Talk:Prop

message: :Once upon a time both the Prop and Theatrical properties (this article) discussed the same topic. Then they were both merged into Theatrical properties. The relevent histroy from Prop now exists at Talk:Theatrical properties/Early history.--Commander Keane 07:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic

message: It appears that there are several different types of Theatrical props being discussed here and it may need some sort of separation as much information has been added refers to film and television which differs greatly from theatre.--Amadscientist 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't grasp the film aspect of a article with "theatrical" in the title. --Lekogm 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure - the usage and concerns of both arts with regard to props are largely identical. At least enough so that writing two different articles would not result in enough divergence to justify the exercise, which would mainly consist of identical text. What specifically makes them different? Girolamo Savonarola 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a better idea would be to rename the article Property (Theatrical and Film)? --Lekogm 18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, I come from the film world, and can't see what makes theatrical props all that different. Weren't they originally called "stage props" (which applies to both theatre and film)? Binba 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatrical, Film/Televison seperation 

message: I recently stumbled upon the frequent use of the term "hero" prop (notably from the upcoming auctioning of Battlestar Gallactica props, and then also elsewhere while trying to figure out what exactly it means).  Apparently everyone in the movie business knows exactly what "hero props" are, but I am astonished that it is not even mentioned here, or at the Hero disambiguation page, or elsewhere in Wikipedia or Wiktionary.  In any case, apparently hero props are authentic, highly detailed props that are handled and used by film actors, and frequently used for closeup shots, production stills, and other situations where the deep details are needed for a credible appearance, particularly in high definition productions.  This would be as opposed to cheapr, more casual, less detailed props and equipment that gets used perhaps in longer shots, and used by extras and doubles in action scenes.  Anyway I am not an expert in this sort of theatrical thing, and do not want to be accused of posting unverifiable original research or something.  Frankly I am not even sure what would constitute a reliable source for this sort of thing.  I just know that hero props as a concept exists, and that we need to cover it somehow, assuming it is not already covered somewhere and I simply failed to find it.  Would like some consensus from some theater, film production, and props experts on how to deal with this matter, before I go blundering in and be declared "wrong" about it.  I think we either need to create a new article called "Hero props", or add a new section here in Theatrical property, or add an short descriptive entry on the Hero disambig page, and create a redirect page to the appropriate holder for the string "Hero props", assuming a new article is not created.  Thanks!  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hero" props 

message: To many editors not reading this entire article before adding information already in place. This article is need of a drastic clean up.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant information 

message: "A prop weapon (such as a stage gun or a stage sword) that reads well but..."  The word "read" there is either a typo, or an extremely arcane usage (jargon?) that most readers won't have seen before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.138.16 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is jargon. "Reads" in theatrical use means how something on stage appears to the audience. It is already explained in the preceding paragraph.oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre word... 

message: Movie prop redirects here, and the article discusses it as well, so this is not just "theatrical property". Any suggestions for a new name? How about prop (film and theatre)? Trying to squeeze TV there may be too much... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the worst suggestion I've ever seen. At one point the article was moved to prop (stage, screen), which is unacceptable as a disambiguator. Changing that to "(theatre and film)" is better, but still awkward. And "theatre" should come first because they developed in theatre centuries before film existed as a medium. In fact, that's part of the reason I don't mind the current title; props are essentially the same for both. Sure, some movie props may be more detailed because of close-ups (the "hero" props mentioned in the above section), but the concept and execution is largely the same. oknazevad (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used film first just b/c of alphabetical order, I have no strong feelings here. And for the record, I prefer film to movie/TV since the academic field is film studies, not movie studies or TV studies. My main issue is that the current title doesn't reflect the scope - the title is limited to theatre, whereas the concept has long spread to the silver screen format as well (and possibly even to video games). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I feel changing the title here in this way could lead to a slippery slope. While yes, theatrical props are used in other media they are still called theatrical, or stage, props. The only graduate program in the United States for properties calls it "stage properties", Universal Studios Properties department just calls them "props", and all the major hand books and text books about properties design refer the them as "props", "stage properties", "theater props", and "theatrical properties". If the purpose of changing the name of the article is to be inclusive of things other than theater that use props we cant just stop at film. They are also used in exhibition design, window displays, interior design, event planning, restaurant and nightclub design,  etc. etc. etc. I would be open to renaming the page "Stage properties" as that does seem to be more widely used in reliable sources than "theatrical properties" even though I personally know and use the "theatrical" term more. "Stage" may also be more inclusive as it relates to a theater stage, a sound stage, "staging" a house, and "staging" an exhibition.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stage prop" is not the worst title I've ever heard. oknazevad (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name needed 

message: The info presented here on "prop guns" is mostly gibberish. There should be a differentiation between firearms (real guns, which is what most movies use), props (i.e. rubber rifles used for stunt work), and BFONGs (the legal term for a blank firing only non gun). 
174.0.48.147 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to break it down https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-23/why-do-movie-productions-use-guns-questions-answered/100562686 174.0.48.147 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

text: "prop" does not mean "fake".  A real gun used in a movie is a "prop". SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The statement "it is considered a firearm, not a prop" appears to be a misquote that is contradicted by the cited source. The cited source states, "Prop Firearm: It's a loose definition and could apply to anything from a rubber toy to a real firearm that can fire a projectile." and "if it's used for firing — even just blanks — it's considered a real gun." In that any prop item resembling a firearm is to be treated/considered as if it is a real firearm. Fyrye (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the "not a prop" part which is indeed contradicted by the sources in the article, and many others. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prop Gun 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to Prop. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Prop to become dab page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Theatrical property →  – WP:COMMONNAME, everyone calls it a prop. 150.250.5.20 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, although Prop (stagecraft) would be my suggestion. 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or simply Prop (stage) as suggested above. Films are shot on sound stages, after all. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was to be consistent with :Category:Stagecraft, though there's nothing wrong with Prop (stage) either. 162 etc. (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Prop (stage) works for me. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I should probably add that I do not support a move to just "prop" or "props".--Found5dollar (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a terrible title that flies in the face of pretty much every Wikipedia naming convention. oknazevad (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! this comment flies in the face of civility, I see you have your own pet favorite. if you want to be constructive try explaining naming conventions.WakeUpBoo (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:QUALIFIER "...when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen".  In your suggestion, including the word "property" is redundant and unnecessary to disambiguate it from other articles about other subjects. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  I think that the title should lead with "Prop" followed by whatever disambiguation is preferred, wherever they are in use this is the term used, as it says the at the beginning of the article.WakeUpBoo (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, we generally prefer natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation where possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fair comment, but there is also recognizability, precision and concision to be considered.WakeUpBoo (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Your suggestion is indeed used occasionally, although I would not categorize it as "common", and is not used enough to make it preferable to parenthetical disambiguation in my opinion.  SaltySaltyTears (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 October 2021 

message: — Assignment last updated by Pandastmina (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Theatre and Technology