La Strada has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 18, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a reason that this article is lower case? IP4240207xx ( talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. This one was controversial, but there seems to be general support for using rules of English formatting. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
La strada →
La Strada (film) — Works of art (paintings, sculptures, plays, operas, musicals, films, books, stories, presentations, etc.) which retain their original, non-English-language titles in the English-speaking world, adhere to English-language orthography. Without exception, all English-language reference works indicate the title of this renowned film as "La Strada", not "La strada". Those works include
Encyclopædia Britannica,
Encyclopedia Americana,
World Book Encyclopedia,
Collier's Encyclopedia,
Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide,
TimeOut Film Guide, Steven H. Scheuer's Movies on TV, Mick Martin's and Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide,
Halliwell's Film Guide, David Shipman's Good Film and Video Guide, VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever, Magill's Survey of Cinema, The Motion Picture Guide, The Oxford Companion to Film and hundreds of specific film books. Additionally, scores of English-language film reviews in newspapers as well as weekly and monthly journals, all use La Strada. The same application, according to the above-cited references, is followed for other original-title Italian films such as
La Dolce Vita (not
La dolce vita), French films (
Un Chien Andalou, not
Un chien andalou), Spanish films (
Los Olvidados, not
Los olvidados) and those of any other language which has its titles incorporated into English. Most languages likewise follow their own orthography principles when dealing with foreign titles. As an example, even a classic such as
Les Misérables, thus titled in
English Wikipedia and
French Wikipedia, appears in
Italian Wikipedia as I miserabili. Editors who agree to moving this title to "
La Strada" as well as those who feel that it should remain as "
La strada", please vote below.
—Roman Spinner
(talk) 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, it would not be a research topic since linguistic conventions are, presumably, non-negotiable but, as has already been noted, WikiProject Opera has controversially negotiated an opt-out for original-language opera titles despite the fact that all references in The New York Times to performances always refer to La Traviata, not La traviata. The same is true for notices in The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek and inconsistent when mentioned in The Times and The Guardian. Since this decision has the potential of creating a precedent, marshaling evidence in the same manner that the Oxford English Dictionary takes pride in the historical and literary research which supports its etymological entries, may prevent titles with foreign-language orthography from taking root in English Wikipedia.
It is a concern which does not exist in other Wikipedias, since English is the only Latin-alphabet language which imports a substantial number of foreign-language titles. My example of Italian I miserabili for " Les Misérables" could have been presented for any other non-native-Italian title — virtually all are translated into Italian — even with titles which represent names, " Hamlet" becomes Amleto, " Henry V" becomes Enrico V and " Richard III" becomes Riccardo III. " Macbeth" somehow remains the same in Italian, but in Polish Wikipedia, it becomes Makbet. The trade-off, in English, however, is that the foreign-language titles are expected to adopt English-language conventions. As has been pointed out, some derogations have been controversially negotiated for French-language works of art, but above-mentioned lists such as those for the works of Molière, Balzac, Manuel de Falla and Richard Strauss are often misleading since they are not part of the Manual of Style and tend to include all or most entries in the original language, including those which are best known by their English-language titles ( Cousin Bette, not La Cousine Bette). Also not all Italian operas are performed under their original appellations — La fanciulla del West is usually staged in the English-speaking world as The Girl of the Golden West.
We must also be wary of such sweeping statements as "Wikipedia has a strongly developed practice that the capitalisation of foreign-language titles follows the conventions for that language", or the earlier assertion that "it's a foreign film and that's the way it's done in mostly Latin films (Spanish, French, Italian, etc)". English Wikipedia, founded in January 2001, is nine-and-a-half years old, while these foreign-style rules have been added to the MOS with very little supporting evidence (and shortage of examples) within the past year or two. The assertion that scholarly works use foreign-language conventions in comparison to mass-market publications which use English-style capitalization may also not stand up to challenge. Key works of art have individual entries in every major encyclopedia, with the most important use coming in the main title header. Thus, while Encyclopedia Britannica's Giuseppe Verdi biographical entry makes reference to La traviata in its Italian context, the Encyclopedia's main entry for the title itself, uses the heading, La Traviata. Similarly for Fellini, although his biographical article refers to La strada, the film's own Britannica entry (as well as its entry in every English-language encyclopedia) lists it as La Strada.
Finally, a couple of details — this article was created five years ago, on July 30, 2005, as La Strada (1954 movie) and on December 15, 2005, was moved to La Strada (film). On June 22, 2007, an Italian Wikipedian moved it (without any discussion) to La strada (film), with the edit summary: "Italian titles are not in capitals!!!!!!!!!!!" and, finally, on August 14, 2008, another editor (reasonably) moved it to La strada, with the summary: "why the unnecessary parenthesis?". Another supporting detail in reaching a consensus to move the main header back to La Strada (film) is that there are actually two main headers — users typing "La strada" will be directed to the film, while those typing "La Strada" will be directed to a disambiguation page with four entries — one "La strada", the film itself, and three "La Strada", at least two of which are namesakes of the Fellini film, including the short-lived 1969 Broadway musical based upon the same source. Thus, within the same disambiguation page we have the "Italian film" lower-case La strada, the "American Broadway show" upper-case La Strada (musical), the "Serbian alternative rock" upper-case La Strada (band) and even the anti-female-trafficking international organization (upper-case) La Strada International Association. One can only presume that if all the disambiguation page entries had corresponding articles in the Italian Wikipedia, those would be converted to lower-case "strada", including the La Strada American Broadway musical.
Also, since one of the posts above suggested that we should "[G]o with whatever it was releases as in the English-speaking world. To force it into upper case is original research", here are three ( The New York Times, The Guardian, Time (magazine) among myriad English-language reviews which reference the film as La Strada and mention (in upper case) such other titles as I Vitelloni and La Dolce Vita. —Roman Spinner (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fowler does not pronounce on this particular issue, but the Chicago Manual does, in section 10.3, "Capitalization of foreign titles", (15th ed. (2003) p.401):
It then goes on to note that variations apply in French, German, and Dutch, and there are separate sections outlining each of those. Examples are given to illustrate these language-specific rules. The other major style guides used by scholarly publications ( The MLA Style Manual, MHRA Style Guide, Butcher's Copy-editing, New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual) make similar prescriptions: i.e. follow the conventions of the language of the title. Lampernist ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason to leave out the translation of the circus owner's name? Seems like it should be included if it is not a common name in Italian. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article already cites a reliable and verifiable source (I'm a Born Liar: A Fellini Lexicon by Pettigrew) that credits the story to Fellini and Pinelli. Idem for other reliable sources such as Bondanella, Costantini, Alpert, and Kezich including a French study of La Strada by Chris Marker, F-R Bastide, and J. Caputo (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955). Although Fellini states in Comments on Film and Fellini on Fellini how he conceived the story, he also credits Pinelli's contribution to both the story and the screenplay. Finally, Flaiano was brought in for work on the screenplay after F. and P. finished the story so the order should be Fellini, Pinelli, and Flaiano last - just as it is in the film's credits.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Smart-looking table. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 17:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a section about the personal significance of this film to its director, Federico Fellini. Xela Zeugirdor ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor is persisting in adding an assertion of BFI top 10 ranking without providing a source. Ring Cinema suggests that others should provide the source for his theory. (An earlier suggested source does not justify the assertion.) He has a record for edit-warring and discourtesy. What next? Regards Ironman1104 ( talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you are new and don't know how it works. No problem. First of all, you follow the link in the passage. If you're not satisfied with that, try WP:cite and follow the instructions. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unnecessary. The source originally given shows your assertion to be incorrect. There's a source to show it's wrong; why keep adding a false assertion? Ironman1104 ( talk) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to correct me? You have a habit of making rude comments for no reason. If in addition you can't find BFI's 1992 directors' list, I suppose the most generous conclusion is that the technology is not in your wheelhouse. I assure you that I would not suggest you are wasting our time for no reason and getting things wrong repeatedly.
As I said, in 1992 the directors placed it on their list:
The Sight & Sound Top Ten Poll: 1992 Directors’ poll
1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 2. 8 ½ (Fellini) 2. Raging Bull (Scorsese) 4. La strada (Fellini) 5. L’Atalante (Vigo) 6. The Godfather (Coppola) 6. Modern Times (Chaplin) 6. Vertigo (Hitchcock) 9. The Godfather Part II (Coppola) 10. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer) 10. Rashomon (Kurosawa) 10. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa) -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not calm down, politen up, and put your source in? Ironman1104 ( talk) 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are advising someone to be polite? You are advising on procedure? I recommend to you WP:cite and WP:good faith. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup. You could try being less pompous too! You've been barred and warned before. Why would that be? :-) Ironman1104 ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ring Cinema. I may well be wrong on this but for clarity's sake, I'll outline briefly my reasoning behind the edit. This is an Italian film and therefore a European subject. If one consults the Federico Fellini article as well as those on his films, the majority of texts use logical punctuation (British) as opposed to the American style. Other examples include the Albert Speer and Samuel Beckett articles (clearly European subjects) that correctly use the British style rather than the American.
The text in question is a quoted fragment and Wiki's MoS is clear on how it should be punctuated when using logical punctuation:
The sentence in question runs thus:
Now, "especially to Zampano" is a quoted sentence fragment and based on example 3 above. In keeping with logical punctuation used in the majority of Fellini-related articles, it ought to be punctuated as follows: "especially to Zampano”.
There are two more quoted sentence fragments in the La Strada article that should use logical punctuation as well (all the other non-fragment quotations are correctly punctuated). As I say, if I’m wrong on this, no problem. If I'm not wrong, I’ll be changing the errors in due course to comply with the majority of European/Fellini-related articles correctly using the British style. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you are saying that with fragments we are to assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor, basically, even if it may appear in the original. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't very significant, but my reading is that punctuation from the original is included even in a fragment because all original punctuation is enclosed in quotes. What do you think? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that logical is our punctuation here. What I am saying is that when we use it, we still preserve original marks within the quotes, even in fragments. You seem to say that in fragments the original marks are moved outside quotes, and that is not my reading of the guides. More clear? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it's obvious that all quotations should be sourced for verification of original punctuation. Otherwise, we assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. For me, the current logical versions of fragments are correct including "especially to Zampano" with punctuation outside closing quotation marks.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 11:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
At present, no one knows where the period is in the original because the present source can't be verified. In which case, one can only assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. Given that it's a fragment, I don't assume the editor has quoted the original version and I don't assume it's a period either - it could be a comma; and the editor who included it should have provided the proper link for verification. I've tried to find the quoted fragment in Murray's book on Google Books and can't (correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, the same editor has conflated two different quotations (Murray and Salachas) within a single source (Salachas) - a serious error that requires attention. The other fragments are definitely contributions by an editor(s), now correctly sourced and punctuated: I own the book and have verified them. If one can find the original version of "especially to Zampano", we'll re-punctuate, if necessary, by using the Wiki rules we agree on and which seem to be the easiest to follow: If the punctuation is part of the original quotation then it goes inside the quotes, otherwise it goes outside. Or else remove unsourced and/or erroneous quotations.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Tried another route and reference and discovered the original quotation (quoted incorrectly) and its original English spelling. Re-punctuated as per Wiki rules on the British style. Will now investigate the other problem of conflating two quotations from different sources.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking about that myself. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"her affect remains flat"? What the heck is an "affect"? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not a novel usage. When used as a noun: 4. Psychology . feeling or emotion. 5. Psychiatry . an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
For some reason, when 'affect' is used, it's almost always flat. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The sentence never once read "like gibberish" to me, and now that it's got a markup, reads even better. Bravo - faire d'une pierre, deux coups. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ironman has started his warring again on dead subjects. For example, this simple google search corrects him. But we've already been over this months ago. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest changing the section titled "Filming locations" to "Filming" -- and adding some material on experiences during principal photography. Sound OK? Jburlinson ( talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
A big bravo to your dedication and genuine improvements, and for the wide range of sources you've marshalled. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 10:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In a 9/30 diff described as "cleanup", there were a couple of changes that I'm not sure I understand as useful. First, a line that originally read "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to Fellini and Masina stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life..." was changed to "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to the director and his co-star stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life...". This seems ambiguous to me, since Masina was not Quinn's only co-star -- there was also Basehart. I suppose that context might make this unlikely, but the change introduces an unnecessary degree of ambiguity, it seems to me, to no apparent purpose. Also, the paragraph about personal significance to Pope Francis was moved to precede the paragraph concerning significance to audience members. Why? I'm just trying to get a sense of the thinking behind these changes, and why they should be referred to as "cleanup", as if the prior treatment was somehow disheveled or disordered. Thanks. Jburlinson ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days, unless my library has a copy, in which case I may wait slightly longer so I can rewatch it. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, this looks like quality stuff, and a likely candidate for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I'm making some tweaks to the prose as I go; feel free to revert any to which you object. I'll list action points below as I go; let me know your thoughts on them.
More in a bit... -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That should give you plenty to chew on! Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work on this important film article. I love seeing people nominate classics like this instead of the latest scifi blockbuster! --
Khazar2 (
talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
All of your fixes/tweaks look great, and I think virtually everything above is resolved. File:Masina.jpg still needs a caption clarifying exactly what it is (photograph? screenshot? Artist's portrayal?). Let me go check some film books re: themes and get back to you on that point. I still need to do spotchecks for accuracy/copyvio, too, but I think that's all that remains. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | One reference seems self-contradictory -- [40]:p.185. The fn gives 161 as the page, the colon gives 185. An easy fix if you have the book, but needs to be clarified. Done | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Image tags ok | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | One image still needs captioning. Done | |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The title La Strada is translated "the street". It could also be "the road". Both translations would be literally correct. However, the film is very much about roads - between towns - and little about streets. One can also say that that it is, metaphorically, about "the road of life". The film is discussed in English as La Strada. So I propose to change "street" to "road", if there are no objections. Errantios ( talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article states, "Finally, just before the production completed shooting, Fellini suffered a nervous breakdown that required medical treatment so that he could complete principal photography." I inserted "the" before "principal photography." Another editor, User talk:Just plain Bill, reverted it. He and I discussed this under "View history" of this article and at his talk page under the heading "the." We continue to disagree, but as of now, no "the" precedes "principal photography." Does another editor have a comment? (For convenience, I have used masculine pronouns in referring to Just plain Bill, but, of course, pseudonyms do not reveal the sex or other personal information about editors.) Maurice Magnus ( talk) 11:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
La Strada has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 18, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a reason that this article is lower case? IP4240207xx ( talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. This one was controversial, but there seems to be general support for using rules of English formatting. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
La strada →
La Strada (film) — Works of art (paintings, sculptures, plays, operas, musicals, films, books, stories, presentations, etc.) which retain their original, non-English-language titles in the English-speaking world, adhere to English-language orthography. Without exception, all English-language reference works indicate the title of this renowned film as "La Strada", not "La strada". Those works include
Encyclopædia Britannica,
Encyclopedia Americana,
World Book Encyclopedia,
Collier's Encyclopedia,
Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide,
TimeOut Film Guide, Steven H. Scheuer's Movies on TV, Mick Martin's and Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide,
Halliwell's Film Guide, David Shipman's Good Film and Video Guide, VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever, Magill's Survey of Cinema, The Motion Picture Guide, The Oxford Companion to Film and hundreds of specific film books. Additionally, scores of English-language film reviews in newspapers as well as weekly and monthly journals, all use La Strada. The same application, according to the above-cited references, is followed for other original-title Italian films such as
La Dolce Vita (not
La dolce vita), French films (
Un Chien Andalou, not
Un chien andalou), Spanish films (
Los Olvidados, not
Los olvidados) and those of any other language which has its titles incorporated into English. Most languages likewise follow their own orthography principles when dealing with foreign titles. As an example, even a classic such as
Les Misérables, thus titled in
English Wikipedia and
French Wikipedia, appears in
Italian Wikipedia as I miserabili. Editors who agree to moving this title to "
La Strada" as well as those who feel that it should remain as "
La strada", please vote below.
—Roman Spinner
(talk) 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, it would not be a research topic since linguistic conventions are, presumably, non-negotiable but, as has already been noted, WikiProject Opera has controversially negotiated an opt-out for original-language opera titles despite the fact that all references in The New York Times to performances always refer to La Traviata, not La traviata. The same is true for notices in The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek and inconsistent when mentioned in The Times and The Guardian. Since this decision has the potential of creating a precedent, marshaling evidence in the same manner that the Oxford English Dictionary takes pride in the historical and literary research which supports its etymological entries, may prevent titles with foreign-language orthography from taking root in English Wikipedia.
It is a concern which does not exist in other Wikipedias, since English is the only Latin-alphabet language which imports a substantial number of foreign-language titles. My example of Italian I miserabili for " Les Misérables" could have been presented for any other non-native-Italian title — virtually all are translated into Italian — even with titles which represent names, " Hamlet" becomes Amleto, " Henry V" becomes Enrico V and " Richard III" becomes Riccardo III. " Macbeth" somehow remains the same in Italian, but in Polish Wikipedia, it becomes Makbet. The trade-off, in English, however, is that the foreign-language titles are expected to adopt English-language conventions. As has been pointed out, some derogations have been controversially negotiated for French-language works of art, but above-mentioned lists such as those for the works of Molière, Balzac, Manuel de Falla and Richard Strauss are often misleading since they are not part of the Manual of Style and tend to include all or most entries in the original language, including those which are best known by their English-language titles ( Cousin Bette, not La Cousine Bette). Also not all Italian operas are performed under their original appellations — La fanciulla del West is usually staged in the English-speaking world as The Girl of the Golden West.
We must also be wary of such sweeping statements as "Wikipedia has a strongly developed practice that the capitalisation of foreign-language titles follows the conventions for that language", or the earlier assertion that "it's a foreign film and that's the way it's done in mostly Latin films (Spanish, French, Italian, etc)". English Wikipedia, founded in January 2001, is nine-and-a-half years old, while these foreign-style rules have been added to the MOS with very little supporting evidence (and shortage of examples) within the past year or two. The assertion that scholarly works use foreign-language conventions in comparison to mass-market publications which use English-style capitalization may also not stand up to challenge. Key works of art have individual entries in every major encyclopedia, with the most important use coming in the main title header. Thus, while Encyclopedia Britannica's Giuseppe Verdi biographical entry makes reference to La traviata in its Italian context, the Encyclopedia's main entry for the title itself, uses the heading, La Traviata. Similarly for Fellini, although his biographical article refers to La strada, the film's own Britannica entry (as well as its entry in every English-language encyclopedia) lists it as La Strada.
Finally, a couple of details — this article was created five years ago, on July 30, 2005, as La Strada (1954 movie) and on December 15, 2005, was moved to La Strada (film). On June 22, 2007, an Italian Wikipedian moved it (without any discussion) to La strada (film), with the edit summary: "Italian titles are not in capitals!!!!!!!!!!!" and, finally, on August 14, 2008, another editor (reasonably) moved it to La strada, with the summary: "why the unnecessary parenthesis?". Another supporting detail in reaching a consensus to move the main header back to La Strada (film) is that there are actually two main headers — users typing "La strada" will be directed to the film, while those typing "La Strada" will be directed to a disambiguation page with four entries — one "La strada", the film itself, and three "La Strada", at least two of which are namesakes of the Fellini film, including the short-lived 1969 Broadway musical based upon the same source. Thus, within the same disambiguation page we have the "Italian film" lower-case La strada, the "American Broadway show" upper-case La Strada (musical), the "Serbian alternative rock" upper-case La Strada (band) and even the anti-female-trafficking international organization (upper-case) La Strada International Association. One can only presume that if all the disambiguation page entries had corresponding articles in the Italian Wikipedia, those would be converted to lower-case "strada", including the La Strada American Broadway musical.
Also, since one of the posts above suggested that we should "[G]o with whatever it was releases as in the English-speaking world. To force it into upper case is original research", here are three ( The New York Times, The Guardian, Time (magazine) among myriad English-language reviews which reference the film as La Strada and mention (in upper case) such other titles as I Vitelloni and La Dolce Vita. —Roman Spinner (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fowler does not pronounce on this particular issue, but the Chicago Manual does, in section 10.3, "Capitalization of foreign titles", (15th ed. (2003) p.401):
It then goes on to note that variations apply in French, German, and Dutch, and there are separate sections outlining each of those. Examples are given to illustrate these language-specific rules. The other major style guides used by scholarly publications ( The MLA Style Manual, MHRA Style Guide, Butcher's Copy-editing, New Hart's Rules / Oxford Style Manual) make similar prescriptions: i.e. follow the conventions of the language of the title. Lampernist ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason to leave out the translation of the circus owner's name? Seems like it should be included if it is not a common name in Italian. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article already cites a reliable and verifiable source (I'm a Born Liar: A Fellini Lexicon by Pettigrew) that credits the story to Fellini and Pinelli. Idem for other reliable sources such as Bondanella, Costantini, Alpert, and Kezich including a French study of La Strada by Chris Marker, F-R Bastide, and J. Caputo (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955). Although Fellini states in Comments on Film and Fellini on Fellini how he conceived the story, he also credits Pinelli's contribution to both the story and the screenplay. Finally, Flaiano was brought in for work on the screenplay after F. and P. finished the story so the order should be Fellini, Pinelli, and Flaiano last - just as it is in the film's credits.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Smart-looking table. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 17:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a section about the personal significance of this film to its director, Federico Fellini. Xela Zeugirdor ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor is persisting in adding an assertion of BFI top 10 ranking without providing a source. Ring Cinema suggests that others should provide the source for his theory. (An earlier suggested source does not justify the assertion.) He has a record for edit-warring and discourtesy. What next? Regards Ironman1104 ( talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you are new and don't know how it works. No problem. First of all, you follow the link in the passage. If you're not satisfied with that, try WP:cite and follow the instructions. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unnecessary. The source originally given shows your assertion to be incorrect. There's a source to show it's wrong; why keep adding a false assertion? Ironman1104 ( talk) 07:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to correct me? You have a habit of making rude comments for no reason. If in addition you can't find BFI's 1992 directors' list, I suppose the most generous conclusion is that the technology is not in your wheelhouse. I assure you that I would not suggest you are wasting our time for no reason and getting things wrong repeatedly.
As I said, in 1992 the directors placed it on their list:
The Sight & Sound Top Ten Poll: 1992 Directors’ poll
1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 2. 8 ½ (Fellini) 2. Raging Bull (Scorsese) 4. La strada (Fellini) 5. L’Atalante (Vigo) 6. The Godfather (Coppola) 6. Modern Times (Chaplin) 6. Vertigo (Hitchcock) 9. The Godfather Part II (Coppola) 10. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer) 10. Rashomon (Kurosawa) 10. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa) -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not calm down, politen up, and put your source in? Ironman1104 ( talk) 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You are advising someone to be polite? You are advising on procedure? I recommend to you WP:cite and WP:good faith. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup. You could try being less pompous too! You've been barred and warned before. Why would that be? :-) Ironman1104 ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ring Cinema. I may well be wrong on this but for clarity's sake, I'll outline briefly my reasoning behind the edit. This is an Italian film and therefore a European subject. If one consults the Federico Fellini article as well as those on his films, the majority of texts use logical punctuation (British) as opposed to the American style. Other examples include the Albert Speer and Samuel Beckett articles (clearly European subjects) that correctly use the British style rather than the American.
The text in question is a quoted fragment and Wiki's MoS is clear on how it should be punctuated when using logical punctuation:
The sentence in question runs thus:
Now, "especially to Zampano" is a quoted sentence fragment and based on example 3 above. In keeping with logical punctuation used in the majority of Fellini-related articles, it ought to be punctuated as follows: "especially to Zampano”.
There are two more quoted sentence fragments in the La Strada article that should use logical punctuation as well (all the other non-fragment quotations are correctly punctuated). As I say, if I’m wrong on this, no problem. If I'm not wrong, I’ll be changing the errors in due course to comply with the majority of European/Fellini-related articles correctly using the British style. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you are saying that with fragments we are to assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor, basically, even if it may appear in the original. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't very significant, but my reading is that punctuation from the original is included even in a fragment because all original punctuation is enclosed in quotes. What do you think? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that logical is our punctuation here. What I am saying is that when we use it, we still preserve original marks within the quotes, even in fragments. You seem to say that in fragments the original marks are moved outside quotes, and that is not my reading of the guides. More clear? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it's obvious that all quotations should be sourced for verification of original punctuation. Otherwise, we assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. For me, the current logical versions of fragments are correct including "especially to Zampano" with punctuation outside closing quotation marks.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 11:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
At present, no one knows where the period is in the original because the present source can't be verified. In which case, one can only assume the punctuation is the contribution of the editor. Given that it's a fragment, I don't assume the editor has quoted the original version and I don't assume it's a period either - it could be a comma; and the editor who included it should have provided the proper link for verification. I've tried to find the quoted fragment in Murray's book on Google Books and can't (correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, the same editor has conflated two different quotations (Murray and Salachas) within a single source (Salachas) - a serious error that requires attention. The other fragments are definitely contributions by an editor(s), now correctly sourced and punctuated: I own the book and have verified them. If one can find the original version of "especially to Zampano", we'll re-punctuate, if necessary, by using the Wiki rules we agree on and which seem to be the easiest to follow: If the punctuation is part of the original quotation then it goes inside the quotes, otherwise it goes outside. Or else remove unsourced and/or erroneous quotations.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Tried another route and reference and discovered the original quotation (quoted incorrectly) and its original English spelling. Re-punctuated as per Wiki rules on the British style. Will now investigate the other problem of conflating two quotations from different sources.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done.-- Jumbolino ( talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking about that myself. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"her affect remains flat"? What the heck is an "affect"? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not a novel usage. When used as a noun: 4. Psychology . feeling or emotion. 5. Psychiatry . an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
For some reason, when 'affect' is used, it's almost always flat. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The sentence never once read "like gibberish" to me, and now that it's got a markup, reads even better. Bravo - faire d'une pierre, deux coups. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ironman has started his warring again on dead subjects. For example, this simple google search corrects him. But we've already been over this months ago. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest changing the section titled "Filming locations" to "Filming" -- and adding some material on experiences during principal photography. Sound OK? Jburlinson ( talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
A big bravo to your dedication and genuine improvements, and for the wide range of sources you've marshalled. -- Jumbolino ( talk) 10:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In a 9/30 diff described as "cleanup", there were a couple of changes that I'm not sure I understand as useful. First, a line that originally read "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to Fellini and Masina stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life..." was changed to "Long afterwards, in 1990, Quinn sent a note to the director and his co-star stating: "The two of you are the highest point in my life...". This seems ambiguous to me, since Masina was not Quinn's only co-star -- there was also Basehart. I suppose that context might make this unlikely, but the change introduces an unnecessary degree of ambiguity, it seems to me, to no apparent purpose. Also, the paragraph about personal significance to Pope Francis was moved to precede the paragraph concerning significance to audience members. Why? I'm just trying to get a sense of the thinking behind these changes, and why they should be referred to as "cleanup", as if the prior treatment was somehow disheveled or disordered. Thanks. Jburlinson ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days, unless my library has a copy, in which case I may wait slightly longer so I can rewatch it. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, this looks like quality stuff, and a likely candidate for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I'm making some tweaks to the prose as I go; feel free to revert any to which you object. I'll list action points below as I go; let me know your thoughts on them.
More in a bit... -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That should give you plenty to chew on! Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work on this important film article. I love seeing people nominate classics like this instead of the latest scifi blockbuster! --
Khazar2 (
talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
All of your fixes/tweaks look great, and I think virtually everything above is resolved. File:Masina.jpg still needs a caption clarifying exactly what it is (photograph? screenshot? Artist's portrayal?). Let me go check some film books re: themes and get back to you on that point. I still need to do spotchecks for accuracy/copyvio, too, but I think that's all that remains. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | One reference seems self-contradictory -- [40]:p.185. The fn gives 161 as the page, the colon gives 185. An easy fix if you have the book, but needs to be clarified. Done | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Image tags ok | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | One image still needs captioning. Done | |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Strada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The title La Strada is translated "the street". It could also be "the road". Both translations would be literally correct. However, the film is very much about roads - between towns - and little about streets. One can also say that that it is, metaphorically, about "the road of life". The film is discussed in English as La Strada. So I propose to change "street" to "road", if there are no objections. Errantios ( talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article states, "Finally, just before the production completed shooting, Fellini suffered a nervous breakdown that required medical treatment so that he could complete principal photography." I inserted "the" before "principal photography." Another editor, User talk:Just plain Bill, reverted it. He and I discussed this under "View history" of this article and at his talk page under the heading "the." We continue to disagree, but as of now, no "the" precedes "principal photography." Does another editor have a comment? (For convenience, I have used masculine pronouns in referring to Just plain Bill, but, of course, pseudonyms do not reveal the sex or other personal information about editors.) Maurice Magnus ( talk) 11:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)