Talk:Umberto D.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

Synopsis means summary[edit]

Some parts here are terribly written: "There is a dialectic of generational compositions which in the opening film of neorealism - commonly accepted as Rome, Open City - there is a parade of boys marching on Rome to reclaim the future -perhaps itself a reference to Mussolini's march on Rome" What does that even mean? Are they saying many neo-realist films open with boys marching on Rome? People need to stop posting parts of their badly written school essays.207.112.125.130 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a review in an arts magazine. Possible copyright violation? ~~~~ 00:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis means summary. There is no summary here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.10.170 (talk • contribs)

This article doesn't really read like a film page...nothing about the film, critical response, commercial success/failure, awards, influence or even the plot. There's just a so-called synopsis, which isn't really anything of the sort. It's quite good really, at least if it isn't copyvio, but shouldn't be the entirety of the article --Gargletheape 09:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto D is a masterpiece. What the F*** is this article even about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.13.244 (talk • contribs)

I don't think this is a copyvio - it looks to me like someone's film class essay pasted in here. It appeared all at once from an anonymous IP. I think we should just start over. Save a few useful bits, but basically start over. - AKeen 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having an analysis is a good thing. More film articles could use them. Rather than deleting information why not just add a proper synopsis or plot outline. Doctor Sunshine 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the analysis is that it is a one-sided perspective of Dr. Millicent Marcus, who, however good an Italianist, is not intimately connected with the film. This page is about the film, not Marcus. A link to Marcus' work would suffice. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a film analysis page. Perhaps a wikifilm is in order, but this isn't it. Further, as other users have pointed out, other film pages do not have extensive analyses of this sort. Normalization is in order. I agree with Doctor Sunshine that analysis is an interesting feature to keep on wikipedia, but it should be a brief (one-two paragraph) summary of major critical views on the film, not an exposition of one critic's view. - Unsigned, 30 January 2007

The article simply cites 'Marcus 1986', but I presume it's referring to this book. A perfectly good source, but I agree with Anon above that it's wrong to rehash a critic's entire argument ad nauseum. Anyone have a good idea about exactly how to summarise the analysis? Cop 633 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a simple plot synopsis after seeing the film, it's likely not great but this article needed one, and I wanted to make sure it got one. -KingPenguin 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, at least the first three paragraphs of the analysis section are plagiarized, as can be found through a quick google search of its contents. I cannot confirm the rest of it is, but the analysis section will basically need to be dropped. -KingPenguin (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was taken from [1], I removed the offending section. - AKeen (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Umberto-d-full.jpg[edit]

Image:Umberto-d-full.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia breeding imbecils?[edit]

Some time ago I wasted my time correcting what one or more imbecils did in some sort of essey about a movie they obviously did not see. Now in the middle of that some other moron comes in and adds "this section does not cite..." bla bla. Well.. before my edits there was no citation either, yet this moron had no feeling to add that. So? Does he need something to justify it? Obviously not. The quick answer is you get what you paid for - next time get a book on a certain topic as Wikipedia is surely not a match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.194.22 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Umberto D.. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721100149/http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=66DA7015-8017-4303-9A31-658D02296D45 to http://www.ingmarbergman.se/universe.asp?guid=66DA7015-8017-4303-9A31-658D02296D45

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]