Jump to content

Talk:I Vampiri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Vampiri or I vampiri?

[edit]

FWIW, the second one is the original form of the name in Italian, as Italian only capitalizes the first word in the film name. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm well aware of that @Daß Wölf:, I debated that in the article. However, the English-friendly home video versions of the full film give it an English title of "I Vampiri" with the capital V. Even the Curti book which I cite here tried to use the most common English-friendly title of the film for his book and refers to the film as "I Vampiri" while he gives the Italian title as "I vampiri". I'm pretty okay with the capital V. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just mentioned it because I wasn't sure if you were aware of that. Great job on the article! Daß Wölf (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm glad someone even noticed this article. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:I Vampiri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Squeamish Ossifrage, and I'll be your reviewer. Opening this page now; in-depth comments coming shortly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1- A Good Article is well-written.

Some issues on 1a: prose. No indication of plagiarism in randomly spot-checked passages.

  • "Lantin investigates the mysterious Du Grand family who lives in a castle occupied by Gisele Du Grand who is in love with Lantin, her aunt who hides her face in a veil, and the scientist Julian Du Grand who is trying to find the secret to eternal youth." It's difficult to parse this sentence, and there's more than one grammatically defensible reading. For example, this might be a list of three people: Gisele, her aunt, and Julian. Alternatively, it could be Gisele, who is in love with (both) her aunt and Julian. Or it could be Gisele (who is in love with Lantin) and Julian. I think you intend the last of these, but restructing this passage may be the best way to present that.
  • "Freda made a deal with producers at the Italian film studio Titanus that he could create a cheap horror film by writing a story in one day and filming it in two weeks." The phrasing "made a deal ... that" is awkward. Perhaps "made a deal ... to create" instead?
  • "body buried was that of Josephs" Either "was Jospeh's" or "was that of Joseph". I'd start the next sentence differently as well, to ensure that the reader knows this is a corpse being transported (this is a movie about vampires and weird resurrection experiments, after all!).
  • "reassigned from the following the Vampire story" Just "reassigned from following".
Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have at least one "du Grand", but elsewhere "Du Grand".
  • "At the castle, he meets Gisele (Gianna Maria Canale) who expresses her admiration for Lantin who reminds her of his father." I'm not entirely sure I followed this sentence properly. Too many pronouns in rapid sequence. At the very least, "expresses admiration" would be okay.
  • "an experimental transfer between Giselle and Lorette which restores her beauty." Whose beauty? I know from context, but grammatically, the sentence implies Lorette is the answer. Perhaps consider something like "an experiment to transfer Lorette's youth and beauty to Giselle"?
  • "chief executive officer of Titanus, Goffredo Lombardo stated" Needs a comma after Lombardo.
  • "Goffredo Fofi stated in 1963, that" On the other hand, you don't need the comma here.
  • "Freda has only mentioned Regnoli during the writing process while the film's credits add a fictional writer and scenarist Rijk Sijöstrom." There may be some problems with verb tense here. Also, am I reading this correctly that Sijöstrom is entirely fictional? If so, that probably needs introduced earlier in the paragraph.
  • I've moved it around. I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it. Curti's book just states "The credits in the Italian version also feature, as co-scenarist and scriptwriter, a non-existent Rijk Sijöstrom." and don't go on about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's story derives from uncredited elements." It's fairly strong wording to say "derives from" here, which implies that the story was more directly adapted from sources Freda didn't credit. I'd introduce these as "influences" or "inspirations" for the story, which I believe your sources support; you already discuss Poe in that context.
  • "Freda and Canale had first worked together on Il cavaliere misterioso (1948), their relationship lead to Freda leaving his wife to go Canale to Brazil where they made two more films." Should be a semicolon after the parenthetical date; otherwise, this is a run-on sentence. Also, "led" in place of "lead" here.
  • "with only a single scene at the Aniene river was filmed" You do not need the "was" in this sentence.
  • "effects was involved" Don't need the "was" here either.
  • "This effect has been done" Should be "had been done".
  • "...finding the heroine hung." In this sense (and only this sense), "hanged" is correct.
  • "Freda's deal with his producers failed as he had left the set on the twelfth day of production." This doesn't read quite correctly to me. Perhaps "when he left the set" would be better.
  • Do you have a translation for Quella che voleva amare?
  • It roughly translates to "The One Who Wanted to be Loved", but this translation is not in the book and not an official title as I don't have any info on an English language release of this material. So I can remove the added English translation if you think that's needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors are permitted to provide direct translations; doing so isn't considered original research except in weird cases that aren't relevant here. I think that the MOS-compliant way to display this would be: Quella che voleva amare [The One Who Wanted to Be Loved], but as I'm failing to find that buried in the manual of style, what you've got seems more than adequate for this level of article curation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In their retrospective reviews, AllMovie wrote" Unless there's more than one, singular "review" here.
  • I'm not sure how best to credit Danny Shipka. Introducing him as the author of a (not itself notable) book takes up a lot of space, but doesn't really inform the reader much. I'm aware that he's not really a film historian per se. Perhaps something shorter like "Danny Shipka, author of a book on European exploitation films,..."
Criterion 2- A Good Article is verifiable with no original research

Sources are reliable, and the article is well-referenced. Strictly speaking, the GA requirements for reference formatting are extremely lax, but there are some elements of reference formatting that you may wish to improve on nevertheless:

  • References that are in languages other than English (presumably the I Vampiri booklet and the Talbot source) need their language specified.
  • Both are English actually, despite Diabolique's magazines French sounding title. I don't believe it let's you add the language if it's in English in the template for citation I'm using. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about linking publishers. For example, you link Arrow Films in #25, but not at first appearance (#5) or #16. Broadly speaking, you have three options with publisher links: never, first appearance, or always. Any is acceptable, but you need to be consistent.
  • It's absolutely not a GA-level criterion, but you may want to use this converter to render all your ISBNs into properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s, which are most correct according to the current standard.
Criterion 3- A Good Article is broad in its coverage

The only criticism I have here is that you mention this film as the first Italian horror film of the sound era. And that's true! But the reader is left uncertain whether there were many silent-era Italian horror films, or only one. In fact, it is the latter, as a source you already cite notes. It's probably worth mentioning Il mostro di Frankenstein here. It even has an article to link to.

Criterion 4- A Good Article is neutral

No objections.

Criterion 5- A Good Article is stable

No objections.

Criterion 6- A Good Article is illustrated, if possible, with images.

Pending. I'm currently looking into the oddities of the URAA to ensure that the image from the film is properly licensed and to see if it can be replaced with a superior one. Ah, copyright law. Italy's is weird, and permits fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche to be considered in the category of (broadly) "simple photographs" that enter public domain 20 years after publication. Because this film was published in 1957, a screenshot from that film (but not, notably, the film itself) would enter public domain under this standard in 1977. That's why the (very heavily cropped) screenshot used here is licensed {{PD-Italy}}. But it's sometimes more complicated than that, because URAA allowed certain works to revert to copyright status (this is what happened to Metropolis). In this case, there's no evidence in the US copyright registration records that this film was ever registered for US copyright (as I Vampiri, The Devil's Commandment, or Lust of the Vampire), much less registered and then renewed. Accordingly, those images would also be in the public domain in the US, and so not subject to URAA reversion. That's a lot of text, but what it means is that there's no reason to use such a heavy cropped screenshot. Again from the BFI source is the full screenshot of the same scene. I'd strongly encourage you to replace the one in use here with that one, with the licensing described as above. Separately, the poster is properly licensed as fair-use (it is not public domain in Italy). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to replace the image. I'll try and do this properly without getting a slap on the wrist from the wiki police. Let's try it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved by the new image. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional notes

While these are not components of any of the GA criteria, they are aspects of the article you may wish to consider, and that you would be questioned about should you take this article to FAC.

  • The Film Wikiproject's recommended structure of a film article includes a cast section. That's not strictly required, and you do identify the cast parenthetically in the Plot section, but it's worth considering.
  • I'll generally pass on cast section unless I can add a lot of information. In this one I can't as there wasn't much info about the casting outside that "hey! these guys showed up in other horror films later!", which isn't really specific to this film. The cast is explained in both the intro, infobox and prose and it wouldn't expand very much. If you insist, I'll be happy to source an addition. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use mmm dd, yyyy dates. As this is an Italian film, a case can be made that it has strong national ties to a dd mmm yyyy country.
  • I'll change that around.

In general, this is very close to meeting the GA standard. Mostly, there's just some tightening of prose necessary before I'll be happy to award it the little green badge. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, and I'm pleased to promote. I think that there's still some uneven prose in some places; this could probably benefit from a run through peer review for copyediting before you take it to FAC, if indeed you have a desire to do so. But this easily satisfies the GA criteria. Nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Squeamish Ossifrage:! I appreciate your time to review the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extra titles

[edit]

I'm not sure why we are giving prominence to The Devil's Commandment in the lead. It was a title used for an alternative version of the film with extra footage, but we ignore the Lust of the Vampire title used in the United Kingdom. When I did the research for this article (which was all of it), only in the initial review from the Monthly Film Bulletin did it receive the Lust for the Vampire title, even Variety reviewed it as I Vampiri. Predominantly title use for historical, journalistic, and literary sources for the film refer to it as I Vampiri with only a small portion noting the The Devil's Commandment title. We are giving too much prominence of it for a title which hasn't been used to describe the film continuously in years. I can't find any wikipedia rules related to films or alternative titles stating what the standards are, but I don't see why we can use it other than some intern at Rotten Tomatoes has made it a prominent title on their site.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary drama, who hurts having the English title in the lead? First of all, I agree about the Lust of the Vampire title, you are welcome to add it to the lead, or I can add it, if you prefer. Or maybe we can rearrange the lead, adding a sentence saying it was released in the US as The Devil's Commandment and in UK as Lust of the Vampire. Secondly, the lead says "also known as", so the point that "I Vampiri" is the predominant title (something I agree with) does not change or interfere with the point it is also known with the alternative title. About 99,9% of film articles mention their alternative titles in the lead, and as long as this is the English WP do not mentioning an English theatrical release title is hardly "excessive prominence". As previously noted, dozens of recent books mention the "Devil's Commandment" title, [1], and mention it immediately before or after the original title, and several of them even use it as primary title. Cavarrone 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in adding every alternative title to the lead unless it's a common prominent title. I don't think it's as important as other information. If you want to include the alternative titles, I'd leave it at third paragraph at best, but it's not worth mentioning in the lead which makes it a bit of a mouthful. And those book sources you are showing me are mostly brief titles saying "Hey, here's an alternative title" without continiouslly referring to it by this title, because nobody is doing that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible controversy... as long as this is the English Wikipedia, there is a large, gigantic point in adding the US and UK English-language theatrical release titles to the lead, especially as this is the standard practice in film articles, and I keep on not seeing the reason for an exception other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Book sources saying "Hey, here's an alternative title" without continiouslly referring to it by this title is an interesting point: that's nothing more than what we generally do in film articles and that's what I am requesting here; as well as authorative book sources including encyclopedias mention the alternative titles in the lead/at the beginning of their analysis and then use only the primary title in the body, here noone requests to keeping to referring to the film by its alternative titles, which would be odd and confusing. Also, there are a few notable book exceptions such as Keep Watching the Skies!: American Science Fiction Movies of the Fifties by Bill Warren and Bill Thomas (McFarland, 2009), Suspiria by Alexandra Heller-Nicholas (Columbia University Press, 2015), The Video Watchdog Book by Tim Lucas (Video Watchdog, 1992), which use The Devil's Commandment as main title, and I am pretty sure by experience that contemporary reviews at the time of the theatrical release of the film used the English-language titles ignoring the original one. While not the "common prominent title" here and now, The Devil's Commandment in the US (and Lust of the Vampire in UK) were certainly common prominent titles at the time of the theatrical release of the film, and notability is not temporary. Last but not least, alternative names (not just related to films) in general are always in the lead, because they help readers to immediately identify the subject of the article, especially the readers who arrived here through an alternative title redirect and the minority who knows the subject by one of its alternative titles; "important as other information" or not, which is a matter of opinion, there is no point in hiddening them in a large wall of text. Anyway, as said above, I am fine with the compromise, i.e. adding the titles in a sentence to the third paragraph at the end of the lead section. Actually the matter did not required nor deserved so much discussion, as long as it was so easily solvable. Cavarrone 06:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't need so much attention? Why did you write so much? ;) I'm happy with our compromise and will be happy to make the edit in the next few days. Might as well leave it open a bit more to see if anyone else wants to way in. @PatTheMoron: maybe? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late reply. Although my edits to the page are rudimentary at best, I'd simply suggest giving prominence to the Italian title rather than the re-edited English version or the lesser-known and lesser-applied UK version. Is that a fair call? PatTheMoron (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous comment, this is because it seems that the Italian title appears to be better known than the English ones. If you were unsure as to what titles English and international audiences might use, I'd say put them in, but if the Italian title is better known, give it prominence over the alt. ones. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved the titles. Outside the occasional 'aka', I barely find information regarding it's other titles, especially Lust of the Vampire, so I've changed it now. Thanks for discussing this everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited in infobox

[edit]

I'm against using the "uncredited" tag in the infobox for Bava and others. The credits for this film are particularly confusing, as they credit a fictional Swedish writer. But he is still on IMDb (last time I checked a few months back) and in the film credits. But he is not a real person, how do we note that in the infobox? We can't really do it cleanly, so in this case I'm leaning towards not having any extra info. Besides, the infobox is supposed to follow what is in the article. It currently does. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should reflect the reality, credits are secondary. Daß Wölf 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, see Wikipedia:POV, this is not a blog. See [2] and [3] ; the sources (also reported on the text in "External Links").--2.232.70.45 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links are not necessarily reliable sources. IMDb is user-generated and thus not a reliable source. As for Rotten Tomatoes, they're primarily a review aggregation website, and not a film database, they've been known to get things wrong on occasion, especially with old movies. Meanwhile, there are plenty of sources both in the article (see the Production section) and elsewhere online (e.g. [4][5]) indicating that Freda quit and was replaced by Bava as the director. Unless all these sources can be discredited, it is pretty obvious that Bava did direct too and the article should reflect that. This is an encyclopedia article, not a marketing piece, thus, credits are of secondary importance.
Also, please stop reintroducing your changes. The reason we're discussing this here on the talk page is to reduce clutter in the page history and avoid an edit war, and "rv, see talk page" doesn't help that. Daß Wölf 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NO...this is not a blog...([6]) in an encyclopedia article you have to be precise and avoid personal points of view (not reliable)..The article reports collaborating with Bava but your editing is very personal...your sources are not reliable and Rotten Tomatoes is more important than yours sources. But we eliminate any doubt. There are important sources on the net...indisputable sources (Full stop) Here are listed: [7] (p 13) ; [8] (p 54) ; [9] (p 174) ; [10] ; and the most important Italian encyclopaedia source [11] and [12] ...understand Pov means (see Wikipedia:POV)... pleasing your Pov is in the eyes of everyone. Avoid imposing your very questionable changes.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"r sources are not reliable and Rotten Tomatoes is more important than yours sources.". Hmm. Okay, you have no credit of who is getting the information from Rotten Tomatoes. A site that does not state an author of who adds the content or where the information is coming from. And then you cite books which are (Louis Paul's "Italian Horror Film Directors" which states on page 84 that Bava came in to complete the film as its director. (here). Your other source Popular Italian Cinema: Culture and Politics in a Postwar Society states Freda directed, but does not suggest Bava did not. You have to stick to the source, the same book even goes on to mention Bava directing several of Freda's work mentioning Caltiki on 77 and in no way suggests he did not direct it. Your Images journal plainly states " Mario Bava turned to directing. He had previously directed several scenes in both I Vampiri and Caltiki after Freda had left the sets during disagreements with the producers.". And for your encyclopedia source, which does not say anything other than Fred directed the film (which he surely did), but just because it skips over Bava's involvement (which makes sense, this is an article about Freda, not Bava or I vampiri). Regardless, per WP:TERTIARY we generally do not cite other encyclopedias. I'm actually not changing anything. Rearding WP:POV, you state "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." There is no real question that Freda left the production as its clearly brought up in the books by Danny Skipka, Louis Paul, and Roberto Curti who are all published authors. Curti himself has recently published an entire book on Freda this very year. I'm not sure what the bias is, you seem to be removing it, but whats the problem with the phrasing? The statement is what all in-depth writing on the film I have written to boost it to a GA has mentioned it. Before removing it again, could you propose a re-phrasing? Otherwise, I am not really sure what you are getting at, because you seem to want WP:RS, which we've already discussed on your talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per your "this is not a blog", I do not see how WP:NOTBLOG relates either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your intervention is totally misleading.. and see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing... I have quoted serious and reliable sources ... this is not BLOG and is in the eyes of everyone.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be critical but is english not your first language? I'll repeat again, the information is sourced in the article. If you want to state that my sources are not good, you'll have to back that up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your rv are vandalism ( see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing); Repeat : this is not a blog...([13]) in an encyclopedia article you have to be precise and avoid personal points of view (not reliable)..The article reports collaborating with Bava but your editing is very personal...There are important sources on the net...indisputable sources (Full stop) Here are listed: [14] (p 13) ; [15] (p 54) ; [16] (p 174) ; [17] ; and the most important Italian encyclopaedia source [18] and [19] ...understand Pov means (see Wikipedia:POV)... pleasing your Pov is in the eyes of everyone. Avoid imposing your very questionable changes--2.232.70.45 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, you just said all this already here. I have already replied to you (twice, once here, once on your talk page) noting that your sources are actually stating that Bava completed the film as its director. If you could, could you answer three questions?
  1. Is it the phrasing that is problematic or do you feel that Bava is not officially a director?
  2. Could you address what I have stated earlier that the 'official credits (i.e: the ones in the film print) credit fictional people such as the Swedish writer. Do you feel we should strive to match the print or the historical evidence?

I'd really like you to follow these up, because otherwise, I am not sure you are reading mine and the others posts on this page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I'm going to revert back the edits from the IP. If anyone else has any strong concerns relating to it outside me and @Daß Wölf:, I'll be happy to discuss them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Vampiri&oldid=1210827501"