Talk:I Vampiri

I Vampiri or I vampiri?
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)
 * Oh I'm well aware of that, 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)
 * 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)
 * No worries. I'm glad someone even noticed this article. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra titles
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)
 * 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,, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. maybe? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Uncredited in infobox
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)


 * I agree. The article should reflect the reality, credits are secondary. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, see POV, this is not a blog. See and  ; the sources (also reported on the text in "External Links").--2.232.70.45 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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. ) 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 &thinsp; Wölf 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * NO...this is not a blog... 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: (p 13) ;   (p 54) ;  (p 174) ;  ; and the most important Italian encyclopaedia source  and  ...understand Pov means (see 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)


 * "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)
 * 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)


 * Your intervention is totally misleading.. and see 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)
 * 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)


 * Sorry but your rv are vandalism ( see Disruptive editing); Repeat : this is not a blog... 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: (p 13) ;   (p 54) ;  (p 174) ;  ; and the most important Italian encyclopaedia source  and  ...understand Pov means (see 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, I'll be happy to discuss them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)