Talk:Women's Prison Massacre

Is "DVDTalk" a real source?68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you want to use it for. Its generally ok, but there are better sources. What are you specifically trying to pull from them? what's the article? I require more information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I just see it on various pages and I was curious if it's reliable. Also how about rottentomatoes? Is that usable?68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd really only use Rotten Tomatoes to track a critical rating. But for the films you tend to edit, they won't have enough reviews from Rotten Tomatoes. It pulls information from IMDb, so it fails WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk)

oops I just now saw this reply. Sorry.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The Italian title for this film was Emanuelle Fuga dall'Inferno. It's even on the covers of all the dvd sleeves under the American title. Blade Violent was another Italian title for this film, Mattei referred to the film by this name, probably because it was the shooting script title that he directed the film under. But the film was undeniably marketed in Italy as Emanuelle fuga dall'inferno. If it's not included in the wiki article, people researching Mattei are going to think it was a THIRD WIP film! There are many reviews of the dvd under the Fuga title, more people refer to it as fuga dall'inferno than Blade Violent actually. Is it that you don't believe it had two Italian titles??68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "probably" in your sentences and claim tons of statements without backing them up. All your source state that Fuga title, but not the part that it was released in Italy under this title. You have to stop applying "original research" to your sources. If a source just says its an alternative title, than that's all you can apply. I don't even disagree with your points you find interesting, I'm taking a bigger issue is you are taking sources out of context, which is flat out lying about what the sources are saying. If you have to add something because something is "probably" that way, you shouldn't add the content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

i'm just saying where else would the alternate Italian title be used if not in Italy? Blade Violent is actually in English, but I think it was Mattei's shooting script title that was designed to sound more international, and Mattei always referred to the film by that name. If anything Fuga dall'inferno sounds a lot more like the Italian theatrical release title. It could be the title was changed after Mattei gave it over to the distributor, maybe to emphasize the fact that it was an Emanuelle film. But you're right, where the titles were utilized in the end was supposition on my part. One absolute fact however is that the film is referred to by both Italian titles all over the web. The only problem is, most of the Fuga sources unfortunately tend to be unreliable for wiki purposes. But even on the actual dvd sleeve itself, the Fuga title is printed right on the cover (the dvd sleeve doesn't say Blade Violent), so the film definitely had two different Italian language titles. If you don't list the "Fuga" title as an alternate, readers will think Fuga was a different WIP film.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

btw, there is a good example of how "published sources" can be less accurate than other sources. Louis Paul really screwed up those two movies in his filmography. I'm sure you see how he conflated all those erroneous alternate titles into the wrong listing? In another section, he lists "DEMONIA" as a third film that Fulci made in the "Houses of Doom" series, which is blatantly wrong. All 4 of the Houses of Doom movies (by Fulci and Lenzi) had the word CASA in the title. Demonia was not part of that series in any way. So all I'm saying is just because a source is a published book doesn't mean it has no mistakes in it. I don't think I've ever seen a reference book on horror/sci-fi films that didn't have errors in it. In my opinion, websites can be more accurate because errors on websites can be fixed as soon as they are discovered, whereas the errors in the Louis Paul book will always be in there.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained this to you dozens of time, per read Verifiability. It should answer your problems. If you have questions, ask again after. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)