Talk:I Vitelloni

message: Typical error of Anglo-Saxons users: giving a capitalized title to Italian films, novels etc. The correct title IS I vitelloni. --Attilios 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. --Richard 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the title back to I Vitelloni.  This is, after all, the English Wikipedia and foreign-language  titles which are accepted into English usage, follow English-language orthography, not the orthography of their native tongue.  All film reference books including Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, TimeOut Film Guide, Halliwell's Film Guide and Variety Movie Guide as well as virtually all English-language film reviews refer to this production as I Vitelloni, not I vitelloni.  The same is true for  La Dolce Vita, La Strada as well as numerous other Italian, French and Spanish titles.  The use of upper-case characters to designate nouns in German is likewise inapplicable.  WikiProject Opera has controversially negotiated an exception for opera titles which, except for those with traditionally-accepted English-language titles, such as The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute, are indicated by title structures which reflects the orthography of those titles' native language, despite the fact that many reference books and most newspaper and magazine reviews refer to them using English-language orthography (initial caps for nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives and interjections).  All other works of art, however, which do not use translated titles, but are known by their original appellation, have no such stated exception and are, in addition, usually shorn of accents and diacritics.  The title, for example, of the English-language translation of Les Misérables is Les Miserables.  All such appellations no longer follow the orthography of their mother tongue, but are subject to the rules of English-language orthography.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that Roman's view is ridiculous. It makes sense for an English language publication to use English language style, even though it is not the only defensible method. Looking at the practices of other publications is also standard for Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: The second paragraph of this discussion is at best needlessly detailed for an encylopedia article. "Vitelloni" does literally mean "big calves" (cf. Wikipedia on Italian Grammar) -- the article seems to contradict itself on this-- and makes quite good sense without getting into the discussion of a "dialectical neologism" that may well be no more than a joke on the exegetes.
Ludwig X (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Apparently there is not agreement on how to handle this. There is no category called 'Idea' that belongs in the infobox. We have 'Screenplay' and 'Story', which is sufficient, the rest getting good coverage in the article. The article says that three of them wrote it together quickly. Any reason to doubt that? The story credit might be redundant of the screenplay, in which case I'd suggest we leave it out as well. Comments...? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree for the sake of simplicity - story credits can always be developed in the body of the article. The problem is that many of the maestro's biographers and critics not only comment on his creative process (who came up with the idea followed by who developed the screenplay) but include filmographies that separate story/idea and the screenplay - including the order in which each participated. It's a distinction engrained in Italian cinema (but not exclusively). Example: the credits in Rossellini's films are careful about who's idea it was followed by the screenplay co-writers. Despite the extra time involved in fact-checking, I now think it's probably in line with an encyclopedic article on Fellini and maybe even stimulating for the happy few. That said, if a clutch of editors want to simplify things, I'm all for it.--Jumbolino (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing credits for infobox 

message: Should writers be listed in the order they worked or according to the volume of their work? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This a good question. In the case of Fellini's co-writers, I've gone with what's written by his biographers and critics in terms of "volume" - who collaborated most and/or longest - together with authoritative bibliographies listing co-writers in a particular order. When possible, I've checked the order against the screen credits on various DVDs (time-consuming indeed but perhaps the best way to be sure of how all concerned agreed or were forced to agree on credits and order of appearance). I always include sources for verification to avoid OR. Concerning order: on one of Fellini's films, two biographers note Pinelli as co-story writer and screenwriter but will list him last as screenwriter since he contributed chiefly to dialogue - suggesting he contributed less in terms of "volume" than Fellini or Flaiano. Personally, I don't begin making my own interpretations when it comes to editing here: I stick to the information given in published and reliable sources.--Jumbolino (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In a similar vein: is the story credit excisable when it's covered in the article and redundant of the screenwriters? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfectly legit question - I've already tried to express my views on this above.--Jumbolino (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of writers 

message: I make my living as a professional in the European film industry: producers in this business are referenced as both persons and companies (and often credited as such in films) - but maybe not in Wikipedia's filmbox formats. --Jumbolino (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a separate field for the production companies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producers and Companies