Talk:Cinema of Italy

Ce
Hi. Can you please point to some of the mistakes you said you saw when you put the ce banner on this article? I ce'd this article pretty extensively after the translated edits from User:LukeWiller, and just gave it another very quick skim and didn't find anything glaring, so please let me know what you saw. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, In this article in notable actor's section have full stop after each actors name. In Eng grammar, we place full stop after the line complete. Auteurs section also have same problem, Probably it have more such errors, if a experienced copyeditor did ce in it, it'll improve this article. Success think (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a major reason to place a tag on top of the whole article, I'm removing the tag for now. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  I have removed the full stop after each auteurs and actors name. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

, I didn't placed copyediting tag without a reason. I suggest you to check whole article once again for grammatical mistakes. How can a article about such a big developed country have such grammar mistakes? Success think (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

, I think you wrote wrong punctuations there, the right one is coma, not ';'. Success think (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please state where these are. All you pointed to was the punctuation in a list which is hardly a major problem. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  I have corrected as indicated. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

Ok, good. Success think (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Organization
I'm struggling a bit with the organization of this article. At the moment it is almost entirely framed as a chronological history. However, some of the subsections don't fit neatly into the chronological model. In particular, animation: it is placed as a subsection of 1940s, but covers events from then until almost the present day. Other sections have similar issues, although less extreme. I can think of a couple of different approaches to address this. Option one would be to go with a pure chronological model, which would involve splitting up some of the existing subsections. Option two would be to switch to a thematic history (eg by genre), which would involve more reorganization but would keep like content together. Any page watchers have thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the pure chronological model. Since it's about history, in my opinion it would be the most logical approach, with the "story" of the history of Italian cinema being dissected chronologically. --LukeWiller (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC).
 * I agree with LukeWiller about the chronological approach, even if it does have its weaknesses. To reconstruct the article at this point is a monumental task which is not worth it. I also think that at this point, the tag about excessive detail can be dropped. If not, could @Nikkimaria make suggestions about how to reduce excessive detail? As for the encyclo tone, I don't find excessive boosterism or casual slang in the article. What would be examples of problems in tone? Melchior2006 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In terms of detail, there's still quite a bit of examplefarming - for example the 2000s section is mostly listing examples of notable films. In terms of tone, an example is "A new authorial vision is emancipated from the surreal and existential veins of Fellini and Antonioni" (and much of that section continues along those lines). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points, I will take a look. Can you define examplefarming? The term is new for me. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:EXAMPLEFARM - essentially just providing a list of examples rather than focusing on concepts. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)