Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse acting

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse acting

Per WP:NEOLOGISM. There is no such thing as "reverse acting" - there is merely running a camera in reverse with an actor in front of it. This happens frequently for a variety of reasons, and is not always meant to be noticed. (e.g. certain effects shots) There certainly is no discipline known as reverse acting either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as neologism. Seems to be something someone said about Bruce Campbell, but no source is provided. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep because of Uncle G's rewrite (with sources) and rename (as a film technique rather than an acting technique). Very nice work. Question: new location has no history—does the current rewrite retain nothing from the previous version? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was a place to merge this, I'd say merge. It's really a film-technique that an actor adapts to, rather than an acting technique. I got a laugh out of someone tagging this as a "theatre stub". Imagine the Broadway production of "Stac", complete with a bunch of reverse actors singing "Yromem". Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge to Special effects? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism; without reliable sources, not worth keeping nor merging. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new, non-neological term and reliable sources backing said term ("reverse motion"). —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation in an encyclopedic form. I think that the article will ultimately be deleted for lack of sourcing, although I'm saving the information on my hard drive. The article provides a lot of notable examples of the use of a technique that seems to have no agreed upon name. As with other filming techniques that have no article ("undercranking" a/k/a "fast motion" would be an example), it's a legitimate topic. I agree that "reverse acting" was a bad choice of title, though I understand the author's point concerning an actor's role in complying with a directorial choice. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undercranking is mentioned at slow motion and at fast motion, although we still need the missing article on speed ramping. This technique is probably best described at reverse motion or reverse action. I can find sources describing it as an in-camera effect and sources saying that it is done with an optical printer. Uncle G (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.