Talk:Umberto Lenzi

message: A user has removed the table citing WP:FILMOGRAPHY noting that there was no obvious benefit for using the table in this format. This removed several sources and information regarding Lenzi's contributions to films he did more than direct or films he featured in. Nothing on the cited WP:FILMOGRAPHY suggests the table should be listed in a non table as Lenzi work is not small and his contributions are often complicated. The table allows for sorting for specific film credits and gives a better representation. I can not justify the bold use of removing it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no benefit in having a table for this filmography.  The table is messy and mostly blank, and completely unnecessary.  The only additional information given here is to note the films that he also wrote, something that can easily be placed in the brackets alongside the year, as I did when I started to clean this mess up.  --woodensuperman 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I would also note above that other users objected to this mess when you started trying to reorganize into a table.  It was far better previously.  --woodensuperman 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how an unsourced content is superior. Per WP:WORKS, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." Which is what is being cited here. Not to mention numerous uncredited works in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography/archive1 show that you do indeed need individual sources. This is also why Aamir Khan filmography, and James Franco filmography have sources for individual films. I have tried to add some of the more esoteric contributions to Lenzi's career here to expand this out. His filmography does not show him wearing too many hats as a filmmaker, but his output is so large that a sortable table is definitely useful here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can source it without having a mostly empty table which isn't even in chronological order.  This is of no use to anyone.  If it's a work in progress, then work on it in draft.  And we don't need to include everything he worked on as assistant director, etc, etc, as this is a "select filmography", just his main directorial works.  Or, leave a representative filmography here, and work on a full filmography article in draft.  To leave it in this state for a few months like you have is an incredibly poor show.    --woodensuperman 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like its current form, then it is your burden to find the sources that match it. Italian filmmakers such as Lenzi often have difficult to source filmographies. It has gone better in time, but if you can find sources, be my guest. I'm curious where you are sourcing items that we shouldn't list his smaller credits. If its because it says "Select filmography" then the simple solution is to update that to say "Filmography". It does not have to be complete, it can be tagged with that. Suggesting I have left it in this state suggests its my sole responsibility to source it. All content like this should be sourced. If not, it should be removed. (I don't think I need to show you the rules for that). Otherwise, I believe other users are chiming in now so we should get a more rounded opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lenzi's filmography is freely available on the internet: , which I believe would be sufficient as a source for the whole thing.  No other sources needed.  And a full filmography here may make the page too large.  As I said, leave a small filmography list here, work on a full filmography article (in draft), source away to your heart's content, and everyone is happy.  --woodensuperman 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text:  I'd support the use of a table, as it's significantly neater than a bullet point list, and a filmography shouldn't really be presented in prose--running prose detailing someone's career is fine but presenting this list as prose is nonsense. There's no benefit to losing the table, so long as it's properly formatted for accessibility. GRAPPLE X 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't prose.  It's a list.  --woodensuperman 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. I'm saying it should not be presented as prose, not that it is prose. The other alternative is to list it as a long bulleted list, which is in no way preferable, as it's less accessible for screen readers. So what's the issue? GRAPPLE X 15:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is suggesting that the filmography should be presented in prose form?  --woodensuperman 15:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You said not to use a table. I am simply identifying why the other alternatives to a table don't work. If it's not a table, it's either prose or a bullet point list. And neither of those are any good. So what other alternatives are there? Because if there are no other alternatives, then a table is the best option. GRAPPLE X 15:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On trying to read further on it, WP:BULLETLIST suggets "Bulleted style is appropriate for long lists, and lists in which numeric ordering is not appropriate." In this case, it is for the year of release for the films. I have yet to see any featured list candidate that has a list in bullet form, even for something as supposedly simple as a filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I see no benefit from switching to a bulleted list like the Woody Allen article as it is not accessible for screen-readers in the way that a table can be. GRAPPLE X 09:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you highlight the problem that screen readers have with bulleted lists.  There is nothing on WP:BULLETLIST to support this claim, especially given that it , and as Andrzej points out above,   --woodensuperman 10:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They lack the functionality clearly defined row and column scopes give in terms of breaking up the information. It's a bare bone approach compared to a deliberately accommodating one. Can you provide any benefit granted by bullet points? GRAPPLE X 10:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, screen readers have no problem with them whatsoever then?  The benefit is that you have a simple and concise list, unlike the mess of a table we currently have which causes unnecessary clutter without giving any additional information and isn't even in the correct order.  --woodensuperman 10:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of "clear and concise" seems to differ wildly from mine, and one of the benefits of tables is that the "correct order" can be sorted at will. Even if you disregard the benefit of a table and consider both options equal, this is definitely a content dispute in which several editors disagree with you. GRAPPLE X 10:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is customary for filmographies to be presented in chronological order.  The current table cannot be sorted in chronological order as half of the dates are missing.  This is little more than a poorly thought out work in progress, that should be worked on in a sandbox until it is ready for publication, and even then I would prefer not to clutter this page, but instead look at a standalone filmography article instead.  We should revert to the last good version, but maybe split into two columns.  Note that I am not the only editor to have had an issue with this, if you see the section above.  --woodensuperman 11:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Also note your definition of "several" seems to differ from mine.  --woodensuperman 11:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "editor above" had simply been trying to reinsert much uncited information into the article, which is immaterial to how extant cited material is presented. GRAPPLE X 11:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, initially they were requesting that the filmography was put back as it was, as they point out that in its current form the filmography is unreadable and unusable.  And I think that's exactly what we must do.  Put it back how it was, a simple chronological list of his films.  Not a massive table with missing dates and data and unnecessary blank spaces everywhere.  --woodensuperman 11:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If your issues is missing dates, than it is your burden to find them, it seems to have little to do with a table. Your most recent edit to the filmography would either be reverted or removed entirely without sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that someone messed up a perfectly good list with a table that has no benefit and presents the information in a haphazard manner.  As I pointed out earlier, there is a single source we could use for the entire filmography here.  Remember that information only needs to be verifiable, and any film with an article will ordinarily be sufficiently sourced.  Why have you left Man from the Deep River in the lower half of the table without a year?  This whole thing is a disaster!!!  Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, the "burden" is on you to .  There is clearly no obvious benefit to a table in this case, especially one that presents the information in a non-chronological format so this table needs to be removed until it is no longer a work in progress and you can justify it over a list.  --woodensuperman 14:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is great benefit. You can see sort the films as you like "alphabetically, by credit, by year, etc.". Your main issue seems to be that the films are not listed chrnologically. The issue is there are no sources for those films on when they were released. Do you have any? Then edit away. Currently you don't and want to remove cited material to an uncited format, which breaks countless rules (WP:RS, WP:OR, and list rules which state that individual items in a list require their own source.). Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot sort the films by year as there is no year present for half of them!  See my comment above regarding the year, there are plenty of sources for these - the BFI filmography that I have mentioned at least twice being just one, most of the articles themselves have years...  Why have you decided that a table which is still a work in progress is a suitable replacement for a simple list, and why do you expect me to clean up the mess that you have created?  Revert this to the list, work on your table in your sandbox, and then publish it when it is ready.  Readers are being disadvantaged with this carbuncle.  --woodensuperman 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still sort them by year, we just do not have information on when the films were released. The BFI filmography does not list year of release. It has a year, but there is no indication of what that stands for. Find a source that says when the film was released, then go ahead and add it. Any other change now would be the same list without years of release as you and I do not have the sources on them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be.  We can use the years from the BFI filmography.  If they turn out to be wrong, so be it.  An approximate year is far preferable to no year at all.  Why do you have no year for Man from the Deep River for example?  The film is pretty much universally referred to as being from 1972.  By not including it chronologically, we are doing the readers a disservice.   --woodensuperman 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Why do you persist in thinking the theatrical release date in some other country is more important than the film's copyright date? You can find the copyrights on the dvd's themselves! If you weren't such an elitist, you could just look up all the film on imdb.com. Wiki rules don't prohibit the use of imdb as a source, in the absence of any other sources. Use the imdb info in the meantime and if another source turns up that contradicts imdb, then change it! What's so hard about that? imdb is not prohibited as a source!68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I maintain my original point.  A filmography that is not in chronological order (or at least approximate chronological order) is next to useless.  Are you suggesting we remove 1972 from being mentioned anywhere in the Man from the Deep River article just because you think the BFI source isn't good enough?  --woodensuperman 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can tag it, but honestly if no one is willing to foot the bill and find sources for these films, then the years should not be added. I want a complete and pretty filmography as much as you, but if the information is not ready or available, we would be misleading the audience. I agree the filmography should be chronological, but I'd rather have cited content and a note that the filmography is incomplete. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're misleading them already, as the table implies that the films without years come later in his career than the ones with years, as the expectation is that a filmography is in chronological order.  --woodensuperman 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe having the N/A is simple enough but with this, its just your opinion against mine. The only suggestion I'd make would be to remove those films then until we can find the source that satisfies you or leaving it as and putting a hat note that the N/A symbol means that we are lacking the release year for these films. The latter sounds satisfactory to me and avoids us breaking any rules that your previous suggestions cause. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't put in a year that suggests a year of release when we don't have one per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Also, adding sources is not vandalism here. The Archviodecinema site has lists of when the films were at least passed for copyright in Italy, I would be okay listing them after the years, but putting a date would be extremely misleading. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

text: , please assume WP:GOODFAITH, the filmography previously was uncited and full of trivial incidents (occasional cast members, no sources, etc.). It was without a doubt not a superior version and stating that it was "vandalized" is well...I don't even know how to comment on that one.
Vandalizing a site is when you delete a perfectly accurate filmography and replace it with a half finished list which eliminates all the interesting little trivia that was on the original site of interest to Lenzi collectors, and then leaving it half finished with most of the titles all out of order. As far as a fan trying to access such a site, the viewer would consider the site had been vandalized. That's all I'm saying68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

text: , I agree with you on the formatting. I can try to re-arrange the headers to fit in the extra story credits. I know people do want to have those years in, but I still think its strange to have some dates restored while others are replaced with copyright dates. Especially with Italian productions where films are often released long after their 'completion' (see articles for Murder Obsession and Rabdi Dogs for examples. The first was released about a year or two later after it was submitted to the Italian censor board, while Rabid Dogs was not released for decades. That is why I stress on actual years. Its not a complete form, but it also encourages other editors to try to clench their teeth and really start digging for content and sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I would also note above that other users objected to this mess when you started trying to reorganize into a table.  It was far better previously.  --woodensuperman 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the relative merits of the layout, the previous version has problems too with unsourced/unnecessary alternative titles. We certainly don't need to list every title under the sun in a filmography—the main English title and perhaps the original native title are sufficient—so there has been improvement at least in that direction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not calling it on reliability, I'm calling it on WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The year in the BFI database is unclear. Does it mean copyright? or does it mean the year of release? I'm not saying the database is wrong, but it just is improper sourcing. Otherwise, I think your table is fairly strong.Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it even matter to us as readers? The whole point of having a date in a filmography is so we know the chronology of the filmography. In most cases a release date will only differ from a copyright date by a year or two, and where it is not known we can just use something like "c. 1970" or simply add a note. Personally I find it useful to know whether a film was at the start of someone's career or towards the end, and if we can pin it down to within a year or two then let's provide the info. I think Grapple's table is pretty good btw and am happy to support it. The only alteration I would make would be to use "em" instead of "px" to set the column widths e.g. "5em;" instead of "65px;". This is because "px" sets a hard size whereas "em" sets the column width using the font size. So, if somebody with eyesight problems uses a larger font size the "em" code with adapt the column widths accordingly. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree with the sourcing suggestion, if we can't clarify a date (which we can not), then it is of no use. However, the filmography has other uses such as suggesting Lenzi's contributions. But as stated (and I can give several examples), these films are often released long after their creation. In most serious published material (not just online databases, but published sources), when dates can not be verified they usually place say something like "1991(?)" when it is not clarified. I only see it as bad form and misleading to readers to have some sources (which are sourced from high quality sources, but not easily accessible) stating a year of release while other sources are just giving a year with no information on that year indicating. It fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE and I would really like to see an argument against that rule before I hear another "oh but it looks weird!". I want a complete filmography that fills in all the gaps as much as anyone else, but currently the information is not readily available. As for Grapple's table, I would re-include the sources that actually state dates (currently all the ones in the prose) and would not use items that are unsourced with dates. Please do not ignore rules to have a better article, its not the way to to this.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way to look at WP:STICKTOSOURCE is that if a reliable source gives us a date, it would require another reliable source that refutes that date before we should call it into doubt. I see no reason to questions BFI's years here without also having a source that says differently. As I said earlier, I can add further sources to it but I'm not going to devote time to second-guessing the sources already present. GRAPPLE X 15:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I can't stress it enough, but its about Verifiability, not correctness. Grapple's list avoids WP:STICKTOSOURCE, not to mention its lacking the articles titles. Most people reading English wikipedia can not read the Italian title. I am not against adding it, but I think the main wikipages title and Italian title is more than enough. Still not seeing any arguments that seem to avoid WP:STICKTOSOURCE though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I am sticking the source by giving the information as it is listed in the source. Titles are given as the source gives them, years are given as the source gives them. English titles should only be given with a source as otherwise we are going against the source's information. IMDB should categorically not be used, as it has long been ruled an unreliable source. Abiding by WP:RS is not "elitist", it's a fundamental tenet of the site and is not going to change. If someone can please explain to me why using information taken from a reliable source, and only using information taken from a reliable source, goes against WP:STICKTOSOURCE, then I'll listen, but it seems like all I have done is stick to the source. GRAPPLE X 08:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We should list the films by article title, as these will have been chosen per WP:COMMONNAME policy and would be most WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the readers.  --woodensuperman 09:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to "sticking to sources"? GRAPPLE X 09:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no WP:OR conflict here.  The English language titles are WP:VERIFIABLE, and article titles will have been chosen in line with WP policy.  We shouldn't be making things difficult for the reader - they should see the title the film is most well known as in the English speaking world WP:USEENGLISH. --woodensuperman 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen multiple cases in the past where English titles were chosen simply because editors felt it was "right", rather than going by how sources list them. The BFI by and large use the films' original titles, anything else would require additional sources to both verify what another title is and demonstrate that it's more commonly used in reliable sources than the original. GRAPPLE X 09:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really wouldn't.  By rigidly sticking to the Italian titles, you end up making the filmography practically useless again as no-one would recognize the film titles.  If you want to perform thorough checks that each of the articles is at the right title, then you can do that, but this list should mirror the article titles so that is understood by most readers.  --woodensuperman 10:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so we only use sources when we want, and don't actually base our content on what sources say. I guess I got this whole Wikipedia thing backwards all these years. GRAPPLE X 10:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with listing the titles in English exactly the way they are already titled on their individual wikipages? They're already listed in English on their individual entries, right, and those entries are all verified, aren't they?  Actually you're both right, you can list each film by its English title AND its Italian title in parentheses, or vice versa. What's so hard about that? Then everybody's happy! The elitists can revel in the Italian titles, and those wiki readers who are not fluent in Italian can also comprehend the vulgar English title if they are that unschooled68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are sticking to source as you have yet to suggest what the years in the BFI stand for. I've searched. I can't find it. You are interpreting something that is not clear. How do you even know what order they should be in for films that have the same year? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Italian titles I think are ok for inclusion as Lenzi had not really worked outside Italy (outside occasional co-productions). Again, I'll copy and paste it, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." So there you go, using the year and you can't even find evidence stating that this what the years mean. AFI and others at least state its a release date. BFI does not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I've stated several rules why sources are needed, with specific rules and guidelines. Your response seems to just be "aw but we don't actually need them." which seems to be against countless rules. Articles are supposed to strive to reach FA status, all of them. So stating we don't need sources is nonsense. I've been able to find several while everyone else seems to be passing it by because...well, I haven't really figured out any rules or guideline they are following other than they want a film in there. I have been willing to compromise with at least adding them with tags noting that you don't have sources for certain details, or tagging them that a citation is needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

text: If you want to make such a major suggestion, take it to WP:FILMOGRAPHY. As this would effect more than just one articles page. You seem to want to change rules, but do not want to do the leg work to get it done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Happy to answer that. From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#External_links, " Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews. Other useful external links include the Internet Movie Database, which provides community interaction, and Box Office Mojo, which provides box office statistics that may be too indiscriminate for the article." If you want to discuss things not related to the filmography on this page, I'd suggest asking me or WP:FILM next time though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography

message: I notice you left the titles in their correct order on the Bruno Mattei page and just wrote n/a on the ones that don't have a firm release date. Can't we do the same thing with the Umberto Lenzi filmography? If you let me, I can put them in the right order and I will leave the n/a next to each one like you have it. I saved the list I used to have on the page, so I know the order of production.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are better off trying to find sources first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't have a copy of Spaghetti Nightmares, but I imagine it's the English version of the book. According to Roberto Curti, the English translation of the book is not verified by its authors (source). Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying one is stronger than the other, but Curti specifically notes when information is incorrect and states where his information is coming from. The more information. the better. For example, I've added some information on his made-for-tv films. They were definitly made in the 1980s, but they were never broadcast on tv and only released on home video in 2000 in Italy. I can't find any further information on when and where these films are available, but this is so far the earliest bits we have for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenzi filmography

message: Hi @Andrzejbanas, could you please add the full citation for Cowie & Elley? It looks like the filmography only has the short footnote and I'm not sure which book is being cited. czar 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey . Not sure what happened. I've re-added it now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowie & Elley 1977