Talk:Adaptations of A Christmas Carol

Pastiches, continuations, and other uses Name Change

As FLVSstudent417 attempted to do, I suggest we change the name of the title of the "Pastiches, continuations, and other uses" section, as the term "pastiches", is not commonly used, as should be changed according to the Wikipedia rules of WP:COMMONNAME.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, pastiche is a common enough word to have its own Wikipedia article, not to mention an article like Sherlock Holmes pastiches. In writing about literature, it is no more obscure a word than antagonist or novella or theme or a dozen others. We need to distinguish between individual editors' lack of familiarity with a common term and the question of whether or not it is common. There is simply no other word (especially the limp and inaccurate "imitations" which had been proposed as a substitute) that encapsulates the range of works in that section. The Holmes article was originally titled "Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works." That's unwieldy but at least accurate. "Derivative works" was also suggested over there as a title. It also is less accurate than pastiche but is at least in the ballpark of accuracy. Changing the section title to something that it is not and ignoring the correct term would be analogous to changing the term "antagonist" where it appears in articles to the pop-culture "villain," and the two terms are not identical. If someone has a better but still accurate term than "pastiche," then certainly suggest it - remembering of course that we are trying to create an encyclopedia here and not a website of Marvel Comics level. Sensei48 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The principle in which you are proposing and defending the term of "pastiche" though, breaks Wikipedia:Other stuff exists rules, just because other articles exsist, doesn't mean we should use it here. What about the terms, as listed as synonyms to pastiche, according to Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com, reproduction, derivate, imitation (I know you nixed this one, but it was listed as a close synonym of pastiche, so I thought I should list it none the less), or parody? --FLVSstudent417 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, though I'm not sure that the "other stuff" page applies here. The last point in that essay is that "arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." "Pastiche" is the one and only literary term that applies to many of the works listed in that section, as it does in the Holmes article that I mentioned. Synonyms, as you know, are only approximations of meaning. I maintain that it is an accurate term and common enough for the general reader. Your point is that it is not a familiar term, a position that I would suggest is subjective and inaccurate. So - we disagree and must repair to the Wiki protocol of collaborative editing.

There is perhaps a greater objection to the section title (which I may very well have written when I was re-organizing the items - I don't recall), and that is that the title is awkward and unwieldy. We do, however, have the possibility of a consensus title. Your dictionary list includes the word "derivate," and one of the proposals as above for a re-titled Holmes article was "Derivative works." I think that would work well for the section. It's comprehensive (every work in there would fit with that title), it's pointed, and it's brief. So, if you think it's OK, why don't we ask Navarre and see if we all can agree on that?Sensei48 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's good with me, I like it--Navarre0107 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sensei48:, that's good to me too :) --FLVSstudent417 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All right. It's a go. Section title change to occur forthwith. Sensei48 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Television Episodes

The section needs to be sourced or removed. Most of the entries are personal observation/opinion POV. The ones I removed today have little relevance and can in no way be construed as "adaptations." Most include often random similarities or distant tangents. MOS is clear that "passing mentions" - which includes accidental or distant similarities - do not qualify as adaptations. More need to be removed. To remain here or for new ones to be added 1) a secondary source is needed, and 2) there needs to be an explicit connection to the plot or characters of the original. "Scrooge-like" in the opinion of an editor does not qualify. Sensei48 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The section on Television series episode adaptations of A Christmas Carol is quite clear and in no way needing removal. Originally the list was titled "Pastiches", however at some point the title was clarified to read "Derivative Works" in order to be much clearer in explaining that the items within the section borrow or "derive" their plot from Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol". The "Derivative Works" section is presently divided into 5 sub-sections in order to better organize "Derivative Works" of Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol"

The definitive guide to adaptation of Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" is the book by Fred Guida entitled "Christmas Carol and it's Adaptations. This book was I believe a source for the earliest versions of the list of adaptations currently on Wikipedia. I personally reworked and cleaned up the adaptations list last December after discovering it had been altered and disorganized. None of the entries that I added to the Television Episodes list are from by my personal POV. The descriptions I provided were taken from freely available episode guides for the various series cited.

If possible I would like to see a list of which one were removed so that I can fix them properly as required

TjHiggins66 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)TjHiggins66

You are wrong on virtually every point here, due it seems to your lack of familiarity with protocols and requirements for editing on Wikipedia. Your introductory paragraph to the episodes section added earlier today is an egregious violation of two of the most basic of all requirements for Wikipedia edits, WP:OR and WP:NPOV - this even before its failure to follow WP:V, which is the reason that most all of your edits in December and now need to be reverted for absolute lack of any WP:RS. Further - WP:IPC, whose strictures apply here, is clear that "passing" or "casual" connections between a work like this novella and fragmentary references to it in other media do not justify inclusion in an IPC section. All of these sections demand immediate attention before you comtinue editing. Please read them and understand them so you will understand under what protocols articles can be edited on Wikipedia. More to discuss here, but the reversions need to be done immediately.Sensei48 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Further, please note in the lede of the WP:OR article - " 'No original research' (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." These are core content policies, not suggestions.Sensei48 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the terms casual, passing or fragmentary in the case of A Christmas Carol adaptations. First I understand the the Wikipedia protocols but I also believe that there are and must be exceptions to the rule when works of classic literature are involved. In the case of the adaptations of A Christmas Carol on the TV Episodes list they present more then casual, passing or fragmentary connections to Dickens Novella. Works of classic literature have been adapted in various ways, shapes and sizes for countless years and as such no adaptation should be overlooked or omitted. Such omission is unfair to the original source material and its author.

The adaptations page for A Christmas Carol is not the only page related to a work of classic literature with a similar adaptations list.

Please have look at the IPC page for Frankenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_in_popular_culture

Frankenstein is a classic novel written by Mary Shelly as is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

As you can see the IPC page for this work of classic literature is much longer than that for A Christmas Carol. In fact the IPC page repeatedly uses the word "derivatives" in describing many of the individual items on the list. Also the within that IPC page many of the sub-sections have introductory paragraphs similar to the one I wrote last night, yet no parts of that page seemed to have been flagged? Also the Frankenstein IPC page has far fewer footnotes or citations.

The same type of IPC list can be found for Dracula by Bram Stoker again longer than the page for A Christmas Carol and again with fewer footnotes or citations. Again as is the case with page for Frankenstein nothing has been flagged.

The adaptation list for A Christmas Carol was not created by myself but it has been existence for many years. For most that time it the list was broken down into just 10 sub sections with 10th sub sub-section given the heading "Pastiches, continuations, and other uses". This sub-section of the list became a disorganized mess with no real system of organization. As the list grew this last sub-section became more and more disorganized and confusing. I am not sure when the section title was changed to "Derivative Works" but it works better then the previous headings I should also point out that the previously mentioned pages for Frankenstein and Dracula use the word "Derivatives". My editing of this sub-section was done to bring a clear sense of organization to the list to bring about ease of use and ease of further expansion.

2601:180:C100:8920:7938:685D:63B3:8B65 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Tj Higgins

I understand your discontent with the strictures of editing on Wikipedia, but strictures they are, as I try to indicate above. I already know the Frankenstein and Dracula pages. The IPC article for the latter differs dramatically from the Episodes section here in that every reference includes the character himself by name. The Frankenstein IPC is looser and could use some pruning, and both IPCs are in serious need of sourcing. Ditto earlier sections of this page.

I'd like to quote a couple of those content guidelines here to indicate why some of the Episodes entries could not be justified. First - and I'll hyperlink the page - The Wiki Project Film Resources Page [[1]] states explicitly at WP:RS/IMDB that "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged....Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough."

Second, the guiding principle regarding what makes a valid IPC entry comes from that page - WP:IPC. "However, passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." Further, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." Perhaps most significantly, "In determining whether a reference is encyclopedic, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone." Most of the episode entries fail under these strictures, and strictures they are whether or not any one of us individual editors agree with them or not. It is often the failure to follow such strictures and policies in many, many articles that thus far has made Wikipedia generally not accepted as a reliable source in the academic community, and acceptance as such is a goal of many people who contribute here. But how to get there is pretty much laid out in the many and sometimes onerous strictures and guidelines.Sensei48 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the need for strictures and the need for sourcing on Wikipedia the items in the TV Episodes list are not casual, passing or fragmentary connections to Dickens Novella. Each episode listed presents a telling of Dickens story using the theme, character, characterizations and other aspects of Dickens tale.

At the bottom the adaptations page for A Christmas Carol there is heading labeled "Further Reading". There is one item listed in this section and it is:

"Fred Guida, A Christmas Carol and Its Adaptations: Dickens's Story on Screen and Television, McFarland & Company, 2000. ISBN 0-7864-0738-7." This is the only definitive guide to adaptations of A Christmas Carol and many of the TV episodes listed in the adaptation list can be found in this book. However the book was published 14 years ago and has not been updated. As a result any adaptations of A Christmas Carol that have happened since the book was published are not included.

The author Fred Guida is known as follows: The author of the blog charlesdickensonscreen.com. He is also a film consultant and programmer at the Yale Center for British Art in New Haven, Connecticut, and has taught film studies at Quinnipiac University and Connecticut College.

As I understand it the entire Christmas Carol adaptations list is based on his book and his research and review of many many adaptations.

I will not argue this any more as we will have to agree to disagree

TjHiggins66 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Tj Higgins

Unsourced material

This page is stuffed with non-notable and unsourced material, and needs a good clean-up. Many new unsourced things are being added right now, and those ought to be challenged and the editor asked to provide a source, rather than just being ignored. Older non-sourced material needs systematic review. I'll add a few tags to get the processs started. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's even worse than I had thought. Almost all of the theatre section lists unsourced local productions that are almost certainly not notable. We shouldn't be maintaining a random list of every minor production. I'd like to make it clearer that we want only productions that are notable in their own right, in some way. The rest - probably most of the ones I've tagged - should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a LOT of local theater productions. Thousands of cities perform one version or another of this play annually, and it would be impossible to list them all. Bkatcher (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing one

Missing the Christmas Carole with George C. Scott as Scrooge 38.21.40.232 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No. It is listed as it should be under "Television" since it was made for and broadcast there first.Sensei48 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A Nowruz Carol

There's also an Iranian movie called A Nowruz Carol which is adapted from A Christmas Carol. But with Nowruz as the new year instead of Christmas. Aminabzz (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the original title? 0 Google results turn up for "A Nowruz Carol". HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siceli (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Potentially adding subcategories

Good afternoon, everyone! I am considering adding some subheadings that organize the list of adaptations by dates. (Ex: 1970s, 1980s, 2000s, etc.) I think that this will help organize the long lists of bullet points and help readers who are looking for a specific adaption. For adaptations with the same date (ex: two films that both aired in 1975), I think it would be helpful to categorize them by title. Siceli (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline Subheadings and Alphabetical Organization

Hello all. As of now, I have inserted timeline subheadings to assist with breaking up long chunks of text, and to help readers find specific adaptions. I also organized some adaptations with the same date by title, and made some minor revisions to film and episode descriptions so they read more smoothly. Overall, I believe the page is now slightly easier to navigate! :) Siceli (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, many of these changes look useful. However, you are consistently breaking the style guidelines for section headings - see MOS:SECTIONCAPS, which says "Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first character of the first element if it is a letter, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text."

Please change all the section headings so they conform. Thanks again. Masato.harada (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Masato.harada, thank you for letting me know about this style guideline. I wasn't aware of this rule before, but I've gone through the article and edited all headings and subheadings to follow sentence case. As an editor, I'm often eager to jump to using title case, so thank you again for informing me on this! I hope the article is within style guidelines now, but please let me know if there's anything else I overlooked. Siceli (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)