Talk:I Vampiri

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No worries. I'm glad someone even noticed this article. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''I Vampiri'' or ''I vampiri''? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Incomprehensible controversy... as long as this is the , there is a large, gigantic point in adding the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Extra titles