Talk:Tenebrae (film)

NOT
Saying that something is abnormal is not POV. That is like saying that if I were to say that murdering is socially unacceptable then I am expressing a POV. While some people considering murdering acceptable, most don't so it's not a POV to say it's generally not an accepted practice. Varpness

"Aberrant" Sexuality
Hi. Like the article a lot but I'm slightly concerned about describing the sexual themes of the film as "aberrant" (defined by OED as "not usual or not socially acceptable"). Seems to me that it's a POV description. I guess it would correspond to the POV of the killer in the film but I think that it's problematic to repeat it unqualified here because it could look like the authors' POV. (Which I don't think is reflected in the actual text, just the heading)

So I was trying to think of better ways to title the section but I'm hampered by it being a long time since seeing the film. Possibilities might be adding quotes around "aberrant" (clumsy) or something like Sexual Anxiety or Sexual Fetishism?

Chaikney 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the best choice would be to simply add quotes around "aberrant", as I have now done in response to your comments, because that's actually the way the word is noted in the original title of one of the referenced essays. As you suspected, use of this term is not the POV of the writers who propose the theory in relation to this particular film.  Sexual deviancy or aberrant sexuality, or what is perceived as such by Argento's often twisted characters, is a recurring theme that runs thru all of the director's giallos and appears as a central issue (according to the referenced writers) in Tenebrae.  I don't think "Sexual Anxiety" or "Sexual Fetishism" are strong enough terms to fully reflect this theme.Hal Raglan 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wicked. Looking forward to seeing this as a featured article. Chaikney not logged in.81.159.9.181

This article needs...
Zzzzz 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Zzzzz 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * this sentence tidied up: "a metal sculpture with sharp spikes that lands on, and gorily impales, the demented writer"
 * FIXED (I hope!)Hal Raglan 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * fairuse images need fairuse rationale
 * Not sure what you mean. Please explain.Hal Raglan 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Hal Raglan 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * more on the lucas & mcdonagh writings in "response" section, as described in peer review. also did it get labelled a "video nasty" in britain? according to : "Tenebrae (1982) was banned on video in the UK during the 1980s because of British Board of Film Classification's fears about its theme of sexual violence. One scene that provoked particular offence depicted a young semi-naked “woman” being beaten by one of her lovers. It was the centrality of this scene that provoked one critic, Mark Le Fanu, to argue that Argento was preoccupied with “devising novel and increasingly nasty ways” (4) of killing his female characters. However, the actress in the scene was actually a transsexual actor, once again indicating Argento's ability to manipulate even the views of his outraged critics. " also see the 2 external links in the video nasty article, both discuss the cutting & banning of Tenebrae.
 * Added info re: the film's "Video Nasty" status and subsequent video history.Hal Raglan 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Have included additional McDonagh and Lucas comments, most of them in the new "Themes" section.Hal Raglan 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * my only issue here is that "reel.com" and "ozus world movie review" are neither well-known, established, or reputable so are there reviews really notable? there should definitely be some negative criticism but i would prefer to see specific negative comments from the argento/horror experts (mcdonagh, jones, newman, kermode, lucas etc), or other more reputable sources than the ones currently used. Zzzzz 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on those two writers; I had never heard of them prior to starting my research. As I looked for negative reviews, I used the usual sources:  DVD Beaver, DVD Basen, MRQE, and imdb.com.  As it turns out, the film really is generally considered to be one of Argento's best efforts and negative views from established writers are pretty difficult to find.  (Tim Lucas reconsidered the film to a certain extent recently and has made some negative comments that perhaps could be incorporated -- but overall he still likes the movie).  I couldn't locate anything Kim Newman has said about the film other than generalities in his Nightmare Movies book.  I will do a search for Mark Kermode and see what I come up with.  By the way, I have a similar problem with a change you've made to the final sentence of the second paragraph:  "and is generally regarded as Argento's most personal film to date."  You then link to a reviewer every bit as obscure as the reel.com and ozus world moview review writers.  One unknown reviewer suggesting the film is Argento's most personal does not mean its a generally held view.  I just did a quick search thru Google and on the first page the following movies are described on various websites as his "most personal":  The Stendhal Syndrome, Trauma, and Opera; one site notes that Argento has claimed Phenomena as being "my most personal", although it doesn't provide a link to an actual quote stating that.  I think I will delete that particular addition; most of your other edits look good, tho!  Hal Raglan 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the musical score should be discussed in a bit more detail than it is at present.
 * Added info on Goblin in the "Production" section and a new "Soundtrack" section with full info on the soundtrack album.Hal Raglan 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * a new section "themes" with discussion about the primary themes of the film, which i think are "aberrant sexuality", "the films & violence debate" and "the whodunit formula" (each of those could get a subsection, i provided external links about them). maybe "light and darkness" is also a theme but i dont know the film well enough. i'm sure mcdonahg, alan jones, tim lucas etc also have said something on these matters.
 * Based on your suggestion, I've added a "Themes" section. I didn't necessarily agree with some of your ideas, but the "aberrant sexuality" theme was definitely addressed in depth by a few writers, so I incorporated that one. Consider this a quickly written rough first draft version, to be tweaked, or completely rehauled, in the future by anyone who is willing to have a go at it.Hal Raglan 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * looks good, although one-pgraph subsections are usually problematic (they should be either merged into another section or expanded to 2 pgraphs). also if "light and darkness" could somehow be squeezed in here as a theme (but avoiding original research) it could give a sensible place to put the "tenebre or tenebrae" stuff. Zzzzz 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * also discuss any allusions/references to other works e.g. maybe dressed to kill, does it refer back to his peevious giallo at all?
 * a new section "legacy" discussing the impact the film had, did argento make references back to it in later work, how did his work change after this, did it make any pop-cultural impact, did the goblin theme become a dancefloor hit, did other films reference this one (a brian de palma film did for sure).
 * expand the "production" section - did any cast or crew talk about the film ands its production etc. was it a nice experience or a nasty one? did argento and nicolodi fight or get along? i believe the alan jones books on argento would help here.
 * Expanded slightly. Unfortunately, Argento's audio commentary on the Tenebrae Anchor Bay DVD is frustratingly vague as to production details, and the usually talkative John Saxon has repeatedly said he can't remember a thing about making the movie. Alan Jones didn't start writing comprehensive production reports on Argento's films until Opera, so his books probably won't be of much help.  I'll incorporate anything else I can find, but right now that's all I could locate.Hal Raglan 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * further images, reviews etc can be found at darkdreams.org: e.g. here is the original review from staerburst magazine: http://www.darkdreams.org/reviews/tenebrae1.html and here is lots of lobbycards, poster art etc: http://www.darkdreams.org/reviews/tenebrae.shtml
 * I've added a few more reviews, including negative ones to balance things out. Not sure if the article really needs more images at this time; maybe after additional expansion.Hal Raglan 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * if this is all done (and typing "tenebrae argento" into google brings up a lot of material) there will be no reason to reduce the "plot" section anymore as it will no longer dominate the article.
 * lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article.
 * Expanded; please comment Hal Raglan 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the "tenebrae or tenebre" bit could probably be incorporated into one of the new sections, but its not a major problem.
 * I wonder if this should simply be mentioned in the lead? I think that may seem slightly clumsy, though.  I mentioned on the peer review page that I actually like having this info in a separate subsection for easy reference, but I'm open to suggestions.Hal Raglan 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Schizombie issues
This is a relatively minor point, but the soundtrack listing takes up a lot of space. Could it be made smaller, or put into columns, or a picture alongside it to fill the white space? Or don't other people see that as a problem? Also would it be worth mentioning that a spiky metal sculpture also tips onto a lead actor in Argento's Bird with Crystal Plumage? Шизомби 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its definitely worth mentioning the Crystal Plumage reference. One of the things I hope to do when I get the time is write a section showing how "self-reflexive" Argento was in Tenebrae to his earlier giallos. And I'll see if I can reduce the font size for the offending soundtrack listing. Hal Raglan 17:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't figure out how to make the font size smaller or how to turn the info into columns, so I simply moved the track listing to a new, separate article called Tenebrae (soundtrack). I'm slowly working on incorporating the Crystal Plumage reference into the article.  It'll get in there eventually!Hal Raglan 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The soundtrack page looks good! I have McDonaugh's book too, and a couple other things that may have stuff on Tenebrae; I'll try to take a look if there's anything worth adding. McDonaugh probably deserves her own article at some point; I certainly agree with the redlinking her name. Шизомби 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at Mendrik, Xavier (1996). "Detection and Transgression: The Investigative Drive of the Giallo" in Necronomicon Book One (pages 35-54). A lot of its discussion of Tenebrae seems based on McDonough. I'll have to look at that to compare to see if Mendik has anything original worth including. Шизомби 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this might be useful: "Significantly, until the final revelation, Franciosa has been serving as Argento's mouthpiece — fielding all the questions about violence to women and the ethics of depicting bloody horror that the director must endlessly be faced with. Argento goes out of his way to identify himself with the psycho figures in his movies.  In sequences where the killer is seen as a masked shadow or a pair of stylish black leather gloves, Argento himself takes up the knife to dispose of his on-screen victims." Also the art as weapon is mentioned, "In L'Uccello and Tenebrae, works of art are employed as weapons in climactic confrontations that find Musante and Franciosa trapped by viciously spiked modern sculptures." Both from Newman, Kim (1988). Nightmare Movies: A Critical Guide to Contemporary Horror Films, page 106. ISBN 0517573660

Also, I don't know if it would be worth mentioning either something about Sherlock Holmes - Argento's appreciation of Doyle and the quoting of Holmes in the movie, or the (it's been a while since I've seen this) moment where a character mentions they think they have a clue to the solution of the crimes, if only they could put their finger on it - a common moment in several Argento films. Шизомби 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Newman quote is a good one re: the violent use of a work of art in the endings of Bird and Tenebrae, but I don't know if works better than the DVD Savant one I've already used. (I skimmed thru Nightmare Movies when working on this article and I somehow missed that) Also, in the "Visual Impairment" section I do mention the moment, and exact quote, you bring up about a character trying to "put their finger" on a clue, and remark how it is a common theme in Argento's films. Hal Raglan 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I blame my visual impairment ;-) Have you come across anything about why Argento chose Tenebrae as the title?  Also, in what way was Robin's role famous?  I'll happily support the FA nom though. Шизомби 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, so far nothing concrete about exactly why the film is called Tenebrae. And I guess its probably true that outside of cult/horror fandom, Robins isn't famous at all, so I changed "famously played by a man" to "actually played by a man."  Good call. Hal Raglan 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found something about the title, if it merits adding (not sure where): "The film's curious title (which means 'darkness' in Italian) has also caused some debate. Argento has claimed he intended it to refer to the darkness in the human soul but as there is no reference to this in the finished product, it seems fair to assume that it was most probably just a title he liked." Smith, Adrian Luther (1999). Blood & Black Lace: The Definitive Guide to Sex and Horror Movies, page 118. ISBN 095332611X Шизомби 03:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
i think the only things missing now are the 2 points described earlier: if they could be addressed i think this article would stand a good chance as a featured article candidate, as the rest is v. good. Zzzzz 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * discuss any allusions/references to other works e.g. maybe dressed to kill, does it refer back to his peevious giallo at all?
 * discussing the impact/legacy the film had, did argento make references back to it in later work, how did his work change after this, did it make any pop-cultural impact, did the goblin theme become a dancefloor hit, did other films reference this one (a brian de palma film did for sure).
 * http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0084777/movieconnections mentions possible references, although the problem is they could just be in the mind of the person who submitted them. IMDb sometimes has reasons for the connections; they're hidden - you have to click update, then correct/delete then continue.  In this case, there's nothing really useful hidden (only one had a reason given). Шизомби 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a section tentatively called "Influences and Influence". Douglas E. Winter has called Tenebrae Argento's most "self-reflexive" film, and he and various other critics, including Tim Lucas, have pointed out specific references to his earlier films.  The movie also points back to some non-Argento thrillers and giallos.  For influence, Winter believes the film (and Argento's overall directorial style) was at least an indirect inspiration on Donald Cammell's White of the Eye.  And of course everybody has noticed Brian De Palma's "homage" in Raising Cain.  I'm hoping to get to that section today.  As usual, once its been added please continue to add/delete/restructure the article as you see fit.Hal Raglan 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, added two sections: "Influences" and "Legacy", altho the latter is admittedly a bit skimpy and could use some expanding.Hal Raglan 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnote style
should the footnote style be changed to the new style ? Zzzzz 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the new and generally preferred style, I would say the footnotes need to be changed. It looks like it might be a somewhat time consuming process to do so, so obviously I would prefer to keep them as they are.  But it depends on what others say.  If the consensus is to use the new style, I won't be able to make such a change until much later in the day.Hal Raglan 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Three people on the featured article candidate page thought it would be a good idea to reformat the footnotes, so I have taken the time to do so. Personally, I preferred the previous version.Hal Raglan 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Language
the language in the infobox is listed as "english". should it be "italian/english"? i thought argento films were post-dubbed with people on set speaking whatever language they were more comfortable with? (actually a note about this in the article would be useful too). Zzzzz 22:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * changed the infobox to read "English/Italian" and added some detail in the "Production" section re: language issue, with sources. Hal Raglan 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

US release date
I have Variety chart archives from the 1980s, listing all theatrical releases in 1987, with this one listed as having been released on Friday, February 13, 1987 (by Bedford). I'll get the reference tomorrow and add/cite this info. Although it was undoubtedly a minor release, it's worth noting. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While Variety is about as reliable a source as you can get within the entertainment industry, 1987 is way too late for an initial theatrical release of the film. This must have been a brief reissue attempt.  I'm fairly certain that the Bedford Entertainment movie poster shows a copyright date of 1984.  Further, in his article "The Butchering of Argento" printed in "The Video Watchdog Book", Tim Lucas indicates that the film's U.S. theatrical release was in 1984.  The article includes an interview with a representative of Bedford, prior to the film's release on videotape, which I believe confirms that the film was released in 1984.  I don't have the book in front of me, but I will take a look at it tonight to make sure.  I know the film was barely released in 1984, in only a few regions, so maybe they made another atttempt in 1987 to drum up some publicity interest for the then-upcoming videotape? (I'm uncertain as to when the videotape came out...the Lucas book may have the info) Hal Raglan 15:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have full release date charts for 1984, as well (and all years since for the 1980s). The charts are incredibly detailed - they list any releases by any companies, however limited (Fulci's Manhattan Baby had a minor release in 1984, for example; Argento's Inferno was released only in 1986 - August 15). They used to do these release date charts once a year, at the beginning of the year. The 1987 charts were in the January 20, 1988 edition. Page 69 has Bedford's single theatrical release that year, listed as "Unsane (Tenebrae) (1982)". That indicates the film had its release under "Unsane", and was produced in 1982. Tim Lucas may well have been using the IMDB for his info - IMDB isn't particularly reliable for much of anything; I find it odd that they list the theatrical date as "February 1987" but under Company Credits, say Bedford and "1983". The MPAA's site has a 1984-dated rating for "Unsane". What I think may have happened is the company purchased the rights in 1984, but didn't release the film, for whatever reason, until 1987. As far as I can tell, this has happened a lot with foreign horror (and other) films, including the aforementioned Inferno. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response! While I agree with you that imdb.com is often a remarkable source of misinformation, Tim Lucas's article originally appeared in the late 80's, long before the appearance of the internet and/or imdb.  Let me check the book tonight to make sure exactly what the article says regarding the theatrical and videotape release dates of the film.  Included in the article is a brief interview with a Bedford employee regarding the censorship the movie suffered in order to get an "R" rating from the MPAA.  In that interview, I do believe the 1984 theatrical release date is confirmed...but I will have to wait until tonite to see how accurate my memory is regarding this issue.Hal Raglan 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Butchering of Dario Argento" chapter in The Video Watchdog Book originally appeared as an article in Fangoria magazine in August 1987. Tim Lucas interviewed Steve Macklin of Bedford regarding the film's problems with the MPAA. Macklin says "The picture had a brief release in Texas and Florida, and didn't do any business..."  While neither Macklin or Lucas notes the actual year of release, the article  notes that after this theatrical release the movie played on various pay cable channels in 1985.  Its not mentioned in the article/chapter as to when the interview took place, but Macklin mentions that "the cuts we made for the theatrical release were done two years ago, so I don't remember them exactly", so presumably the interview was done in late 1986 or early 1987, and the article written some time later (Lucas mentions in a different chapter that his articles typically appeared in print three or four months after they were written).  Anyway, a subsequent videotape was "eventually released" (no date specified) by "Fox-Hill", which by August of 1987 had gone out of print.  Considering that time line, it really seems to me that the 1987 theatrical release Variety refers to must be a late reissue attempt by Bedford to drum up some kind of business for the title, and definitely not the initial theatrical release.Hal Raglan 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we still mention this release, though? It's the only exact verifiable release date we have, it seems notable. By the way, I also have all the box office charts from the 80s (also from Variety), but they only cover the top 50 at the box office, and Unsane never showed up at any point, which indicates.... a very low box office gross, at what must have been a very limited release. :) Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be okay to have this mentioned in the article, probably somewhere in the "Response" section. My only problem is that this information totally confuses the issue as to the film's initial release date in the U.S. By the way, was Tenebrae (or Unsane) ever reviewed in Variety?  I was wondering if one of the many copies you seem to have might contain a review of either the original Italian version or the shorter U.S. cut?Hal Raglan 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they seem to have never reviewed it. It's not online at their site either. Not much of a surprise there. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

argento on franciosa
for him, the most enjoyable part of filmmaking is writing the story. He is less thrilled with directing, and his view on actors was certainly Hitchcockian. He disliked dealing with their insecurities ("Ohhhhh, I do not look good!") and frailties. The following evening, before the showing of Tenebre, Argento would skewer Anthony Franciosa, working with the thirsty star had not been a pleasurable experience. "I don't care if you drink," he would exclaim, "Just don't drink on my movie!"

http://s8.invisionfree.com/MHVF/ar/t39.htm Zzzzz 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

timeout review
from Time Out magazine's film guide edited by tom milne second edition 1991, p663 reprinting original magazine review by Frances Lass:

"110 minutes"

A hybrid horror, both thriller and slasher, not to mention chopper and shocker, this confirms what Suspiria and Inferno led one to suspect. When it comes to plotting, Argento is one hell of a basket weaver: with holes in his story big enough to sink credibility, he cheats and double-crosses like mad to conceal the killer's identity [...] By the end, the entire cast save one had undergone savage cutting, something which would have benefitted the film itself, which is unpleasant even by contemporary horror standards. It does confirm Argento's dedication to the technicalities of constructing images - Grand Guignol for L'Uomo Vague, perhaps - but you'll still end up feeling you've left some vital digestive organs back in the seat. Zzzzz 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Article heading format
I noticed that the title format for this article should be Tenebrae (film) rather than  Tenebrae (film). However, I don't know how to change the formatting of the article header, so I leave this as a suggestion to others.  heli  x  20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't italicise the heading, I'm afraid - it's just the name of the article, i.e. whatever's in the URL. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the format has now been changed in the list of featured articles (section media) - now it is the same format as other AF on films listed there. Cheers,  heli  x  16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article not locked?
Why isn't this article locked for editing, since it's featured on the front page? - McCart42 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * and has been hit by vandalism multiple times in the last hour by sockpuppets ... Whitejay251 01:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User:Raul654/protection for an explanation, though I've protected it now for a brief amount of time because of what appears to be a vandalbot. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

please discuss proposed edits
do not revert to prior versions from its time on the mainpage as they contain numerous poor edits, thanks. please indicate what you want to add/remove here.

while some of the edits may be ok, you have also: removed a valid quote, wikified years against policy, added uncited assertions, added trivia etc etc. so dont revert - just add in what u think is the ok edits.
 * I just undid your wholesale revert, which you had no right to do. The main point was that your revert removed info that I myself added to the article, and possible other people's valuable edits.  Please show me the official policy that allows you to require all edits to be discussed on the talk page first.  — Gulliver ✉  14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Nasty?
The current wording makes it sound as if "Video Nasty" is an official or legal term in the UK, which I doubt. Can anyone rewrite this?--Chris 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to your comment, I've added quotation marks around the term "Video Nasty" in the opening paragraph. In the "Response" section, I really don't think there should be any confusion at all, because it is noted that the film "became one of the thirty-nine so-called "Video Nasties".  To me, the use of the word "so-called" and the utilization of quotation marks around "Video Nasties" does not indicate that this is an official legal term.  If you can think of a way to make this any clearer to anybody reading the article, please feel free to rewrite it.Hal Raglan 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1982 in film
I recently made a minor change to the opening sentence of the article, wikilinking the film's year of release, 1982, to 1982 in film. (Note that I am not trying to wikilink to 1982.) An anonymous editor has reverted my edit, claiming that the Manual of Style indicates such wikilinking is incorrect. I cannot locate anything in the Manual of Style that says a film's release date cannot be wikilinked. I've just glanced at ten or so Featured Article film articles and all of them wikilink to the Film Year article that corresponds to each film's respective release date. I made the same edit again, but the anonymous editor has rejected this rationale, claiming that the MOS has priority over the way every other film article has been written. However, as the MOS itself notes: "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit." The majority of film articles (at least the ones at the FA quality level) utilize the same wikilinking, so I've reinstated my edit. Please discuss here if you disagree. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i disagree! iirc this passed FAC without that linking. i understand your point, but remember most of the time that linking occurred AFTER the article in question became a FA. i.e. it passed FAC WITHOUT those links. (for example, see Halloween (film) now compared to the version that passed FA). indeed, such links are often a reason to object to a FAC. so i think "anonymous editor" is right. Zzzzz 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zzzzz, your suggestions were very helpful in getting this article to FA status, so I appreciate your comment regarding this issue. It seems very strange to me that there would be Year in Film articles in existence on wikipedia but the MOS guidelines disallow linking to them. Again, I may have misread the MOS but it seems to me the point is not to simply link to years, i.e. 1982. But linking to 1982 in film in this case would give the reader quick access to basic info about that year in regards to films in release, boxoffice hits, etc. If the MOS explicitly disallows this practice (i.e., linking to Year in Film articles), I will need to change all my film articles accordingly. My Witchfinder General (film) had that link and this was not an issue when it was voted to FA status-Hal Raglan 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR needed
There is a good deal of uncited text in this article; it appears that the sources are available, just not noted. Direct quotations and data should include inline citations. Is anyone able to restore this article to standard to avoid a Featured article review? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've begun overhauling the article. Needs a lot of work beyond adding citations I think. More material in books should be used. I'll see what I can do anyway, can't promise anything much!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have already done a lot . is also a dab hand at improving articles (especially film ones) so I've pinged to see if B has any interest in assisting your work. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) The article is mixing WP:EMDASHes and WP:ENDASHes; I'll standardize them if you all tell me which you want.
 * 2) The citations are all over the place, and there are three different styles, with missing publishers.  The article originally used cite templates; now it has some sfns and a mixed citation style.  I don't mess with those awful sfns, so I can't help fix this.  But we need complete information on all citations, to start ... like publishers for sure, authors and dates when available. Then someone has to standardize the citations (I suggest by returning to the original style and removing the sfns, but that is for all of you to decide). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Go for EN Dash if you like! I wasn't aware that I'd mixed citation styles. I can't see anything wrong with the sfn notes, if you're referring to the DVD references and old magazine refs I see what you mean, they're a mess, not sure what to do with those. Ideally I'd nuke them all and just use books. I've promoted articles to FA (The Tower House most recently) in the past with a mixture of sfn and citation templates in the notes and then I place all of the books in the bibliography/sources section. I can see why the "sea of blue" for sfn is not desirable to you but I prefer being able to click on the citation and it highlight the book underneath, I actually think it makes it look more orderly than creating a mess, but it's a preference style I guess. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I switched to spaced WP:ENDASH (just noting that it is OK to alter dashes in direct quotes to conform to Wikipedia's house style). On the citations, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. It's not the manner in which the citations are rendered that matters; it is that they render in a consistent format.  Because multiple methods for writing citations were used in this article, they do not render consistently.  It is not the sea of blue or the use of short citations for books that is the problem ... it is the inconsistency.  Examples:  some use pgs, some use pp.  Some are missing endashes on page ranges.  Some express volume, issue, and pages like this:
 * Jones, Alan. "Argento". Cinefantastique 13 (6): 20–21.
 * while others say Issue # followed by pp. Citations are not rendered in a consistent format, and endashes are needed on page ranges. As long as books are consistently rendered in short form, while others are rendered differently, that part is not a problem.  Additionally, some citations are incomplete:
 * "A-Z of Video Nasties". Retrieved 22 April 2006.
 * No publisher. (Provide author and date if available.)  Is that a reliable source?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit dodgy. That's exactly the sort of source I'd throw out.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work in here! I pinged the Film project to see if someone will help bring this over the hump.  Also, see this discussion; what do you think about bringing this to FAR to get more input and hopefully a seal of approval added to articlehistory?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Aside from the formatting, the problem for me is the sourcing. I'm not happy with half the sources used in this, even though I removed a fair few while editing it. If I was developing this and taking this to FAC I wouldn't touch a lot of those nasty DVD/horror website sources with a bargepole. The thing is the article already isn't that detailed, if we removed a lot of them it might affect it negatively, and I think some of them would at least be considered reliable sources. I'm not sure the material is really there in books to really produce an impressive article on this, I did what I could, but it's pretty mediocre overall, OK for GA I think, but FA? Weak. As you say anyway, let's see if Erik and others at the film project have to say.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks ... I'll hold off on FAR to see if someone from Film shows up to help, or opine whether it's fixable. At any rate, it's improved!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * so, -- no one has surfaced. Shall we head to WP:FAR next week (that tends to get people moving).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, OK. Surprised that hasn't turned up though.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tenebrae (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929111556/http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=6844 to http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=6844

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tenebrae (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020060441/http://www.eofftv.com/review/t/tenebre_review.htm to http://www.eofftv.com/review/t/tenebre_review.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231205356/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/darioargento.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/darioargento.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

English-language
So the lead describes this as an English-language Italian film. The infobox declares its languages as both Italian and English. I find this a bit contradictory. I know with a lot of Italian genre productions that it has multiple actors from different countries who dub their lines in later, but what do we put for the language then? Like, I'd imagine it was released dubbed in Italian in Italy, but if all releases are dubbed, what's the quote-unquote 'official' language? Also, how do we handle it with films like this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been no response and I can not find any more information regarding this. I'll be removing the language information until more information can be found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I didn't spot your original question. Yes, in Tenebrae, most of the cast spoke English, and they dubbed their lines into Italian for the film's domestic release. I don't recall who added "English-language" to the lead, but I know it wasn't in my 2015 rewrite and expansion, and I agree this is an unusual case. I don't think simply stating "English-language" cuts it; perhaps a sentence later in the lead should be added. I don't see any real harm listing both in the infobox, however. Steve  T • C 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My main issue with it being in the infobox would be that its not clear for the a reader to understand having both languages in the film. Its not both, its one or the other, so placing it there would not be clear in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

‘fangoria’ citations.
I’m just reading the articles cited in the wiki page now and they are from Fangoria #34 & #35, not #33 & #34. Dwightbandy (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)