Talk:Substitution splice

Changes to the emphasis on the editing part of the process

The article stated that this effect was totally done by editing and that the camera was not stopped in between shots. Although there is clear evidence that at least Melies worked hard to get an optimal cut between the two shots, it is very unlikely that he and all other practitioners kept the camera running when making changes to the scene (that would be a costly waste). The emphasis on editing in the stated sources was meant to take away the common belief that it was purely done "in camera" (as far as I can check the sources, this is only stated in reference to Melies, seemingly without considering other practitioners). None of the sources I checked did fail to mention the importance of matched framing of the mise en scene. Sources also talk about the different shots (multiple): I found nothing that suggested the effect was achieved by editing within just one single shot (which you end up with when the camera is not stopped). Possibly some examples can be found that may have been achieved by editing a single shot, although it is probably hard to proof that it actually is a single shot. It may also be quite hard to find clear examples that were ONLY made by stopping and restarting the camera, although I suppose it is much more likely that those can be found since the technique was always explained as such until some academics started pointing out the splices.

Therefore I changed some content of the page and asked for a review of the requested move below. I hope I managed to keep the source references in decent places.Joortje1 (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. While I think SmokeyJoe makes some interesting comments, Lemuellio's reasoning in favour of simply "Substitution splice" is stronger (in terms of the article titles policy) to my reading. Also, there is a slight majority in favour of that title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Stop trick → Substitution splice – Searches on Google Books suggest that "substitution splice" fits the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA much better than the current name: it's used by most writers on the subject, occurring many more times in reputable sources than the term "stop trick" (Recognizability); it accurately describes the technique in question, and can't be confused with the card manipulation technique called the stop trick (Precision); and it's still plenty short enough (Conciseness). Indeed, as a couple of the sources in the article demonstrate, "stop trick" was a misnomer to begin with, since the technique involves splicing film rather than stopping the camera. Lemuellio (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support but prefer Cinematic substitution splice. The proposed is excessively shortened beyond concise. It is a descriptive, not proper, name and the description needs enough information for recognition. Google substitution splice and see the chaotic set of results. Google Cinematic substitution splice and see an identifiable subject. Substitution splicing can be done in a variety of things, genetics in particular as illustrated by the google results, and this subject relates only to cinematic applications. The choice of "cinema" over "film" or other options is appropriate to the time period of its popularity. With this change, the unfortunate last sentence ("This technique is not to be confused...") can be dropped. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I get no Google results at all when I put in "cinematic substitution splice" as a phrase (i.e. with quotes). In other words, to move to this title would be to create a neologism, which seems best avoided.

In addition, when I run a Google Books search for the words "substitution splice" (again with quotes), I don't see a chaotic set of results; on the contrary, the cinematic technique appears to be the only meaning of the phrase. A few search results seem at first glance to imply usage in other fields, but on a closer look I find that they're "garbage" results caused by the words "substitution" and "splice" happening to occur next to each other.

So, it seems to me that "Substitution splice" is easily precise enough.--Lemuellio (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No google results, at least no coherent set of google results, result from any quoted search because there is no simple proper name for this topic. A descriptive name is required. Sometimes, Wikipedia descriptive names have not been used before, there having never been an article written on the subject from a board context. New descriptive names are not forbidden if a subject has no previously used name.

While I too get what you are saying, I still think that "substitution splice" is too brief, the subject is about a cinematic technique, and that "cinema" (or cinema-derived word) belongs in the title.

Alternatively, noting the article Film splicer, the title Film splicing might be better? It Googles well.

In any case, should my preferences not be agreed to, your proposal is better than the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the sources cited in the article (e.g. Moen, Lim, Yumibe, Gunning, Kessler); I think you'll find that "substitution splice" is indeed used widely as the name for this topic. So, I don't think there's any need in this case to coin a new descriptive name or to add qualifying adjectives.

As for Film splicing, that's something else entirely: the physical process of creating a "cut" transition by editing together two pieces of film, rather than a special effect created by means of a carefully designed cut.

Thank you for your continued thoughtful consideration of this article title!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "substitution splice" is used, but point out that its use is in the context of cinema. I think it is only used in the context of cinema? Article titles do not exist in such contexts. For minimal recognizability, both the current and the proposed, I think adding "Cinematic" is a good idea.

Unless I misunderstand, film splicing is not entirely different, but is the underlying technique enabling this substitution trick. True, film splicing would be a broader article than the current version. The current version could be called Substitution trick by film splicing? When done digitally, is it called something else? Is this an article on the conceptual method and result, or an article on the traditional technique? The second, I believe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I don't see how it aligns with Wikipedia policy (WP:NC). Examination of the Google searches we've been referring to suggest that "substitution splice" is used pretty consistently for this topic, and is not used as a name for any other topic. Under these circumstances, coining a new multi-word descriptive name would seem to go directly against the guidelines for Recognizability, Naturalness, and Conciseness; nor would a new name satisfy the other guidelines, Precision and Consistency, any better than the term "substitution splice" would. Am I missing something obvious here?--Lemuellio (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I consider the naming criteria (WP:NC), as written, to be non-exhaustive, and I don't think anyone has argued they are. "Recognizable" can be read as implying, and should be, that a title should not be readily or reasonably "mis-recognized" as another unrelated topic. Yes, "substitution splice" can be recognized as the name of this technique by anyone familiar with the technique, but, in molecular biology it can be misrecognized as a major type of gene splicing, where gene fragments are swapped in and out (substituted) between introns, related to subject of gene transfer. It can be plausibly recognized as such if not already in the context of film/cinema. Alternatively, it might be argued that "substitution splice" fails the Precision Criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the criteria are exhaustive; rather, I was referring to the instruction at the top of this section, "Please base arguments on article title policy." My concern was simply that our discussion was less grounded in WP:NC than was optimal for mutual understanding.

I've searched on both Google and Google Books, and haven't found any examples in which "substitution splice" is used as a name for a type of gene splicing (or, for that matter, anything other than the cinematic topic at hand), so I'm afraid I don't follow your arguments about mis-recognition and lack of precision. Perhaps, at this point, we had better just agree to disagree.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Substitution splice → Stop trick – 1 - the term "substitution splice" is less common (check with Google books search), 2 - the term "substitution splice" is not as precise or correct (splicing can be an important part of the process, but is not the deciding factor: reasonable results are possible without splicing). The term "stop trick" is slightly more precise: also editing STOPS the action and the main purpose is to achieve the special effect; the TRICK. 3 - the term "substitution splice" is a relatively new academic fabrication (by Tom Gunning in 1989) and has not been very widely recognised outside academic circles, 4. the most famous practitioner Mélies is quoted as calling it "The trick-by-substitution, soon called the stop trick", thus suggesting a more precise name while accepting a commonly used name. (unfortunately the more precise and less ambiguous name "trick-by-substitution" is not as commonly recognizable.) Joortje1 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 5 The concept of using "substitution splicing not as an obvious special effect, but as an inconspicuous editing technique" (see article) reveals that "substitution splice" is not necessarily the same as the "stop trick" or "trick-by-substitution". "Substitution splicing" apparently means something like: substituting part of a filmed take with part of another take and edit these together into a "temporally continuous whole" (as the referenced source calls it), with or without the noticeable effect of an appearance, disappearance, or transformation caused by differences in the mise-en-scene between takes.Joortje1 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.  samee  ^talk 18:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I have no vested interest in either term, and certainly both have been used in print. My thanks to Joortje1 for the clarifying edits so far on the article!

That said, the reasons I suggested "Substitution splice" a few years ago still seem valid. To address Joortje1's concerns:

1. GoogleBooks searches suggest, to the contrary, that "substitution splice" is more common as a term for this effect; many of the results for "stop trick" are false positives, largely due to the card manipulation technique of that name. Given our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, this is an important point to keep in mind.

2. Do you have a citation for your argument "reasonable results are possible without splicing"? Since the cameras in question had to be wound by hand, it seems extremely unlikely that a good effect could be achieved simply by stopping winding and starting back up again; one would expect the area around the stop to show marked distortion in both timing and exposure. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it certainly seems more plausible to assume a splice.

3. Certainly the term seems to have been formulated by academics, but is that a drawback? Since it's those academics who have collected, interpreted, and published most of the useful information we have on the effect, it seems odd to reject their term of choice in favor of a less common formulation.

4. Méliès was writing in French, so while this passage does supply two French terms for the effect, it doesn't seem to include any relevant information on English-language terminology. If the article quoted from, say, an influential early translation of Méliès's text, and then supplied evidence that this translation led to the term "stop trick" becoming prevalent, the situation would be different; but that's not the case here.

5. Obviousness seems an unnecessary criterion to use when defining what a special effect is. Matte paintings, of both the traditional and CGI varieties, are usually designed to be as inconspicuous as one of Méliès's splices, but they're still regularly and reasonably categorized as a special effect.

Lacking strong reasons to the contrary, then, it seems like "substitution splice" still fits the bill. -- Lemuellio (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment:

1. There may be better ways to compare the search results from Google Books, but I got 868 results for "substitution splice" with 3 false positives in the first 10 results. I also noticed that about after 30 results for "substitution splice", at least half of the books don't actually contain the term "substitution splice" (not in the preview nor with a search inside). Does Google maybe list those books since they seem closely related to the other results? For "stop trick" I got 1.670 results with half of the first 20 results being false positives. I figured that half of 1.670 would be more than 70% of 868 results, even if we count the results that do not actually contain the term.

2. Maybe I should have left that part out, since my main point here was that stopping and tricking are more decisive elements of the effect, while "splicing" is not as important. I believe the splicing was done to polish the effect. The emphasis on the editing as an important aspect of the process seems to have been introduced since the discovery of the splice lines around stop tricks in Mélies's films and would almost make you believe that he left the camera running and only took out the unwanted parts in the editing room. That would for most examples have been a very unlikely waste of costly film and would be most inefficient.

I think Mélies' often repeated story about the discovery (and I believe J. Stuart Blackton used a similar story for his discovery of stop motion) as well as the term in itself show that stopping the camera has so long at least been been thought of as the secret to the trick, that the special effect was most likely tried in that way by many of the filmmakers who used the trick. An assumption with circumstantial evidence at best, but if we take a look at the other side of the argument: the only evidence I've seen for splicing was only for Mélies' films and not in the many other examples. And it would be very hard to proof that Mélies (or other filmmakers) did not stop the camera when shooting scenes for this special effect.

3. I did not mean any disrespect for academics. In this particular case I believe it was unnecessary to replace a decent term that had been in common use for at least over 50 years. I also suspect that most documentaries, filmmaker interviews, magazines and online information about movies and special effects would identify the subject as "stop trick", while the results for "substitution splice" in GoogleBooks are somewhat more influenced by academic textbooks. Those books are more worthwhile if you want to learn more about the subject, but do not indicate how recognizable the term is.

4. I used GoogleBooks to search for the original quote, the english version appeared very often. Not sure how early the translation came about, but it has defintely been influential for some time.

5. The term "stop trick" has always been used to indicate an obvious special effect, intended to "achieve an appearance, disappearance, or transformation" as wikipedia's definition has been stating since 5 October 2015, incidentally that description was introduced in the same edit that changed the term to "substitution splicing". If substitution splicing does not necessarily involve an obvious effect, the definition should be changed in the article. I believe this would most likely make the article unnecessarily more confusing and less recognizable as addressing the special effect that is best known for it's surprising results. The effect is hardly known for an unnoticeable combination of different takes, which should probably be regarded as a different effect because of its entirely different purpose. For this effect "substitution splice" is probably still a very good term - while "stop trick" is not: it would be very confusing to us e the term "stop trick" for something that is not conceived as a trick and for which stopping the action is the opposite of its intended effect. I interpret the term "substitution splicing" as a technique that can be part of the process used to create a "stop trick", but can also be applied for an unnoticeable combination of different takes. If you (re-)read the referenced sources according to this interpretation they probably make much more sense.Joortje1 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SHORT ARGUMENTS FOR MOVE:

A. The term "substitution splice" should be interpreted as a part of the process of creating a noticeable "stop trick" effect. A "Substitution splice" is an edit that removes any parts of film takes that stand in the way of a good "stop trick" a special effect with the illusion of a sudden appearance, disappearance, or transformation. The "substitution splice" can also be used for an unnoticeable combination of different takes (as stated in the article with source reference), so the terms are not always interchangeable.

B. Comparison of results in Google Books for <"Stop Trick" film> (1.780 results) and <"Substitution splice" film> (847 results) give a very clear indication that "stop trick" is much more commonly used.Joortje1 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral, but given the above back and forth, I am not seeing a strong case for changing the existing status quo, which is based on a previous consensus to move. bd2412 T 19:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.