Discussione:The Amusement Park
Vai alla navigazione
Vai alla ricerca
Edit war[modifica wikitesto]
@AndreaRocky @Tehonk (IT) Veniamoci incontro: non ha senso rimuovere il fatto che sia stato considerato un film perduto, entrambe le fonti lo riportano. Possiamo però menzionare che c'è stata una premiere nel 1975. Che ne dite?
(EN) Let's find a compromise: removing the fact that it was considered a lost movie doesn't make any sense: both sources says so. However, we could mention that it was premiered in 1975. What do you think about that? --ValeJappo (msg) 23:58, 15 ago 2021 (CEST)
- Ho chiesto all'utente di discuterne qui prima di continuare. E si, certo che concordo sulla tua versione [@ ValeJappo], che poi è quella attuale che l'utente modifica sempre. Ci sono le informazioni da te citate, manca solo una fonte sulla premiere del 1975 ma è comunque un'info che era presente già prima. --AndreaRocky parliamone qua... 00:02, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @ValeJappo claim about it being a lost movie was a misinformation at the early stage of its restoration. Quote from my university source: "It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available", proper term would be it was "largely unseen", it was not lost because there is a release in 1975 at a festival, a release in 1986 in another festival, a release in Italy at Torino Film Festival in 2001, a release in March 2018, a year before its supposed "premiere" (that March 2018 release was of the original print) so how it was "lost" then? Lost claims could be replaced with something like "not widely seen", also claim about Daniel Kraus is just wholly wrong. That guy just made some tweets in Nov 2018 and some people thought he found it, later it was revealed it was sent to Romero and his wife in 2017 and it had nothing to with that guy, and months before, in March 2018 it was already screened in a theater in New York Tehonk (msg) 00:06, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @Tehonk Could you please provide a link to this "university source"? --Ferdi2005[Posta] 00:10, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [↓↑ fuori crono] @Ferdi2005 https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3AUS-PPiU-SC201903/viewer --ValeJappo (msg) 00:12, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- This was the link I posted on embassy page: https://horrorstudies.library.pitt.edu/content/amusement-park-film-problems-aging-our-society
- @Tehonk Thank you for clarifying. Then we could go for:
- (IT) Prodotto nel 1973, il film era ritenuto perso fino al 2018, quando è stato dimostrato che in realtà ha mancato semplicemente di visibilità.
- (EN) Produced in 1973, the movie was considered lost until 2018, when it was demonstrated that actually it didn't just got visibility. --ValeJappo (msg) 00:11, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- But it was not considered lost, these are Romero's words to his wife, his wife tells it: "It was a community thing, it was nothing". It was just something that was not considered important by him. How is it considered lost when it had a screening here in Italy in 2001 at Torino Film Festival? Also "until 2018" part should be "until 2017" because that was when it was rediscovered (not "discovered" proper word would be "rediscovered") and that "Daniel Kraus" claim should be removed as it had nothing to do with that guy, Romero's wife did all the restoration things and it was sent by their festival programmer friend at Torino festival to them in 2017. That Daniel guy just made some overhyped tweets about it, that's all, and in November 2018, when it was already in the hands of Romero's wife and was already had a one week screening in a theater in New York months ago, so its rediscovery had nothing to do with that guy Tehonk (msg) 00:21, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- (edit conflict) Until 2017, tho. Btw I wasn't able to find a source about 2001 retrospective by Giulia D’Agnolo Vallan. --Vito (msg) 00:26, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- This is the source for 2001 retrospective in Italy (19th torino festival was in 2001): https://www.torinofilmfest.org/it/19-torino-film-festival/film/latent-image:-commercials-and-industrial-films/149/ Have more detailed day by day program too (amusement park was on 19 November 2001) but that should be enough Tehonk (msg) 00:31, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- I see, I put too many search terms. This source would probably be useful for en.wiki too, anyway it's fine with me. --Vito (msg) 00:35, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- A source for 1986 release: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13195726/the-pittsburgh-press/ source for March 2018 release months before that Daniel guy made overhyped tweets and people thought he found it: https://web.archive.org/web/20180303223915/https://www.spectacletheater.com/the-amusement-park/ (this alone is enought to remove that claim) Tehonk (msg) 00:39, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- I see, I put too many search terms. This source would probably be useful for en.wiki too, anyway it's fine with me. --Vito (msg) 00:35, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- This is the source for 2001 retrospective in Italy (19th torino festival was in 2001): https://www.torinofilmfest.org/it/19-torino-film-festival/film/latent-image:-commercials-and-industrial-films/149/ Have more detailed day by day program too (amusement park was on 19 November 2001) but that should be enough Tehonk (msg) 00:31, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- (edit conflict) Until 2017, tho. Btw I wasn't able to find a source about 2001 retrospective by Giulia D’Agnolo Vallan. --Vito (msg) 00:26, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- But it was not considered lost, these are Romero's words to his wife, his wife tells it: "It was a community thing, it was nothing". It was just something that was not considered important by him. How is it considered lost when it had a screening here in Italy in 2001 at Torino Film Festival? Also "until 2018" part should be "until 2017" because that was when it was rediscovered (not "discovered" proper word would be "rediscovered") and that "Daniel Kraus" claim should be removed as it had nothing to do with that guy, Romero's wife did all the restoration things and it was sent by their festival programmer friend at Torino festival to them in 2017. That Daniel guy just made some overhyped tweets about it, that's all, and in November 2018, when it was already in the hands of Romero's wife and was already had a one week screening in a theater in New York months ago, so its rediscovery had nothing to do with that guy Tehonk (msg) 00:21, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @Tehonk Could you please provide a link to this "university source"? --Ferdi2005[Posta] 00:10, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @ValeJappo claim about it being a lost movie was a misinformation at the early stage of its restoration. Quote from my university source: "It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available", proper term would be it was "largely unseen", it was not lost because there is a release in 1975 at a festival, a release in 1986 in another festival, a release in Italy at Torino Film Festival in 2001, a release in March 2018, a year before its supposed "premiere" (that March 2018 release was of the original print) so how it was "lost" then? Lost claims could be replaced with something like "not widely seen", also claim about Daniel Kraus is just wholly wrong. That guy just made some tweets in Nov 2018 and some people thought he found it, later it was revealed it was sent to Romero and his wife in 2017 and it had nothing to with that guy, and months before, in March 2018 it was already screened in a theater in New York Tehonk (msg) 00:06, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- In short, reports that declare it as it was considered lost surfaced just at early stages of its restoration process due to lack of proper research by people who made the reports based on some overhyped tweets. As you can see from the proper researched university source "It was never really "lost": rather, it was just a little too weird to become widely available." "went largely unseen and unknown". Proper term to use would be it was largely unseen and not known widely. Because it was not "considered lost" before 2017, it was just "not known by many", there is a difference there really. Saying it was considered lost when it was not really is spreading a misinformation. Tehonk (msg) 00:45, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @ValeJappo so?
- [@ Tehonk] Thank you for your effort! Sources speaks clearly, let me fix the article. --ValeJappo (msg) 16:51, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ ValeJappo] Thank you for being friendly and trying to solve it in a sensible way. Your constructive behaviour and using common sense and being open to listening and understanding instead of being stubborn is much appreciated. Your edits are acceptable to me and it's solved for me. Btw there was an error in torino festival link I fixed that, and also fixed claim about being found in 2018 by someone irrelevant because like evidenced it was not correct as well. It's all good now I hope. Thanks again for being friendly and solution oriented. Tehonk (msg) 19:54, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ ValeJappo] Well, he's acting against consensus and reverting justified edits again without seeking consensus, I don't know what to say to be honest. Tehonk (msg) 21:00, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @AndreaRocky perché hai re-inserito che si tratta di un film perduto? Gentilmente, leggi la discussione e collabora. --ValeJappo (msg) 22:03, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- Non hai inserito chiaramente che 'si tratta di un film perduto', ma che ne è stata ritrovata una copia. 5 (mi sembra) fonti a fronte di una dicono che il film non è mai andato perso. Perdonami ma cambio quella parte --ValeJappo (msg) 22:05, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- Thanks for your collaboration on this ValeJappo, I really hate making good people like you lose time on this but I believe I'm trying to be as constructive as possible. To clarify that part again; he adds that by basing it on that movieplayer.it source but it's simply false and inaccurate. Story is this: That writer made some -overhyped- tweets about it in November 2018 and it got some attention, and some early rushed reports were made like that movieplayer.it that thought it was found by that Daniel guy. But later it was revealed that copy was in the hands of Romero's wife since 2017, so it had nothing with that guy, he did not found it, he did not unearth it while it was lost etc.. and was not even lost. It just had nothing to do with him. And I showed proof for a March 2018 release (months before November 2018 where he made the tweets that caused people to think he unearthed it), so that claim is false in its entirety. There's a weak source for it yes but it was revelead by later sources including interviews with Romero's wife it was inaccurate. So that claim about it was found by Daniel Kraus should be gone. Thanks again for your collaboration and sorry for wasting time of good people like you again Tehonk (msg) 22:21, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ ValeJappo] ho sistemato la frase della copia restaurata, sintassi e grammatica orribili. Cmq ho notato che le svariate fonti si contraddicono spesso sull'essere perduto o meno, e quindi la sintesi perfetta scelta è quella.....dell'utente :D :D Buon proseguimento. --AndreaRocky parliamone qua... 23:17, 18 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @AndreaRocky@Tehonk I'll ask for the protection of this article. Any further edit will have to be discussed. --ValeJappo (msg) 19:51, 19 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ ValeJappo] ho sistemato la frase della copia restaurata, sintassi e grammatica orribili. Cmq ho notato che le svariate fonti si contraddicono spesso sull'essere perduto o meno, e quindi la sintesi perfetta scelta è quella.....dell'utente :D :D Buon proseguimento. --AndreaRocky parliamone qua... 23:17, 18 ago 2021 (CEST)
- Thanks for your collaboration on this ValeJappo, I really hate making good people like you lose time on this but I believe I'm trying to be as constructive as possible. To clarify that part again; he adds that by basing it on that movieplayer.it source but it's simply false and inaccurate. Story is this: That writer made some -overhyped- tweets about it in November 2018 and it got some attention, and some early rushed reports were made like that movieplayer.it that thought it was found by that Daniel guy. But later it was revealed that copy was in the hands of Romero's wife since 2017, so it had nothing with that guy, he did not found it, he did not unearth it while it was lost etc.. and was not even lost. It just had nothing to do with him. And I showed proof for a March 2018 release (months before November 2018 where he made the tweets that caused people to think he unearthed it), so that claim is false in its entirety. There's a weak source for it yes but it was revelead by later sources including interviews with Romero's wife it was inaccurate. So that claim about it was found by Daniel Kraus should be gone. Thanks again for your collaboration and sorry for wasting time of good people like you again Tehonk (msg) 22:21, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- Non hai inserito chiaramente che 'si tratta di un film perduto', ma che ne è stata ritrovata una copia. 5 (mi sembra) fonti a fronte di una dicono che il film non è mai andato perso. Perdonami ma cambio quella parte --ValeJappo (msg) 22:05, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @AndreaRocky perché hai re-inserito che si tratta di un film perduto? Gentilmente, leggi la discussione e collabora. --ValeJappo (msg) 22:03, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ Tehonk] Thank you for your effort! Sources speaks clearly, let me fix the article. --ValeJappo (msg) 16:51, 16 ago 2021 (CEST)
[@ AndreaRocky, Tehonk] È evidente come il terzo pilastro di Wikipedia sia un pelo superiore a un'edit war fra due utenti. Ora non ho tempo di entrare nel merito della questione, ma per ora consideratevi sul filo del rasoio: ulteriori modifiche in questa pagina comporteranno un blocco di qualche tipo sulla vostra utenza. Quando ci sono intoppi di questo tipo, si allarga la platea di contributi critici, non ci si scorna a suon di editwar che - ricordo - essere tassativamente vietata. --.avgas 22:15, 19 ago 2021 (CEST)
- [@ .avgas][@ ValeJappo] Mi scuso per la lungaggine e la discussione qui, volevo comunque portare a conoscenza gli admin e chiunque interverrà, che l'utente sta facendo lo stesso caos anche per la voce su en.wiki, dove però con nuove fonti la sua versione è stata annullata e cassata definitivamente. Possiamo usare quelle (svariate e affidabili) fonti per ripristinare che il film "era ritenuto perso fino al ritrovamento della copia recente"? Lascio link di voce e talk di en.wiki. --AndreaRocky parliamone qua... 17:32, 21 ago 2021 (CEST)
- @AndreaRocky grazie per la segnalazione. Vedo che nella talk di enwiki sono state portate diverse fonti. A questo punto direi che può andare bene la mia prima proposta (Prodotto nel 1973, il film era ritenuto perso fino al 2017, quando è stato dimostrato che in realtà ha mancato semplicemente di visibilità.). --ValeJappo (msg) 17:36, 21 ago 2021 (CEST)