Talk:Jesús Franco

Filmlist

A detailled list of his films can be found on the German version of the article. --Nemissimo II 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For list (with original titles), info, articles on his films and screenshots see it:Jesús Franco --Al Pereira(talk) 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

This entry was clearly written by a fanboy. Franco never made anything but shoddy, terribly directed quickies. Even his "better" films, like "Dracula" and "Jack the Ripper", are hastily puit together trash that fail on even the most basic artistic level. Thomas M+ 17:35 , September 3, 2020 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But in his defence his director of photography was even more incompetent than Franco was.FangoFuficius (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Franco has at least 4 major hardcover reference books devoted solely to analyzing and chronicling his 173 films. His career spanned over 50 years and he has thousands of fans all over the world. How many directors can make that claim? True, his films are not suited to everyone's taste, but you can't deny the man's accomplishments... (I just wish someone would put a decent photo of him on the page! That pic is truly horrendous....)

Filmography

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and say the previous filmography was basically junk. It cited two books and from my own viewing, it added tons of extra information, and flat out made up some material. Per WP:NLIST, wikipedia is not a list of endless of information, with context to these names (some of which which are flat out not in any source cited), we have not context to these titles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi 49Bottles. I've re-removed the list. Per WP:NLIST. Several pieces of material in that list were uncited or cited poorly, or were not backed up by the two books (which were just cited without page numbers or scrutiny). Without context for various items like alternative titles, this list is not useful for the average reader. The current article is a far clearer read, and does follow the sources strictly without interpretation or flat out unsourced material. Please do not revert it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC) :While I do appreciate its good to know what actors Franco has worked with, this requires context or a third-party source to bring up signifigant coverage. I'm sure fans like to see people were together as teams, but to the average reader, the importance of this would not be known. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC).

Dear Andrzejbanas: You deleted more than 80% of the Franco article with the click of a button, without any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. The section you deleted was meticulously designed so that a wiki-reader could quickly search the "NOTES" column and see the entire history of the collaborations (in date order) between Franco and the various actors and crew members he worked with. That column contains an ENORMOUS amount of researched data that took years to amass and verify. You replaced it with a bunch of near-empty columns that do not contain any of that information which you so casually deleted!

Here is a link to what the original Franco filmography looked like before it was deleted: previous iteration 49Bottles (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, almost every Franco film has so many alternate titles. The filmography you created only shows one title for each film (apparently chosen randomly by you) which means if someone is trying to look up a specific title on your filmography page, they have to be able to guess which title you chose for each film. If they know the film by an alternate title, they cannot possibly find it on your filmography page. I have no objection to your creating that separate filmography page (although it was unnecessary in my opinion), but I don't understand why you so cavalierly decided to erase almost EVERYTHING on the main article page without even consulting anyone. A lot of people worked for YEARS to create that page, and you just delete the whole thing without asking?? This is outrageous behavior. Every scrap of data on that list was backed up using the same two Stephen Thrower books you used yourself.

How about a compromise? I suggest we leave BOTH tables up so the readers can avail themselves of ALL the available information, instead of having you censor certain data that you personally are not interested in, wouldn't that be fair? I placed the link to your filmography page above the other section, so that the readers would see your page first. If you wish, you can even move your filmography's link all the way up to the top of the article! But PLEASE do not take it upon yourself to boldly delete 80% of an article that has been on wiki for so many years, on a whim? You can correct any errors that you find in the research, no problem. But you have no right to barge in like you own the page and make wholesale alterations to an article like that! 49Bottles (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thing...you claim the research on that page was "....just cited without page numbers...". They were the same two books YOU used yourself to create your filmography page. So you should know that those books feature a separate chapter on each Franco film, chronologically arranged in the table of contents. (Each chapter is only a few pages long.) So it's obvious what pages correspond to each film in the two books. Also you wrote "to the average reader, the importance of this (information) would not be "known" (meaning "relevant", I'm guessing?). The people who have used that Franco article for reference all these years are not just "average readers", they are obviously VERY interested in learning about who Franco collaborated with, the alternate titles of his films and the chronological order they were produced in, or else they wouldnt be researching the topic to begin with! The readers should be permitted to read all or part of the article and decide for themselves what facts regarding the topic are relevant to them, without your censoring what information they are permitted to read. Let's compromise and agree to leave both sections up, ok? That's the fairest thing to do. They're already set up as two separate articles, so they won't interfere with each other at all. In fact, the two articles will compliment each other.49Bottles (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Fans are going to want to know various different elements. And yes, I did cite those books, but on reading the material, I couldn't find a lot of the material said being backed up. I'll agree that Franco's filmography is complicated, but extrenious detail will make it more unusual for a general audience, which is who Wikipedia is written for. If you want to create the extra details, I'm sure several fan wikis will accommodate such information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What arrogance! Why don't YOU write for the fan wikis and stop your disruptive behavior? I think your actions border on vandalism! Another thing --- your filmography is rife with errors. It's not even well-done. You even admit that "Franco's filmography is complicated" and yet it looks like you created the entire page in less than TWO DAYS!! The page you are deleting took ten YEARS to create! 49Bottles (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't really need two articles stating the same, information. As for the information being gathered up from years, it only cites two books. I've used the same two books (and a third, and some others) to clarify information. With all due respect, your account was just created yesterday, whom are you speaking for?

As for the extra information, I've already listed the rules I'm following, and your suggestions and the previous version were not following the format. This is why the change was made. The current article does both display the films in the order they were developed and the earliest known release dates.

I'm more interested in following the rules I've listed above and discussing how we can format it to follow it then appeasing any perception of what fans would expect. Wikipedia isn't written from a fan perspective. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair, just generally, WP:FANCRUFT suggest to "avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. In-universe topics must demonstrate out-of-universe notability." and WP:LISTCRIT, and "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." I'm not sure what your specific issue is as you have pointed out its both very inaccurate while still using the only two previous sources mentioned, but also that it took years to create. While I admire the effort put into it, the previous format was breaking the several rules I've mentioned earlier I don't want to bog down you with mentioning again. Andrzejbanas (talk)User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

== I just learned you have a history of disruptive behavior on wikipedia ==

Dear Andrzejbanas: After you vandalized the "Jesus Franco" article unnecessarily today by deleting almost 80% of the article's content without consulting anyone on the Franco talk page, I did a bit of research and I see you are currently blocked from editing a number of wiki pages due to "disruptive behavior" and "Sealioning". Apparently you have a HISTORY of boldly deleting whole sections of various wikipedia articles without going through the proper editing procedures. You have apparently harassed a number of editors by posting novel-length "walls of text" on their talk pages, in an attempt to force your opinions on them during various talk-page discussions. (See August 6, 2024 and August 12, 2024 on this guy's talk page above). I guess you haven't learned your lesson? I see you haven't changed your ways, that's for sure.:::49Bottles (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do not think we can discuss further unless you talk about the content or how to best suit the standards or rules or what sources state over just trying to state I'm as a malicious editor. If you want to discuss the article, great, lets do it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you want here other than unsourced content to be reinstated, and I do not think any editor would agree that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This comment was posted re: the Franco page yesterday, as follows:

"Though I'd agree that user 49Bottles was not always civil in their criticisms, I do believe that their criticisms were very valid. The old Franco filmography section was the most accurate and thorough catalog of Franco's films generally available on the internet. The new version, while sleeker, is basically useless (especially given the proliferation of titles for many films)." Cloreenbaconskin (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Cloreen. I can tell you are a Jesus Franco fan. The page he created is almost void of any useful information. 49Bottles (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not the only Franco fan who wants the old page reinstated. A number of readers found it very useful the way it was, before it was vandalized. You have to get Consensus on the talk page before you take it upon yourself to delete an entire article, just because you're not personally interested in the material. Are you kidding me?49Bottles (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cloreenbaconskin:, your comment here seems to be your very first comment or contribution on wikipedia. May I ask how you stumbled upon this conversation? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The comment was mistakenly sent to my talk page, so I reposted it over to the Jesus Franco talk page where it belonged. 49Bottles (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am interested on expanding the works of Franco into their own articles, as I have done with Rififi in the City, and Attack of the Robots. Cast and alternative titles can be expanded upon there, but currently almost nothing in the previous version had grounds in WP:WEIGHT or other rules suggested or was not attributed to the sources listed, or used fawtly sources such as IMDb (see WP:RS/IMDb.) While I've asked you before to comment on the content and not the actions, I'm not sure you understand why we should not return to an unsourced version of an article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Any ImDB references on that page were most likely put there in the distant past by earlier editors who obviously didn't know not to use ImdB. The problem with your wanting to move the trivia info from the previous filmography to the individual films' own articles, is that you only list each film on your filmography by one title in each case. I don't know how you chose which title to use for each film, but a lot of readers would never click on the individual articles that you're writing if they know those films by an alternate title. If you listed the alternate titles on your filmography, then yes, the trivia found in the "Notes" column which you deleted could be moved to the individual articles and there would be no need for the deleted filmography at that point. But you only list one title for each film, so many readers would not recognize a lot of the titles when they try to look them up on your filmography. (You must realize the Franco filmography is very unique in that his films were known by so many different titles, it's a very unique situation.) 49Bottles (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, are you actually planning on creating a separate article for EVERY Franco film? In all likelihood, you'd never make it to the end. Is it even possible?49Bottles (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The title situation has been clarified within the article itself. If you have issues with specific titles, please discuss it on that articles talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What i'm saying is the reader may never get to SEE the article because he's not finding the film listed on your filmography page. He or she may know that film by an alternate title, which means they won't ever see it on the filmography list, so they will never get to click on the article that corresponds to it. I'm not suggesting listing every alternate title for each film, just the main one or two major alternate titles that the reader may associate that film with 49Bottles (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is something to discuss on the other list on how to best resolve. I've reached out to WP:FILM to see if any other editors can contribute to organize the situation. If you want to have some alternative titles on a case by case basis, I would suggesting bringing that up on the talk page on the filmography page. In the meantime, please do not link to article within the history on the main space here or elsewhere per the rules mentioned above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)