Talk:Umberto Lenzi filmography

Some issues
I'm not sure the validity of some sources. For example, Gli occhi dentro links to a film that is stated to be directed by Bruno Mattei and the aritcle makes no mention of Lenzi's involvement. Several of the BFI sources have a year attached to them as well, but that does not indicate anything outside a possible copyright year. I haven't looked into detail, but several bits of information appear to be off or no specifically stating what the source is saying. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never had issue with the BFI before and would consider it a high-quality source (ongoing since 1933, publishers of Sight & Sound, and organisers of the world's largest film archive), but if there are sources to dispute anything they make mention of, it can be added—for example Gli occhi dentro may require an end note explaining disputed or variously-attributed credits if there's a competing source. I don't have access to the books used on that film's page but I do note that none of them are used to cite the director credit, is that an oversight? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not that the source itself is incorrect, its just that it says a year. That could be a copyright year or a release date and the BFI site does not make it clear which is which. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any time I've used it in the past it's been the release year. You're right that it doesn't state which it is but most sources don't—I've tried to model this on previous filmography articles which have gone through featured review and sources like BFI and AllMovie usually just give an unadorned "year" with no explanation as to whether it's release or copyright, practice elsewhere seems always to treat it as release. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah exactly. I previously had this filmography set with years per the release with sources from the Curti books. (I have a good chunk of them and can re-add some items), but the rest should be removed or set to N/A if we can't clarify the release year. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that I don't see any reason to doubt that these are release years without affecting a huge swathe of articles across the film project that similarly source content to either of those sources. It may be worth raising at WP:FILM if you have reason to believe this is a recurring issue but I don't feel it necessary to distrust a reliable source in this instance just on its face. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because they could easily be copyright years. In fact, based on my own research they are copyright years (either that or flat out wrong). Take a look at Lisa and the Devil. Per the film article, it was shot and finished around 1972, but did not get released until 1974. The BFI here lists it as 1972. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point in this case but I'm also leery of running afoul of OR by looking into these things without a concrete source giving another year to dispute what's present. I have asked the film wikiproject for additional input. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can clarify them with some more here. We have La casa delle anime erranti and La casa del sortilegio are both listed as 1989. They are both two television films that were indeed produced in 1989. However, the two films were shelved by the tv execs and not released in Italy until the year 2000. This information is from pages 204 to 209 in Roberto Curti's book Italian Gothic Horror 1980-1989. So BFI is again wrong about information on this page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm looking also at the BFI-collections page (which gives more details). Sometimes the year of release is cited, other times they actually note the year is just a copryright date (http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/150451882 see here). Perhaps we could clarify each film with that and remove dates that aren't? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to look through and append a note on any year that BFI gives as copyright (my thought is to add a footnote or key icon to denote "Year of copyright" rather than leave a blank field). I will say that those TV films are additionally cited as 1989 in the La Repubblica article too, however, it's not just the BFI who are giving those titles a year of 1989. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you show me a source for that? I'd like to clarify what La Repubblica states. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh scratch that. Again, the newspaper article stating a year like (1989) or in this case ('89) next to it does not mean the film was released that year and could easily be interpreted as a copyright date. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 5 in the article, cites the mention of both films in the lead. It states Verranno poi La casa 3 - Ghosthouse ('88), sempre una produzione americana, sequel apocrifo della serie La casa di Sam Raimi; Paura nel buio e il low budget Le porte dell'inferno; La casa del sortilegio e, nell'89, La casa delle anime erranti, questi ultimi per la tv, commissionati da ReteItalia, uniche occasioni in cui Lenzi abbia lavorato per il piccolo schermo. There's no mention of a later release after filming in there. That's not to say it didn't happen but again I would say that without a source to dispute it, I see no reason not to take it as read. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, that article just says in 1989 those features happened, it says nothing of a release. So per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we shouldn't interpret it this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would interpret STICKTOSOURCE to mean not to doubt the source unnecessarily too—it would be extremely unusual, to the point of OR, to assume that a source giving a year for a film isn't referring to its release. I'm going to go through the collection listings on BFI to clarify release versus copyright dates but in the absence of a clear answer it would seem right to me to default to year of release as that is going to be the majority of usage for a year listing. As to Gli occhi dentro, this may take a little more digging but going on the link there, it seems a potential ghost-credit issue (a little similar to Zombi 3 with Mattei); Lenzi is given the credit under a pseudonym and Mattei is listed as "Director - listed during production". It's possible the work was shared or that one did uncredited work but I'll need to look into this further. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I can find examples of the BFI using both copyright and release year. For example, Gone with the Wind (1939) and Aladdin (1992) were both released the following year in the UK, but are both logged under their copyright years. On the other hand, both Superman II (1980) and American Sniper (2014) are logged as 1981 and 2015 respectively in the BFI database, matching their UK release dates. It would appear the BFI does not use a consistent approach in its main database. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From 's and my own comments, I don't think we can state that the BFI source's year is based on the year of release as there has not been anything else to show any consistency on what the year states. I think the database has some solid information for some basic credits, but the year should not be trusted for a year of release. My suggestion would be to swap it with sources that specifically state the year in question as a release year, prefereably with a date in some cases as Lenzi has some years where three or so films are released. Thoughts ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and added an additional citation for each of the films sourced to BFI which expressly states "release" or "copyright" for each year--anything which doesn't specifically say "release" is denoted with an explanatory endnote; see for example this link used to cite the release year for L'uomo della strada fa giustizia, versus this for the copyright year for Constantino il grande, and the additional note given in that entry. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How should we organize films that have things like 1966 as the year? What makes it clear that the film should be released first? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could move them to be alphabetical within a given year. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, how would readers know that they aren't in order then? Some sort of notice should make it clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At present they're just listed in the order I came across them in the general G1 ref. It's either keep that or shift to alphabetical as far as I can see. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how does it make it clear to the reader? So far the list is a series of several hat notes saying "This might be wrong. And this one's not accurate either." It kinda needs a re-haul. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alphabetisation should at least be readily apparent, if you have any other suggestions I'm willing to hear them. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How it would be obvious? These are obscure films and they could have just happened to have been released with their titles alphabetically. I would simply just put N/A if we don't know the release year and list them at the end. It's more honest and clear to the reader rather than having a dozen hatnotes. As for titles we don't know the year, a hat note would cover it. That would limit the amount of hatnotes. Also, some titles we still have here are flat out wrong. Like Striker which has an obvious newspaper source for a 1988 release on it's own article. I'd probably seperate the television work/films away from the feature films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are exceedingly few end notes, certainly not a dozen, and all but three titles have well-cited years of release; not all of them have exact day-and-month dates and without uniformity there's no way to avoid original research in ordering them by date alone. As it is, I've stuck to the sources as they're presented; replacing information cited to reliable sources with "N/A" for no reason is not a realistic alternative. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's enough end notes that the table trying to present information is difficult. I found it confusing, and i'm well versed wikipedia editor. Not to mention the sources within the article often do not match the wikipedia articles they link to, i think this needs an overhaul. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are three calls to one endnote explaining that the year in the source is for copyright, and one explaining that there are sources providing conflicting information. I don't believe that four calls to end notes in a table of 77 entries is too many. I don't see what "overhaul" this requires--it is all backed up by reliable sources, and if it contradicts another article why is the assumption that this one is wrong? If a major film archive and scholarly body gives information about a film I genuinely see no reason why we would doubt it without good reason. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources don't match other sources in the book or just list things in an order which implicates them being released in a specific order. It's going by several assumptions and is misleading to readers. And who would have thunk it, a database has the wrong information sometimes, I'd try to find more sources closer to material on hand that can give more specific details. Or if we find contradicting information, don't just choose the BFI because "well it's the BFI". Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One instance of conflicting information was pointed out, researched, and an explanatory note given. You're essentially asking to disregard a high-quality source entirely though, which I have no intention of supporting. If you don't like the order the films are listed in, I've already offered to change it to be alphabetical within a year, if there is an alternative to this you prefer, then please let me know, but "i don't like this, and I don't like that, but I have no solution" is not actionable. If you feel anything present here is contradicted by other sources, please provide those sources. As it stands this is essentially one long section about you don't like this page with little constructive or actionable concerns I can actually fix. I went through and added approximately seventy more references on the back of your concerns so it should be abundantly clear I want this to be improved if there's anything which can be improved. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't like it, it is that they are confusing to readers as you expect a filmography to be clear and consise. That's not an opinion, that's just standard. For, example: WP:FILMOGRAPHY states we should separate tv films and television from the filmography. That is not done here. You've added one reference source, that's scatted through several citations. That's a step in the right direction, but it's still misleading to readers. WP:FILMOGRAPHY also states the year should be the release date, so yes, if it's just a copyright date, it shouldn't be included as anyone casually browsing will not have the clear info. Simple as that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm leery of separating only two entries into a separate section, which feels like it will be harder to follow, not easier. My previous filmography project David Lynch filmography does have several sections but they're all quite sizeable, nothing covers such a small number of entries—I would see it as the table equivalent of a one-paragraph heading, although if others would favour splitting out the two television films I'll follow the majority. I must ask though what you find confusing; what exactly is not clear? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not so much confusing as it is misleading in several areas.
 * Several films (which I made in my last edit) had years out of order. There were citations on the actual articles with more specific film release dates. Why not use them? They weren't alphabetized, and when I tried to clarify them, that citation was removed.
 * We should clean up citations to keep it simple per Citation overkill. As shown before, some sources have more specific information, so there is no need to overload them. They should also be consistent with the material in their reflective film article.
 * We should change them back to match their Wikipedia article title per Naming_conventions_(films), " the film was released under the same English title across the English-speaking world, use this as the title of the article", and "f the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world – if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries – use the most common title throughout".
 * I think that clarifies why this needs an overhaul. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can review the sources and see if there's any way of changing the releases order in places where specific dates are given. Three citations in a dedicated table cell where it is not breaking up flowing prose does not strike me as overkill, however, and three is the most used in any one location here. Since this whole extended discussion exists, it's clear that additional sourcing is important and so I would oppose a move to just one ref at a time for each row. As to film titles, I have deliberately kept them as their original release title here—largely this is for consistency as often Italian films have multiple English titles due to subsequent rereleases, but also it's what the sources largely use. I'm not comfortable sources large swathes of the list to sources using one title but then diregarding that here for another one, and often when creating film articles I will opt to use the title reflecting in most reliable sources even if it's not in English. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can say that, but that's against standards wikipedia filmography content. If there is no English title, then go ahead, but these have English titles and we can discuss what should be the most common, but just by going by the BFI one, that's not very clear research. In the meantime, to avoid WP:EGG and to make it clear for an English language wiki, we should stick to the rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't "the rules" though, it's a guideline for article titling, not for prose (and a guideline, not a policy, at that). WP:NCF does not dictate how in-article content is presented, and in this case I don't see a reason not to stick to the sources (and, frankly, to reader expectation—this is a filmography for an Italian filmmaker, it would in no way be jarring to see the original Italian titles here). Per the onus at WP:BRD I'm restoring the Italian titles until clear consensus for a change is gained. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

English titles vs. Italian titles
Per the above mentions, there's no guidelines but you have yet to make a clear point. I've worked on several wikipedia articles on Italian films and we generally use the English title. We don't say 6 donne per l'assassino, we used Blood and Black Lace, we don't say Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, we say The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. This is standard stuff and from my research on building the Lenzi article to what it was, we use the English titles. As Lenzi's film are released (such as a recent box set here: Box set) they are being released under English titles that have been used for decades. in some cases, over half a century. I see no reason to go against the guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't say Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo because the majority of sources don't either. But there is no such majority of reliable sources which prefer, for example, "Temple of the White Elephant" to "Sandok, il Maciste della giungla". With no clear majority there, and with good contextual reason to prefer one version (this is Lenzi's filmography, so the title he worked under rather than the title a later distributor used would be the most relevant) then the Italian makes sense. NCF and COMMONNAME apply to article titles and there may be cause to title some of these articles in English, or it may well be that they have simply been titled as such out of convenience (I know I've written a few where the Italian name is predominant and have defended them as such in ill-positioned move requests, for example). But in prose or in list entries we aren't bound and beholden to article titles strictly (another example might be a biology article, where taxonomic names are used instead of common lay names, the featured article turtle for example has listings for Carettochelyidae rather than pig-nosed turtle because the context makes sense), and contextually here we have a reason to stick to the sources, with the Independent, BFI, and La Repubblica for example all using the release titles for films and not later translations. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown any majority sources. And generally speaking this is broad against all Italian articles. The sources i've been using (and the ones you have as well) such as the Yul Brynner book and AllMovie say "Death Rage" not Con la rabbia agli occhi. It also says Death Rage in the Curti book and that is the title in prominence over the Italian title. I'd say we go about this on a title by title basis, but I think we'd find the more popular the title, the more often we're going to hear a Ghosthouse over a La Casa 3. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown any majority sources—Most of what is used in citing this content is what I'm going by. I could just as easily say you have haven't shown a majority in the other direction. For example, BFI and La Repubblica both use La casa 3, not Ghosthouse, which is why the list uses that title. Those plus The Independent use Il paese del sesso selvaggio, and the article follows suit. And again, we're not talking about naming pages, but about entries in a filmography article, so context matters, which is also why the table specifies "Release title" to be clear. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still stand that it would confuse viewers. My suggestions would be to alter it to match featured list articles like Satyajit Ray filmography, an director of global importance, when we have the common English title, we can use it. I doubt we'd have great debate in what the most common English title would be in a contemporary sense for most of these films. If there isn't one, we can leave it blank with the original titles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it would be confusing (I know it's a small sample size but it passed review at WP:DYK with no confusion and has been on the main page all day with no complaints re: confusion), and I'll stand by my opinion here. If I am in the minority then by all means I will cede to that but so far it has prompted no such confusion. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good for DYK, but what were they checking? If the sources were legitmate? Sure, it's BFI. But there's no indication that makes it normalized across wikipedia film articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this argument should be about how many sources favour which title. That is OK for deciding the primary title for an article, but in a filmography the overriding principle should be what is most helpful to the user. And the fact that this discussion is happening at all demonstrates that different people will recognise the same film by different titles. So the most helpful thing is to include both the original language and the English title - as it has been done in the articles for Satyajit Ray or Luchino Visconti or Michelangelo Antonioni. You can see a different style of presentation for Dario Argento or Pupi Avati, but they all follow the same principle of parallel titles. (And it is particularly unhelpful to offer a single sortable column of titles which intermingles the titles from different languages - which is what you get if the 'majority of sources' principle is followed.) So my advice is not to disadvantage any one user viewpoint by favouring one language choice over another; include both whenever possible. Lampernist (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. If there are no real arguments against this in the next while, i'll implement it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to sit over the next day and include cited translations in a new column; there are generally one or two (or more) in most of the references so there should be no trouble verifying them. I'll be free during the day in the office tomorrow to devote some time to it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, i didn't mean like, "in the next few minutes" i was going to give it a few days. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just putting it out there since it's a lot of work (~80 films, a few titles each!) so I'll save someone else the hassle. It might take some playing around with the table and images too if it means introducing too much width so I want to see how that work across more than one device. Actually I'll introduce a column now, let me know how it displays for you or if it's too wide as a page when it's done. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've introduced the column and added the first film with cited alt titles; I played around a bit with widths and it seems the "notes" field is the one that can be shrunk width-wise the easiest. On my laptop display this just fits everything in without any titles running onto a second line; how does it show for you? If it's too wide at this point I'll need to take some of the material in the image captions and re-factor it into the lead instead so let me know how your view is. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

releasing these types of films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add the non-English titles here. It's a bit excessive for this kind of data. I'd lean towards giving them their own heading closer to the Italian titles and using the English titles. They aren't that wide for me but like, tables are tricky when it comes to things like smart phones and such anyways, so there's not much we can do to keep them pretty for wikipedia, but i don't think anyone would not want to use them either. They are usable and readable on smartphones, but they are never going to look ideal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think skipping the non-English titles raises the issue of undue weight, and it doesn't take up any extra resource really. Without them we're saying that only one foreign market "matters", I think. If it looks fine to you width-wise I think we're okay; I know the resolution at the office is much more forgiving and will fit everything in with space to spare. I'll have a look at a mobile view too, see what that looks like, but I can imagine any issue it has would have been had with or without the extra column. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are over thinking it. These are just to make them recognizable to English readers on the English wikipedia. We don't list every alternative title of a film as its basically trivial to a Non-English reader. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of this information is "basically trivial" to someone though. Just giving English aftermarket titles strikes me as unduly preferencing one market, especially when there will be times when there are more than one English title given, which is to say we're cherry picking just a few items that aren't given any preference in the sources. I am strongly in favour of including all of the sourced titles if we're going to list aftermarket translations at all. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. "The notes field should not be allowed to get overly cluttered." We can find several endless alternative titles for these films, I don't see much if any value in cluttering them up. It's not undue weight as we per the other discographies, this is just to have English readers know the film by their more common English titles. Why do we need a German title for an Italian film on the English Wikipedia? Does anyone look at that and go "oh! Labyrinth des Schreckens? That's what i'm looking for." Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It immediately conveys that the film was released in other languages, which is nontrivial as I see it. Some of these films are also clearly renamed in other languages to be part of other films series, which is context lost if we cherry-pick (L'invincibile cavaliere mascherato is a Robin Hood film in Germany, other films have been turned into Maciste entries or divorced from that series, for example). I remain unconvinced that such cherry-picking is not unduly weighted; what makes a second English title more notable than the French or German? I would also point out that the "notes field" is something already in use for something else, and it has indeed been kept brief. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * People would assume that, an alternative title doesn't confirm anything important other than "yes, it was released in another language". That' standards for countless films. I'm not saying it's more due, i'm saying that it's trivial because it has little value. Can you show many any other well made filmography on the site that does this? I feel like if it's advertised as part of another series, that should be clarified in prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every article has to be a carbon copy of each other though, you could pull up four or five pieces of featured (ie, thoroughly vetted) content that theoretically should be similar and see differences throughout; on its own, "another article doesn't do this" isn't an argument for or against something. Here we have relevant information, well cited, not given any more or less weighting by the source used, and I disagree with the idea that we should find a reason to cherry pick from that. The purpose you are arguing for--supplying an alternate title for recognition--is not undercut here, and also applies to the additional alternate titles provided. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For lists we should keep it straight though and it's not just filmographies, books, television, etc. are given countless titles released throughout the world. It feels more strange to me to give several titles for only an Italian filmmaker, but we don't do that for someone such as the David Lynch filmography. Several of his films are even French-co-productions. So why is Lenzi a special deal here? If we can't agree here, I'd say bring it up with WP:FILM again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding foreign aftermarket titles (ie, English) in the first place is "a special deal" here, Lynch's filmography only lists their original release titles. If you can't give me an argument beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to defend cherry-picking this information then I don't know why you're so opposed to the hours I'm pouring into the project. I have compromised at every turn here and it feels like you'd prefer I just didn't create this thing in the first place. Please provide a policy argument against including sourced, relevant, valid information here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter how much time you put into things as that weighs even less here. Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a not a policy, it's what you called me out before on it being a guidelines. My main idea here is how does this actually help readers and a lot of what you have suggested that it will help readers of an English-language encyclopedia to know the German title for a non-German production, by a non-German filmmaker who has no real connection with German cinema. Per WP:TRIVIA, it states to "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." which is exactly what we would be doing here. Anything that you have implied with alternative titles is stuff that requires further information that probably should be clarified beyond a "BFI gives it as an alternative title." Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, I'm done. I'm not going to waste my time on this any more and it was a mistake to even start; this whole talk page is several thousand words of you resisting absolutely everything about this article and rather than waste my time being reverted by you and you alone every time I try to improve it, I'm just going to walk away. I'm taking it off my watchlist, do what you will with it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to change your work, you did a good job, but I'm just being reasonable. For example, check out Syndicate Sadists which has at least four English titles: Syndicate Sadists, a a US release as Rambo's Revenge, an UK release as One Just Man, a US Home video release as Final Payment. So adding to that, we'd have Flash Solo (with it's English-language sounding title, but was the German release), plus it's German video title '"Der Vernichter, and and it's two Spanish titles as La venganza de Rambo and Desafio a la ciudad, and Bracelet de sang'' in France. That's a whopping nine extra titles. It's becoming a bit over the top. I don't want you to rage-quite this, as I don't think you agree, but I am genuinely trying to work it out to make it better, and that's not always my first view of how it was/should be . Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradictions
Just to clarify information here per the templates i've added. I'll be going through them periodically.
 * Death Rage has Lenzi credited as the producer per the Yul Brynner book. However, Roberto Curti's credits Franco Caruso and Raymond R. Homer. The Brynner book also just states a year, and seemingly no indication what it stands for (copyright, etc.). The opening credits make no mention of Lenzi. This source seems to think Raymond R. Homer is Lenzi. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That particular entry is also sourced to AllMovie which similarly lists Lenzi as a producer, which leads me to doubt that it's simply one source making a mistake. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How should we highlight that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source you link may be correct in Homer being a pseudonym but without anything spelling it out as such I would be tempted to leave it as is. There's nothing which says Lenzi wasn't a producer and it's a role that more than one person can fill--something like a director's credit is generally seen as a one-person job so if there was a dispute there it would be worth flagging like the issue with Mattei. Here I think one of three scenarios has happened--Lenzi was a producer, and Curti has missed his name out; Lenzi was not a producer, and AllMovie and Capua are wrong; or Lenzi is "Raymond R Homer". Picking one of those as fact on what we have alone is impossible I think, so presenting the information as we have it seems the best path. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think when it's all over the place, it would be very wrong to say "just leave it." This isn't the case of "oh we found an outlier source", this is a case of "we have several sources not matching." Not to mention there is no year of release in the current sources of the section. I think some extra information is required to clarify this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case where one source explicitly contradicts another, though; the outlier source is this Curti book not listing a credit which several other sources do, but even in that case Curti may be wrong. The alternative to leaving it is to add all four sources with an endnote credited to the Spinegrinder book noting that Homer is a pseudonym, which is a lot of information simply to restate what's already present. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For Cop Target, the BFI states it was released in Italy in 1989. However, the Archivio del cinema italiano states it did not pass Italin censor boards until September 1990 (13-09-1990) (source: here). So how do we handle this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A date of censorship is not necessarily one of first release; one need only look at the history of the BBFC to see films released, withdrawn, recut again. Just as you earlier queried any date which didn't explicitly state it was for release, we now have one which does, whereas this does not say it wasn't released until it passed censorship, only that it was certified at this point. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works in Italy. A film can't be released unless it passes the censor boards. So I'm not sure where BFI is grabbing this information from here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I can only assume its first release was outside of Italy? Nothing in the BFI source specifies a country, just a year, but I don't see a reason to doubt their year, just that it was held up domestically. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On reading it more carefully, the source states "Comments: DE video release @ 89 mins". So I'm guessing this means it's a German home video release at this period. I can't clarify this, but a lot of early VHS releases in Europe are from German home video, which was pretty gung ho about releasing these types of films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)