Talk:Zombi 2

message: Long time Wikipedia fan, rare editor here. I tweaked a small section of the history of the home video releases to tone down some of the language used within the home video releases. I noticed how it stated hardcore fans were angered by the framing and picture quality of the VHS as well as the picture quality of the Anchor Bay DVD. Such a bold blanket statement of uproar amongst fans would, IMHO, needs a citation which was not given. Seems based more on assumptions than concrete fact. So I toned it down a bit. A minor thing but if anyone has an issue, I will not be upset if the changes are reversed as I do not edit very often and do not have the same feel for editing as others do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.203.94 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight Tweeking

message: In the scene in which Peter West is given the assignemnt to investigate the killing of a policeman on the boat (from the opening scene), the editor (Lucio Fulci) tells West that he should not "take advanteage that his father owns the newspaper". In the original Italian soundtrack, he is really telling West "not to fall in love with the first prostitute ("putanna") he meets."
I wonder how much more dialogue is purposely mis-translated in the film as well.
::That's interesting. (The editor suggests he keeps British-isms out of his prose... and not to take advantage that his father owns the paper.) The English dialog was perhaps there to address the actor's English accent and how he got to be a New York journalist. Obviously that wouldn't be needed in the Italian dub; they'd just use an Italian voice actor and a standard Italian accent and not address the character's nationality at all. Format (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting note: 

message: I am very confused about the Zombie 2 series from this article and from IMDb. Could someone please clarify this for me? The following is the order of the Zombie 2 series films with the alternate titles from IMDb. One list gives only 3 in the series, another gives 4, and yet others give 5. Which is right, or are they all right, and IMDb missed a film. Lady Aleena 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schizombie...add that to the Living Dead article and please change this one to reflect your findings. It would help Living Dead researchers greatly in my opinion. My only interest in this subject is for the film series lists, but hopefully my interest will help make these articles more concise.-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll try to get to this.  Jay Slater's Eaten Alive! : Italian Cannibal and Zombie Movies also makes several references to the unofficial sequels in the so-called Zombie series" that could be incorporated. Шизомби 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about the series 

message: £410 million? Shurely shum mishtake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.112.171 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: This article is missing information on the film's production making the article incomplete, this should be added to the article in order to complete the information on the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Production section 

message: The video nasty section should either be deleted or have citations added to it considering that it lacks any citations that would prove the information that it has.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Nasty section missing citation 

message: This is without a doubt the most poorly written and developed article on wikipiedia. It is poorly written, many sections are either unsourced, or are missing proper citations while other sections are not properly developed. I have already added a rewrite tag to the article and hopefully this article will get the attention it deserves.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Big ups to  for tackling this article and turning it from a horrible fan crusty mess to something that resembles a film article! Excellent work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: "Island of the Living Dead" is a completely different movie that can out in (2007).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect Is Wrong 

message: An editor has now upon three occcasions removed the cast names from the plot section and added a cast list, on the basis that other articles have them. There is no mandated form for film cast lists in articles. WP:FILMCAST states "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. " A dedicated section may be justified to provide context for casting details, but this isn't what is being doing here. An editor is simply removing the names from the plot summary (where they are arguably more helpful) and grouping them together as a bare list. In many cases it is just providing the same information and making it less useful. In cases where the casting information is established the form should not be altered without consultation, especially when the alterations are challenged. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several "established" practices. One established practice is to simply provide the cast names in the plot summary when no further information is provided about the casting. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to adding bare bone cast lists per se in cases where the articles do not have cast listings, but in cases where the cast listings are already integrated into the article in a useful manner you are making them less useful. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: It depends on the format. If there is a large cast then yes, sometimes it is better to have a dedicated section. If there is a significant amount of casting information then yes, it is sometimes beneficial to have a dedicated casting section. However, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. It also circumvents the fact that bulleted cast lists are often entirely unsourced, whereas cast-in-plot mentions demonstrate that we're using the primary source of the article for it. The idea that "Just about every other Fulci film on this site has a separate plot summary and cast list" is also poor reasoning—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It would be just as, if not more, logical to say "every Fulci film with an article of assessed quality doesn't have separate plot summaries and cast lists and should therefore be the template". If you want to look at featured articles on films, you'll see that bare-bones, unsourced cast lists are avoided—Eraserhead, for example, doesn't use one, or Manhunter uses a select list of important cast members as a platform for sourced information on the casting process. Trying to replicate IMDB does not improve the quality, readability or usefulness of any of our articles. GRAPPLE X 08:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of a cast list 

message: Just so I understand, I know that Grapple X has removed the "3 billion" and changed it back as it is a European film. I don't really understand this and am not sure how to google it to figure it out. Why is it not like this in Europe? Could you explain it here? If it is specifically different enough than actually reading it, perhaps a footnote in the article could be added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See long and short scales. Europe uses the "long scale" numbering system, where a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 (and subsequent named numbers are one million times as big as the last, so a trillion is eighteen zeroes, etc). The UK has largely moved to the American short scale model but continental Europe still uses the original long scale system, so "billion", "trillion" etc can be ambiguous in those settings, whereas numerals will not be. GRAPPLE X 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 billion

message: It is widely referred to as Zombie Flesh Eaters.93.72.140.2 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a common enough title. For example, in the United States its never been released under that title. As its not simple to choose one of its many English titles (the two biggest ones seemingly Zombie Flesh Eaters and simply Zombie), let's stick with the Italian title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: International title...

message: I've edited and clarified the running time on its original theatrical release per the Monthly Film Bulletin source. The editor had previously added content, and per their edit history, it seems to be a running time, but has been adding it in ways that go against the infobox standards on running time. I've added a source via the monthly film bulletin, which states the UK running time of a film on its theatrical release, and if its been cut down from the original run time. I believe this should clarify information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Running time

message: Looking over this article, I noticed there are a couple of pieces of information absent from the article, notably information on the makeup/special effects. This needs to be added to the article as a sub-section in the production section with proper citations from reliable sources. Also there is no information on the film's impact and legacy, the influence and the cultural impact was pretty significant from what I have seen. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underdeveloped sections