This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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)
Lenzi's filmography was on this page for years and everyone found it useful. Now you delete the filmography without replacing it with a functional one, and you tell Wooden it's his responsibility now to fix it?? Wow. that's cold! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
ummm....the bullet point list is the one that worked on this site for years! That's how you list items. Also, my original filmography contained almost every one of Lenzi's titles. Which ones were missing? That list covered everything he directed! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at how Woody Allen#Filmography and awards is formatted, and the separate Woody Allen filmography article. I think this is the approach we should be using here. -- wooden superman 08:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"is the most common list type on Wikipedia", and as Andrzej points out above,
"Bulleted style is appropriate for long lists, and lists in which numeric ordering is not appropriate."-- wooden superman 10:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The bullet points allow the inclusion of trivia, alternate titles, actors names, whatever you want to add! Those things don't fit in a regimented table. THe bullet points list allows for much more flexibility, and it is FAR from "prose". How can prose be confused with a bullet point list? Someone in here didn't pass English. lol 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm the guy who put the filmography on originally, and now I'm referred to in quotes like I'm sort kind of weirdo trying to mess up wikipedia. LOL. I'm just an "editor" in quotes now. And keep in mind, I did this page while constantly being harassed and having my additions spitefully deleted on a daily basis. I wish I was a "real" editor.sigh 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography". 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. -- wooden superman 14:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, " 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." Using those years would be wrong as there is no indication to what they are saying. Your arguments seem a bit inconsistent. Find me the source that says when the Deep River film was released, I've searched and have not found anything conclusive to state when it was released. For the record, a source that says Man From Deep River (1973) is not enough (see STICKTOSOURCE again). Again, an approximate year is not good. Its better to have no information than improperly sourced information. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
My original filmography was deleted from this site, and it still hasn't been fixed. My opinion is, if you're not going to make something better, leave it alone. But then the person who created this mess had no way of knowing Lenzi would die today. Now 20 million fans are going to be rushing to a site that has been totally vandalized. I still have the original filmography saved if you'd like to post it back temporarily. Its just a cut and paste away. I'd be more than happy to put it back up, if I was assured of not getting accused of vandalism. Let me know. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
oops, here's my reply.... Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Umberto Lenzi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny thing is, every fact on my filmography was verified by imdb and a bunch of other sources, I just didn't know how to put footnotes in back then. Every title and date was double checked, even the alternate release titles were all verified on imdb and other sites. But for some reason, imdb isn't allowed as a source?? Meanwhile overall, it's much more accurate than wikipedia! (from my own experience) 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There we go with "year of release" again. Since when did these filmographies go to "year of theatrical release"? It used to be the film's year of origin, or copyright date. Now all of a sudden, we're dealing with theatrical release dates?? I don't get it. Who cares when a theatre in some other country showed the film? The date of origin is all that counts. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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 saying 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
THe fact that Euro films were sometimes distributed decades after they were copyrighted is exactly the reason WHY we should go by the copyright dates, not the theatrical release date. Especially when you're dealing with Euro or Asian films. A later theatrical release date is meaningless when you're trying to put these films into chronological order. Ijust hope Lenzi didn't see what you did to his wikipage before he passed. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just moving this comment up so it doesn't get lost in this "novel". lol.....
If we're taking a vote in here, I agree with WoodenSuperman 100% that the earlier Lenzi filmography should be put back on this page. It was 100 times better than what's on the page now. But my opinion doesn't count, since I'm just referred to in here as an "editor" in quotes. Anyway, I vote with Wooden on this one obviously. When will the votes be tallied anyway? I'm curious how it's done. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
All of the "unecessary" alternate titles had already been mercilessly deleted earlier, believe me. Any that were still on the list were absolutely titles under which the films were distributed or sold under, 100% accurate. I wasn't listing the Zembabwei release titles or anything like that. It was all Italian and English language titles. (And why would information on an alternate title be unecessary to someone hunting down these hard-to-find dvd's anyway? I'd think a collector going to this site for info would LOVE to learn what alternate titles the films were distributed under, no? Isn't that why people look at these wikipages, to get INFORMATION? If this stuff is irrelevant to you, you shouldn't be looking at the page to begin with, isn't that true?18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've drafted a new table here with information cited from BFI. If anything is missing I can try finding alternative sources but it seems that this covers everything; years and titles are based strictly on what is given in the source used (and let's not try to impugn one of the largest film archives in existence on reliability here). GRAPPLE X 21:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
But it's all in Italian? What about people who don't speak Italian, aren't they able to use this site too? Or are you so elitist, that we don't want people reading the site who aren't fluent in other languages? I thought we were on the ENGLISH version of Wiki here, no? After looking at that table, I feel like maybe I'm in Rome!?? Can't we make a column for the English language titles too, Grapple? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The theatrical release dates (years later in some cases) have nothing to do with a table like this. It should list only the date the film was made and/or copyrighted, which is almost always the same. Who cares when a specific theatre showed the film in France or in the US, years later? The films' theatrical release dates depended only on whether or not the company was able to find a distributor for the picture, it has nothing to do with when the films were made, or the order in which they were made. My filmography had listed all the dates the films were made & copyrighted, and you changed it by inserting theatrical release dates into the list. Now you're complaining about the presence of theatrical release dates mixed in with Grapple's copyright dates? You're the one who CREATED this logjam, now you're complaining that it's messed up?! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Grapple's list is great, he just needs a column where we can put the English language titles of the films that were distributed in the US or England. Many people who search for info on wiki are not fluent in Italian. When they look for these movies on ebay or amazon, they're going to need the english title, not the Italian one.
I've always said we should use ANY reliable source, and if another source contradicts it later, we can always change it. And while we're at it, why do you guys hate imdb as a source so vehemently? Is it an elitist thing, or did wikipedia have a fight with imdb or something? I don't understand this whole thing of looking down your noses at imdb. Yes, there are errors on imdb, but there are errors all throughout wikipedia too. So why not use a imdb source if there's no other source available, and then later, if a better source turns up, just change it, no? How hard is that? And in the meantime, we'll have nice wiki entries filled with helpful info (that would be 99% correct in all likelihood.) 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Grapple, that new BFI list you developed ends with "Gli occhi dentro (1993)" being listed under Lenzi. That film was directed by Bruno Mattei. Why is it on your Lenzi list? Just curious 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Andzre's list and Grapple's list, I prefer the way Andrze's list has all the titles listed in English. It's so inviting and immediately readable to anyone who goes to the site, as opposed to Grapple's Italian list which at first glance is incoherent, unless you speak Italian. But I like Grapple's idea of using whatever sources are available and going by the film's copyright date instead of the theatrical release date. So maybe you should meet somewhere in the middle, no? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
At least put them in the correct year of copyright. If we can verify exact release dates, then put them in order within that year. But if the film was copyrighted in 1972 and only distributed in 1977, then it should be listed under 1972, not 1977. Otherwise you are skewing the chronology irreparably. Again I submit, why this emphasis on theatrical RELEASE dates? Who cares when it was eventually distributed? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You two are making a right meal of this. I really think we have a perfect case for WP:IAR when rigidly clinging on to the need for sources leaves us with a completely useless filmography table. All we need is a simple filmography list, we should trust that the articles have the correct titles and years (and if not, correct those) and we can fill in the gaps from the BFI or similar. This does not need to be complicated, we are not serving our readers carrying on like this. -- wooden superman 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Wooden, this isn't rocket science here. We're just compiling a list of Lenzi's films, and I already had it all done for ya, if you hadn't changed it all. This isn't an article on brain surgery or anything, just a simple list of movie titles. The copyright dates are on the darn DVD's themselves! Why are you searching for obscure theatrical release dates that don't always reflect the year the film was created? You're making this WAAAAAY harder than it should be, and when you're done, you'll just have this empty table with a hundred footnotes on it and no real information. I'm on Wooden's side on this one all the way. Let's repost my bullet point list, and if you find any sources that contradict it, then edit out the errors. Fair enough? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Just moving this link up so it doesn't get lost in this "novel".... https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umberto_Lenzi&oldid=792968556 [1]
Why does every wikipedia page have an external link to imdb.com at the bottom of every page, if imdb is not to be considered accurate? You even have it on the bottom of the Umberto Lenzi page.....an external link to imdb! Why? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 23:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
Check out the Luca Palmerini book interview in which Lenzi speaks about working with Harry Kirkpatrick on Nightmare Beach; Kirkpatrick was Lenzi's co-director, not an alias he used. If for some reason you don't want this info on the page, delete it & I'll leave it off. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Just an aside. Just because a reference work is of more recent origin doesn't make it more accurate than a reference work published 25 years ago. Recently I bought a newly released book on Japanese monster movies, hoping it would have a lot of newly discovered facts in it, and it turned out to be a very shallow piece of research with hardly any real meat to it at all (some of the release dates listed were even wrong). My Japanese reference books from the 90's are so much more helpful and accurate. I don't see why a more recent publication would necessarily be a better reference source than one published in the 90s. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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)
Lenzi's filmography was on this page for years and everyone found it useful. Now you delete the filmography without replacing it with a functional one, and you tell Wooden it's his responsibility now to fix it?? Wow. that's cold! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
ummm....the bullet point list is the one that worked on this site for years! That's how you list items. Also, my original filmography contained almost every one of Lenzi's titles. Which ones were missing? That list covered everything he directed! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at how Woody Allen#Filmography and awards is formatted, and the separate Woody Allen filmography article. I think this is the approach we should be using here. -- wooden superman 08:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"is the most common list type on Wikipedia", and as Andrzej points out above,
"Bulleted style is appropriate for long lists, and lists in which numeric ordering is not appropriate."-- wooden superman 10:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The bullet points allow the inclusion of trivia, alternate titles, actors names, whatever you want to add! Those things don't fit in a regimented table. THe bullet points list allows for much more flexibility, and it is FAR from "prose". How can prose be confused with a bullet point list? Someone in here didn't pass English. lol 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm the guy who put the filmography on originally, and now I'm referred to in quotes like I'm sort kind of weirdo trying to mess up wikipedia. LOL. I'm just an "editor" in quotes now. And keep in mind, I did this page while constantly being harassed and having my additions spitefully deleted on a daily basis. I wish I was a "real" editor.sigh 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography". 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. -- wooden superman 14:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, " 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." Using those years would be wrong as there is no indication to what they are saying. Your arguments seem a bit inconsistent. Find me the source that says when the Deep River film was released, I've searched and have not found anything conclusive to state when it was released. For the record, a source that says Man From Deep River (1973) is not enough (see STICKTOSOURCE again). Again, an approximate year is not good. Its better to have no information than improperly sourced information. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
My original filmography was deleted from this site, and it still hasn't been fixed. My opinion is, if you're not going to make something better, leave it alone. But then the person who created this mess had no way of knowing Lenzi would die today. Now 20 million fans are going to be rushing to a site that has been totally vandalized. I still have the original filmography saved if you'd like to post it back temporarily. Its just a cut and paste away. I'd be more than happy to put it back up, if I was assured of not getting accused of vandalism. Let me know. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
oops, here's my reply.... Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Umberto Lenzi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny thing is, every fact on my filmography was verified by imdb and a bunch of other sources, I just didn't know how to put footnotes in back then. Every title and date was double checked, even the alternate release titles were all verified on imdb and other sites. But for some reason, imdb isn't allowed as a source?? Meanwhile overall, it's much more accurate than wikipedia! (from my own experience) 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There we go with "year of release" again. Since when did these filmographies go to "year of theatrical release"? It used to be the film's year of origin, or copyright date. Now all of a sudden, we're dealing with theatrical release dates?? I don't get it. Who cares when a theatre in some other country showed the film? The date of origin is all that counts. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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 saying 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
THe fact that Euro films were sometimes distributed decades after they were copyrighted is exactly the reason WHY we should go by the copyright dates, not the theatrical release date. Especially when you're dealing with Euro or Asian films. A later theatrical release date is meaningless when you're trying to put these films into chronological order. Ijust hope Lenzi didn't see what you did to his wikipage before he passed. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Just moving this comment up so it doesn't get lost in this "novel". lol.....
If we're taking a vote in here, I agree with WoodenSuperman 100% that the earlier Lenzi filmography should be put back on this page. It was 100 times better than what's on the page now. But my opinion doesn't count, since I'm just referred to in here as an "editor" in quotes. Anyway, I vote with Wooden on this one obviously. When will the votes be tallied anyway? I'm curious how it's done. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
All of the "unecessary" alternate titles had already been mercilessly deleted earlier, believe me. Any that were still on the list were absolutely titles under which the films were distributed or sold under, 100% accurate. I wasn't listing the Zembabwei release titles or anything like that. It was all Italian and English language titles. (And why would information on an alternate title be unecessary to someone hunting down these hard-to-find dvd's anyway? I'd think a collector going to this site for info would LOVE to learn what alternate titles the films were distributed under, no? Isn't that why people look at these wikipages, to get INFORMATION? If this stuff is irrelevant to you, you shouldn't be looking at the page to begin with, isn't that true?18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've drafted a new table here with information cited from BFI. If anything is missing I can try finding alternative sources but it seems that this covers everything; years and titles are based strictly on what is given in the source used (and let's not try to impugn one of the largest film archives in existence on reliability here). GRAPPLE X 21:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
But it's all in Italian? What about people who don't speak Italian, aren't they able to use this site too? Or are you so elitist, that we don't want people reading the site who aren't fluent in other languages? I thought we were on the ENGLISH version of Wiki here, no? After looking at that table, I feel like maybe I'm in Rome!?? Can't we make a column for the English language titles too, Grapple? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The theatrical release dates (years later in some cases) have nothing to do with a table like this. It should list only the date the film was made and/or copyrighted, which is almost always the same. Who cares when a specific theatre showed the film in France or in the US, years later? The films' theatrical release dates depended only on whether or not the company was able to find a distributor for the picture, it has nothing to do with when the films were made, or the order in which they were made. My filmography had listed all the dates the films were made & copyrighted, and you changed it by inserting theatrical release dates into the list. Now you're complaining about the presence of theatrical release dates mixed in with Grapple's copyright dates? You're the one who CREATED this logjam, now you're complaining that it's messed up?! 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Grapple's list is great, he just needs a column where we can put the English language titles of the films that were distributed in the US or England. Many people who search for info on wiki are not fluent in Italian. When they look for these movies on ebay or amazon, they're going to need the english title, not the Italian one.
I've always said we should use ANY reliable source, and if another source contradicts it later, we can always change it. And while we're at it, why do you guys hate imdb as a source so vehemently? Is it an elitist thing, or did wikipedia have a fight with imdb or something? I don't understand this whole thing of looking down your noses at imdb. Yes, there are errors on imdb, but there are errors all throughout wikipedia too. So why not use a imdb source if there's no other source available, and then later, if a better source turns up, just change it, no? How hard is that? And in the meantime, we'll have nice wiki entries filled with helpful info (that would be 99% correct in all likelihood.) 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Grapple, that new BFI list you developed ends with "Gli occhi dentro (1993)" being listed under Lenzi. That film was directed by Bruno Mattei. Why is it on your Lenzi list? Just curious 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 19:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Andzre's list and Grapple's list, I prefer the way Andrze's list has all the titles listed in English. It's so inviting and immediately readable to anyone who goes to the site, as opposed to Grapple's Italian list which at first glance is incoherent, unless you speak Italian. But I like Grapple's idea of using whatever sources are available and going by the film's copyright date instead of the theatrical release date. So maybe you should meet somewhere in the middle, no? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
At least put them in the correct year of copyright. If we can verify exact release dates, then put them in order within that year. But if the film was copyrighted in 1972 and only distributed in 1977, then it should be listed under 1972, not 1977. Otherwise you are skewing the chronology irreparably. Again I submit, why this emphasis on theatrical RELEASE dates? Who cares when it was eventually distributed? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You two are making a right meal of this. I really think we have a perfect case for WP:IAR when rigidly clinging on to the need for sources leaves us with a completely useless filmography table. All we need is a simple filmography list, we should trust that the articles have the correct titles and years (and if not, correct those) and we can fill in the gaps from the BFI or similar. This does not need to be complicated, we are not serving our readers carrying on like this. -- wooden superman 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Wooden, this isn't rocket science here. We're just compiling a list of Lenzi's films, and I already had it all done for ya, if you hadn't changed it all. This isn't an article on brain surgery or anything, just a simple list of movie titles. The copyright dates are on the darn DVD's themselves! Why are you searching for obscure theatrical release dates that don't always reflect the year the film was created? You're making this WAAAAAY harder than it should be, and when you're done, you'll just have this empty table with a hundred footnotes on it and no real information. I'm on Wooden's side on this one all the way. Let's repost my bullet point list, and if you find any sources that contradict it, then edit out the errors. Fair enough? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Just moving this link up so it doesn't get lost in this "novel".... https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Umberto_Lenzi&oldid=792968556 [1]
Why does every wikipedia page have an external link to imdb.com at the bottom of every page, if imdb is not to be considered accurate? You even have it on the bottom of the Umberto Lenzi page.....an external link to imdb! Why? 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 23:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
Check out the Luca Palmerini book interview in which Lenzi speaks about working with Harry Kirkpatrick on Nightmare Beach; Kirkpatrick was Lenzi's co-director, not an alias he used. If for some reason you don't want this info on the page, delete it & I'll leave it off. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Just an aside. Just because a reference work is of more recent origin doesn't make it more accurate than a reference work published 25 years ago. Recently I bought a newly released book on Japanese monster movies, hoping it would have a lot of newly discovered facts in it, and it turned out to be a very shallow piece of research with hardly any real meat to it at all (some of the release dates listed were even wrong). My Japanese reference books from the 90's are so much more helpful and accurate. I don't see why a more recent publication would necessarily be a better reference source than one published in the 90s. 68.129.15.71 ( talk) 16:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
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)