Talk:It's a Wonderful Life

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

It's a Wonderful Life is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 6, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2012.

Christianity: Christmas Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as High-importance).

Film: Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Holidays: Christmas Mid‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as High-importance).

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

December 20 to 26, 2020 (17th)

"Classic"

"it became a Christmas classic."

"It Happened One Christmas was a 1977 television movie remake of the classic film"

Is it ok to call something a "classic" in an encyclopedia as a factual statement? Or is it more of a subjective kind of thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the claims that the film is a classic appear to be well-sourced or are direct quotations, so I don't really see that there's a POV issue here. DonIago (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DonIago Isn't there a difference between "it is regarded as a classic" (for which you can give sources) and "it IS a classic" (which isn't really provable)? It sounds like saying "the movie is great" to me. Dornwald (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. There are plenty of sources, including direct quotes, that describe the film as classic. If It's a Wonderful Life isn't a classic, then nothing is. Toughpigs (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules for how many sources you need to "prove" something is a classic, so it should be avoided. It would be better to say "it's widely regarded as a classic". that you can prove. that's my opinion. Dornwald (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the tenacity of a Wikipedian, which is a good thing (to a point). In this case, stating something is a classic is the same as any other obvious descriptor, see WP:BLUESKY. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling something a classic should be avoided in favour of "is regarded as a classic". I guess there are cases were it is ok though, like "Romeo and Juliet" or something. I think it can sound like praise, so one should be careful. That's my opinion. Dornwald (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being careful is exactly why in the other cases where you raised this as a concern my view was that the use of the word "classic" was a POV violation; because in those cases there was insufficient sourcing or the word wasn't being used as part of a quotation. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think there is a difference between saying "it is a classic" versus "it is regarded as a classic" (given that there a lots of sources). Are both the same? Sorry, i'm just curious. Dornwald (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think after a certain point of X reputable sources claiming it's a classic that it becomes a bit of a pedantic and syntactical difference. I guess what I'm confused about is why, since there's support for the use of the word "classic" in general in this instance, you're not just changing the text rather than continuing to discuss it? This is different from the other instances where the word "classic" was being used without clear evidence supporting the word itself. DonIago (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think after a certain point of X reputable sources claiming it's a classic that it becomes a bit of a pedantic and syntactical difference."

I think the difference is important because it sounds like praise. That's the way i see it. Dornwald (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donlago

"I guess what I'm confused about is why, since there's support for the use of the word "classic" in general in this instance, you're not just changing the text rather than continuing to discuss it?"

1. Because as a German speaking person I am super reluctant to change anything around here (I now changed it anyway, primarily because of the "Be bold!" link you gave me) :)

2. I am interested in people's opinions about this because I think it's an interesting question that some disagree with me on. Dornwald (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you're looking for a broader consensus on the matter, rather than addressing it case-by-case, you could raise the question at WT:FILM. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dornwald (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mother went to Altoona High School, Altoona Pa in the late 30's. They had a retractable gym floor that covered a swimming pool. I wondered were the production team for "It's A Wonderful Life" got the idea for the dance scene where the floor opens? 108.228.153.68 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a black crow in the Bailys bank scene symolices? 2601:646:8081:CAE0:8021:D846:E0D2:9C7F (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't Its a wonderful life a hit when it permired in 1947? 2601:646:8081:CAE0:8021:D846:E0D2:9C7F (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royalties

In the synopsis section it says that the 1974 copyright lapse led to the film being available for showing on TV without fees, resulting in it gaining widespread viewing, etc. But in the more detailed history of the copyright section it says that the lapse in the film copyright was backstopped by other copyrights and that TV stations still had to pay royalties to show it. Which is correct? Could the incorrect information please be corrected or clarified? Thank you. Penthrift (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan's Quintet section

I'm not sure that the details about the associated space photograph deserves its own section, seeing as it is only one sentence. I proposed moving it somewhere in the production section, or fleshing it out if there is more to be added here. Thank you! Yojo98 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section pointing out the Stephan's Quintet connection seems fine and has been present in the article long-term. Readers probably find it informative (I did, not knowing the association before reading this article years ago). [Struck as inaccruate: ~~An interesting point, not made in the section but if a source is found could be, is that one of the "head" angels in the film is named 'Franklin'~~ a year after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death which put most of the nation into mourning. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that the name Franklin is anything other than a coincidence? DonIago (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this was a Frank Capra picture filmed in early 1946. [Edit:The head angel's name is Joseph] ~~Capra would have named the head angel Franklin (or, the only other choice, kept the name in the script if it was a coincidence) with Roosevelt in mind, it just needs a source. That would~~ fill out the section which, even though short, provides an astronomical context for those who enjoy the opening of the film. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but for comparison the Sesame Street section is a good comparative. It's a more fleshed out paragraph, by comparison there are many sub-sections which are only one sentence in the article already. I think this information would be best served combined into another main section as a sub-section. Yojo98 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia should generally have single-sentence paragraphs, much less single-sentence sections. I'd support moving the text unless there's more to be said on the matter. DonIago (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I was incorrect, the head angel's name is Joseph, not Franklin, and I came here as soon as I rewatched the scene. Interesting fact is that the opening of the film makes it appear that Joseph and Clarence are talking directly to God, who has received the prayers from the townspeople asking him to help George Bailey. The discussion should have stayed on the Stephan's Quintet, my fault for sidetracking it.Randy Kryn (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]