This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Typical error of Anglo-Saxons users: giving a capitalized title to Italian films, novels etc. The correct title IS I vitelloni. -- Attilios 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This flawed view, and it is a view not sound reason, to treat foreign names and titles with an English syntax, namely using Vitelloni instead of vitelloni, only displays a gross ignorance in the issues of translating languages. For starters, Roman Spinner, you are quite ignorant of that the fact that languages besides English, also have multiple meanings for words. For instance, when translating vitelloni by direct translation, taking the infinitive vitello, and then the augmentative suffix, '-one' (-oni for plural), does indeed mean 'big calves' as one person put it, but nobody in Italy would even understand it as so. Vitelloni means in Italian, either old veal, or a young man who idles his way through life without a job. The point is, language translation is not just about syntax translating, it involves semantics too. Basically, the issue is this, you can not translate from one language to another with 100% certainty of retaining the semantics. Thus by modifying a foreign language title to a half bastardization of English, only does a poor job of translating and a disservice (read: insulting use) of both languages. The title, irrespective of what has been done in the past, for past behaviour does not mean good or proper behaviour, should be "Il vitelloni" and not "Il Vitelloni". If you are going to use the Italian words or phrases, you should also use the syntax too, then the semantics is not altered. After all, Wikipedia(English) writers often expound quite patronizingly how there should be a proper level of writing by contributors. Thus shouldn't you at least recognize the hypocrisy here and just treat all languages in the same way? I thought English was a very democratic language, why else would it be based upon, German, Italian, Latin, Greek, French, Arabic, and many other languages, and that means not just the vocabulary but also the syntax and grammatical structure. Seems as though, we now have gatekeepers to the English language. This really is ridiculous, that foreign languages have to now have their syntax altered just to accommodated a few ignorant English writers who don't even understand another language other than their own, ergo Roman Spinner. What next? Force Italians to write Pseudo Anglo-Italian, so that they can have their works accepted by ignorant English writers who can't be bothered to respect other people's languages with the same degree of respect as they demand for their own. Its bad enough that we have religious like gate-keeping going on in Wikipedia, but to now have a language police, and for English at that? Get real! This must be a new low, for Wikipedia! 2.238.240.69 ( talk) 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this discussion is at best needlessly detailed for an encylopedia article. "Vitelloni" does literally mean "big calves" (cf. Wikipedia on Italian Grammar) -- the article seems to contradict itself on this-- and makes quite good sense without getting into the discussion of a "dialectical neologism" that may well be no more than a joke on the exegetes. Ludwig X ( talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment seems to contradict itself, saying the discussion of the title is too long, then that it makes "...quite [sic] good sense..." without, to paraphrase, being too long. I appreciated the discussion of the title myself since I couldn't find a translation for the word, my Italian being weak. It could have been reworked and put closer to the beginning of the article, however, since there is a reference to someone being one of the vitelloni in the beginning of the article, as if the word was known.
98.244.203.49 (
talk) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I Vitelloni → I vitelloni — Proper capitalization of the Italian title. sdornan ( talk) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there is not agreement on how to handle this. There is no category called 'Idea' that belongs in the infobox. We have 'Screenplay' and 'Story', which is sufficient, the rest getting good coverage in the article. The article says that three of them wrote it together quickly. Any reason to doubt that? The story credit might be redundant of the screenplay, in which case I'd suggest we leave it out as well. Comments...? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Should writers be listed in the order they worked or according to the volume of their work? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I make my living as a professional in the European film industry: producers in this business are referenced as both persons and companies (and often credited as such in films) - but maybe not in Wikipedia's filmbox formats. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 18:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Typical error of Anglo-Saxons users: giving a capitalized title to Italian films, novels etc. The correct title IS I vitelloni. -- Attilios 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This flawed view, and it is a view not sound reason, to treat foreign names and titles with an English syntax, namely using Vitelloni instead of vitelloni, only displays a gross ignorance in the issues of translating languages. For starters, Roman Spinner, you are quite ignorant of that the fact that languages besides English, also have multiple meanings for words. For instance, when translating vitelloni by direct translation, taking the infinitive vitello, and then the augmentative suffix, '-one' (-oni for plural), does indeed mean 'big calves' as one person put it, but nobody in Italy would even understand it as so. Vitelloni means in Italian, either old veal, or a young man who idles his way through life without a job. The point is, language translation is not just about syntax translating, it involves semantics too. Basically, the issue is this, you can not translate from one language to another with 100% certainty of retaining the semantics. Thus by modifying a foreign language title to a half bastardization of English, only does a poor job of translating and a disservice (read: insulting use) of both languages. The title, irrespective of what has been done in the past, for past behaviour does not mean good or proper behaviour, should be "Il vitelloni" and not "Il Vitelloni". If you are going to use the Italian words or phrases, you should also use the syntax too, then the semantics is not altered. After all, Wikipedia(English) writers often expound quite patronizingly how there should be a proper level of writing by contributors. Thus shouldn't you at least recognize the hypocrisy here and just treat all languages in the same way? I thought English was a very democratic language, why else would it be based upon, German, Italian, Latin, Greek, French, Arabic, and many other languages, and that means not just the vocabulary but also the syntax and grammatical structure. Seems as though, we now have gatekeepers to the English language. This really is ridiculous, that foreign languages have to now have their syntax altered just to accommodated a few ignorant English writers who don't even understand another language other than their own, ergo Roman Spinner. What next? Force Italians to write Pseudo Anglo-Italian, so that they can have their works accepted by ignorant English writers who can't be bothered to respect other people's languages with the same degree of respect as they demand for their own. Its bad enough that we have religious like gate-keeping going on in Wikipedia, but to now have a language police, and for English at that? Get real! This must be a new low, for Wikipedia! 2.238.240.69 ( talk) 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this discussion is at best needlessly detailed for an encylopedia article. "Vitelloni" does literally mean "big calves" (cf. Wikipedia on Italian Grammar) -- the article seems to contradict itself on this-- and makes quite good sense without getting into the discussion of a "dialectical neologism" that may well be no more than a joke on the exegetes. Ludwig X ( talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment seems to contradict itself, saying the discussion of the title is too long, then that it makes "...quite [sic] good sense..." without, to paraphrase, being too long. I appreciated the discussion of the title myself since I couldn't find a translation for the word, my Italian being weak. It could have been reworked and put closer to the beginning of the article, however, since there is a reference to someone being one of the vitelloni in the beginning of the article, as if the word was known.
98.244.203.49 (
talk) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I Vitelloni → I vitelloni — Proper capitalization of the Italian title. sdornan ( talk) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there is not agreement on how to handle this. There is no category called 'Idea' that belongs in the infobox. We have 'Screenplay' and 'Story', which is sufficient, the rest getting good coverage in the article. The article says that three of them wrote it together quickly. Any reason to doubt that? The story credit might be redundant of the screenplay, in which case I'd suggest we leave it out as well. Comments...? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Should writers be listed in the order they worked or according to the volume of their work? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I make my living as a professional in the European film industry: producers in this business are referenced as both persons and companies (and often credited as such in films) - but maybe not in Wikipedia's filmbox formats. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 18:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)