioning that it is an example of the early colour process supplying the link will do. Those who do happen to take any interest in the technical aspects of the process are conveniently and adequately served by the link to the article that is presumed to have the most authoritative and up-to-date information, and without cluttering the article on the film or burdening the system with multiple updating and maintenance requirements. JonRichfield (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello   I agree with your opinion.  I think you sum up the whole issue very well with the statement:  "Mentioning that it is an example of the early colour process [and] supplying the link will do."  (Especially considering that the early color film itself is not even the actual subject of the article.). Richard27182 (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the process in passing is fine, and explaining why it's significant (second film using that process) is good. "a process commonly known as two-strip Technicolor, which was an early Technicolor two-color process" is repetitive and hard to read.

"Process 2" is more specific than "two-strip", because Process 3 was also a two-strip process - this might also be part of the reason why "two-strip" is more common on the web: Process 2 seems to have been used for only about four years (1922 - 1926), while Process 3 survived until 1935.

By the way, is this an intentional attempt to reach the lofty heights of WP:HALLOFLAME, or is it occurring naturally? --Slashme (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think makes a good point about Process 2 / Process 3.  My preference would be to either call it something very general (like "an early color process") and let the reader follow the link if he's interested in more detail; OR refer to it by its specific name (Technicolor process 2), with the same link available to the reader.      Believe it or not, this is not an intentional attempt to reach the lofty heights of WP:HALLOFLAME.  But it's starting to look like we may get there.  But I hope not. Richard27182 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that so far a majority of editors voting/commenting here seem to prefer "B." but with a nod to "C."  I think the only real "flaw" with "B." is the un-renamed reference. Since most readers would not be Wikipedia editors, they would probably not recognize "Technicolor#Process 2" as wikicode meaning "the section called 'Process 2' in the Wikipedia Technicolor article." So perhaps the best solution of all would be choice "B.," keeping the link but renaming it to something the average reader would understand. Richard27182 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}