Talk:The Magic Christian

Congratulations on the succinct synopsis and commentary. Pity the film is so dated now 'cos it's message is still true ! The Norwikian 24 September 2003

Also known from the music by Badfinger. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novel article

Actually the way this article is going, it cannot be seen as Project Novels. Apart from the initial mention that it is a novel, all the rest is randomly placed information about the film. I think if it is given primarily Project Film status, we may start getting somewhere. Therefore I remove Project Novel from the discussion page and put a film infobox in the article, with the hope that it can eventually reach some rating as a film article. If anyone still thinks there is any chance for the novel article, a new article on the novel may be created. If nobody objects to my move I am willing to contribute. By the way, I loved the film and I think it deserves some rating. Hoverfish 23:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is primarily a film article it is currently all there is on the novel. I would agree that if someone can write up at least a stub on the novel this could (and maybe should) be start independantly. If you are able to start this I would support it and help contribute. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevinalewis, I haven't read the book, so I can't possibly be of much use there. It will take me some time to change all the links connected to this page (as film), to "The Magic Christian (1969 film)", whereas the novel entry will be "The Magic Christian (novel)" and I will make a disambiguation page because there is also the Austrian Magician under this name. If you want to start right now, just type in the search box: The Magic Christian (novel). Then go to the blank entry, click where it says "create this page" and start editing. As soon as I am done with the link changes, later today, I will help you link the novel page to the disambiguation. If you need novel infobox etc, I will gladly help. Hoverfish 08:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have turned the main page into a temporary disambiguation (till I create a proper diambiguation page) and the stub on the novel is linked from there. Hoverfish 14:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:Hoverfish#The_Magic_Christian

When I wrote that article back in 2002, it was exclusively about the novel, with the exception of the last paragraph. (See Norwikian's commentary at the top of this talk page.) Why the article on the novel is now, four years later (!), a pathetic little stub which consists of one sentence only I don't know.

I can only guess. I've seen it happen with other "film and literature" articles as well (the best example I can think of right now is Mildred Pierce), and my theory is that people who only know the film versions add things to the novel articles which are incorrect. It's a deplorable state of affairs if people want to write about films when they have not read the book or, in more general terms, that people read so little.

In the case of The Magic Christian, the book is much much better than the film, which is silly and only remembered for the Sellers-Starr-McCartney-Badfinger connexion and some freak cameos. Another problem with splitting a film and literature article in two is that, logically, no place remains for a comparison of the two.

However, as the business of splitting those articles seems to be one of the current crazes here at Wikipedia, there is nothing I can do about it. I'd advise anyone who wants the get the whole picture to access an earlier version of the article.

All the best, <KF> 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, click the links, like everybody else does. The article was a complete mess. It asserted that it was about a novel, struggled on for a couple of paragraphs pretending to be about a novel, and then turned into an article about a film, while still managing to give the impression that John Cleese and Graham Chapman were in the novel. It needed splitting, and if someone else hadn't got there first, it would have just stayed in a mess list until I got round to it.

Disambiguation efforts like this are to be welcomed. One of the results of recent efforts is that people who are interested in the novel will be able to read about the novel without being bothered by detatails of the film, and might even be inclined to contribute to an article that looks like somebody actually knows what it's about. TheMadBaron 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have outlined above may be fine in theory, but what's going on here at Wikipedia with all those split literature-film articles is different, and we should cater for it (in advance, if possible):

(1) Once there are two articles, people keep adding (allegedly missing) content about the film to the novel article. (By the way, it's similar with other splits, see kiosk for an example.)

(2) The question where a comparison between the book and the film should go remains unanswered. In a third article?

(3) As long as there is not enough material to split an article, it should stay as one. It's better to have one short text (admittedly, it'd have to be coherent) than two stubs. <KF> 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I took the initiative to split this article, let me offer a partial answer. In the novel article no comparison is needed, since the novel preceeded the film. In the film it would be worth noting how it deviates from the novel. The film article, like many film articles, may grow to include a number of issues that are completely irrelevant to trhe book. With both Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr, involved here, not to mention some Monty Python presence, the novel article would become a whole circus. Actually another user has shown interest in developing the novel side, which I hope will start happening. I was extra careful to leave in the novel all information that was not film specific.

On the issue of splitting generally, I am not biased either way. If a novel and a film tie together well, they can stay together. I have seen many nice examples of mixed novel-film articles. If a famous theater play starts expanding about all kinds of film versions, I am for splitting. If one tries to find about the Hobbit, as a book and has to go through all the film's plot details, I'd much rather have a separate article on the book. Hoverfish 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Let's dedicate a novel article exclusively to the novel and let's only have a link to the film version (XYZ was filmed in 1974. See XYZ (film)), and let's have one section there about a comparison of the two. Thanks for your reply. <KF> 20:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]