Talk:Joe D'Amato

message: Does anyone have a photo of d'Amato himself?
JesseG 01:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
*try this site ~ IICATSII 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Brian DePalma is one of Joe D'Amato's pseudonyms? Seriously? -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He chose the name "Joe D'Amato" to resemble the names of famous American-Italian directors such as Brian De Palma, but I don't think he ever used that name specifically.  According to the IMDB, however, he has used the name "Raf De Palma". 71.31.154.140 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification: Brian DePalma a pseudonym of Joe D'Amato?

message: Okay, there was a lot of unsourced, unreadable prose in the biography. I've replaced it with sourced content. If there's problems with the readability, feel free to clean it up. Unless you are adding more common titles to films in the prose, lets not add random alternative titles in the prose. Good? Good! After that, lets clean-up the swamp of a filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm usually been pretty lenient, but having content that is sourced and not unsourced content, then explain how statements like ". He is generally considered the most prolific Italian filmmaker of all time." or "Emanuelle in America unexpectedly contains fake, but gritty, snuff film footage." and other random unsourced content. Give me a break. You know the rules, but you keep adding unsourced content. If you want to do that, create your own wiki. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Also the idea that the page has been "vandalized" is a joke. If you have content, create some sources. I'd love to hear you go on about how it was vandalized. A page that has unsourced content for years... Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Its not destroyed, it can easily be viewed from the history. This one is in fact better as it actually goes into his work as a cinematographer which is definitely mentioned in the article, but not in the article but was not reflected in the filmography. This one also has dates that actually reflect when a film was released and shows he did more work. All the other ones are filled with trivial points such as working with an actor or another, which was also badly done because in this case the article did not expand on why these collaborations mattered. I am also tired of visiting pages of these exploitation film directors and getting no sourced content, poorly written fan page stuff (see above) and no actual sources. If you left these articles long enough, they'd eventually get deleted. You seem really eager to keep unsourced information, which goes against basic principles of wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." So per your five years comment, we've had five years to find sources. No source? Don't keep it in the article. Simple as that.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

text: See below. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Please do not add sources that simply state a date like "Troll 2 (1990)". It is not clear whether these releases are a copyright or release date in the sources being added . I can find several contradictions to your sources so unless they are specifically stating a film has been released on a certain date, do not add a year. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Just assume your sources are correct". Sorry, but if you want to add content, the onus is up to you to prove it. That link there states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If you want it there, you gotta back it up, if you can't it doesn't get to stay because you are finding it. Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth, so in short "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I mean argument is "I think i'm right, but I can't prove it, but lets pretend nothing is wrong until someone else does the work for me. Nuh-uh. I've posted several rules above you are breaking by doing this. So as much as I'd love a perfect correct filmography, you are not going to get anyone to back you up here . Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

text: If you have your reference books, please present them (although you also stated that these release dates of films have been lost in time, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here). I'm not really saying that any sources found specifically are right or wrong, but by WP:RS/IMDb, we do not use IMDb as a source because its information sourced from user-generated content. Wikipedia is not truly about "truth" but whether or not you can verify something. IMDb information submitted by users is not verifiable, so we don't use it. If you want to try and suggest IMDb to be used a source, I'd take it up with WP:FILM, but I do not think you'll get a lot of support there for this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Pages are using IMDb for a source, but it does not mean they should be. They will, eventually, be removed. Per WP:RS/IMDb, "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. [...] Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites." I have no clue where you are getting your rule from. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Bring this idea up on MOS:FILM, see how they feel about it. If you think it should be used or want to know how much it should be, this goes beyond just this article and will reflect on all film related articles. So go ahead, see how it flys there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography