This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Sorry about the capitalization error when I made the page Esn, (though if you look at the poster on the IMDB page, every word is capital, though I think you're right), I'm willing to help expand upon this article for your project, this is my favorite movie.
KingPenguin15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ with you on the poster spelling for the movie "Allegro non tropo". Unlike Wikipedia, IMDB has gone to great efforts despite allowing only English comments to preserve as close as possible the spelling of all movie names in the original languages if they use the ISO-Latin alphabet. If you check out IMDB as of 2022-May-10 the name they use for the spelling of the movie and as it is on the poster on their page is "Allegro non tropo". I rated the movie a 10 and although the animation quality may not be as high as Fantasia which I rated it an 8. Overall "Allegro non tropo" is a classic along the lines of Fidller on the Roof, and Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I am very stingy on giving movies a 10 at IMDB.
hhhobbit (
talk)
00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The idea is indeed remarkably similar... but is there anything to suggest that he indeed paid homage to the film? From the link that you gave, it seems that he was inspired by simply asking people he knew what scared them the most. Has Davis ever seen this film?
Esn06:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't make too much of "the monkey in the film, which tends to kill other creatures". Don't forget the recurring motif of a dinosaur's foot stomping down, crushing the creature it lands on. Mammals and reptiles both kill to survive.
Asat05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
More specific
Can we possibly be more specific as to which "Concerto in C Major" by Vivaldi we are talking about? He likely wrote several, but two well-known concertos come to mind: the "Concerto for Two Trumpets" and the "Concerto for Mandolin". Is it one of these two, and is it the whole concerto? Also, Dvorak wrote two different sets of Slavonic Dances: Op. 46 and Op. 72. Which one is it?
Classicalkid8716:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The Dvorak piece is almost certainly Op. 46, but I can't find which Vivaldi concerto this movie has, specifically. I'll keep looking. -
KingPenguin16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Erm, I just looked at the list of compositions by Vivaldi and, if I'm not mistaken, he wrote two of them...and they're both in C Major! :b Maybe if it isn't too much trouble you could identify the RV listing and it would take away the confusion. Thanks. (The entire concerto?)
Classicalkid8713:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
correction made -- it's RV 559, although movement designation is ambiguous. First movement is larghetto and second is "no tempo indication", but in recordings I found on amazon.com and iTunes music store they are in all but one case recorded as the first movement and indicated "Larghetto - Allegro"--
Invinceble (
talk)
19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Allegro (ma) non troppo (regardless of capitalisation) is first and foremost a musical
tempo (and one of the more common too, not that it should matter). This article should be moved to "Allegro Non Troppo (film)" and replaced here by a disambiguation.
151.177.57.131 (
talk)
15:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
DABs are only needed when there is more than one article with the same title. In this case there is not another article with this title.
MarnetteD|
Talk16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
OK. But still this is not the primary use of the term; it's a secondary, derived use. Such a thing, in my opinion, must be made clear without one having to delve into the article.
151.177.57.131 (
talk)
16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Again that is not what a DAB page is for. It is only for articles that have the same title. Tempo is not anywhere near the same.
MarnetteD|
Talk19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose adding unnecessary "film" disambiguator to the title per
WP:OVERPRECISION since there is no other article using the title, not to mention the phrase doesn't even appear anywhere in the
tempo article. Neutral on original proposal since both capitalizations appear in reliable sources, although the current title is probably a little bit more
recognizable as a proper noun to English speakers.
Station1 (
talk)
17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose As noted there is no other article using the title. The proposed redirect would leave a reader wondering why they had been sent to the tempo article since the term is not mentioned there. The current capitalization is fine.
MarnetteD|
Talk20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Followup. I seem to have missed what the RFC is actually about. My apologies. I was opposing the page move that added the (film) dab. Since the poster and the DVD use the lower case I Suppot the page move. Again many apologies for the confusion.
MarnetteD|
Talk16:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
MOS:CAPS says that "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names..." and this clearly is a proper name (I don't think anyone is disputing that). This isn't the usual uppercase lowercase debate, but a debate about whether English sources render it in English format or Italian format. —
Amakuru (
talk)
14:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, it is the title of a work rather than a proper name, which is a distinction but people tend to lump everything that might be capitalised into one pot. Yes, this isn't the usual debate. The prevailing guidance through
WP:AT is at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films which would state: ... normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. This would be the Italian format? Yes, there are sources that would use the English format but there are English language sources that use the Italian format and of course, non-English language sources predominantly use the Italian format. The definitive guidance at
MOS:CAPS is consistent capitalisation in sources. Limiting this to En language sources, it doesn't meet this. At
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of works, it would also state: Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language. Hence, it would guide us to the Italian format. The prevailing guidance and the evidence of mixed usage would lead us to retain the Italian format.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
00:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support since the movie's promotional materials generally present the title lowercase that way, and since both versions appear in reliable sources, caps are not necessary here.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Dicklyon your post seems to be about the use of upper or lower case in the title. Do you support or oppose the page move. Apologies if I missed something in your post.
MarnetteD|
Talk 16:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Sheesh I didn't mean to post this. See my followup post above, Apologies for the ping D.
MarnetteD|
Talk16:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above and
WP:UE. English-language renditions exist, and they title the proper name this way. I'm also somewhat persauded by the notion that the lower-case version should redirect to
Tempo as suggested, although I suppose the term would have to be added there too first so hold-fire on that one. As a musical marking this enjoys primary topic by long-term significance over a somewhat obscure film. —
Amakuru (
talk)
16:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move 24 January 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose adding unnecessary "film" disambiguator to the title per
WP:OVERPRECISION since there is no other article using the title, not to mention the phrase doesn't even appear anywhere in the
tempo article. Neutral on original proposal since both capitalizations appear in reliable sources, although the current title is probably a little bit more
recognizable as a proper noun to English speakers.
Station1 (
talk) 17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Station1 (
talk)
21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Despite the objections above,
WP:NCCAPS explicitly supports this change: "If the article is about a creative or academic work (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, song, or composition) with a title in a foreign language, or by a non-English-speaking creator, retain the style of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources."
MOS:FOREIGNTITLE also says to "retain the style of the original for modern works." The title in Italian is Allegro non troppo, and this is a modern work. Most Italian-language titles in
Category:1970s Italian-language films follow these rules. It is unclear why this would be an exception.
Dekimasuよ!09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaning support per Dekimasu. This is not an English-language title. As for
Tempo#Basic tempo markings, it does not mention "Allegro non troppo", and this article appears to explain that it is not a common instruction. The article says the corresponding tempo marking would ordinarily be "allegro ma non troppo". —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support move as proposed. Oppose adding disambiguator. There is no actual target that would require disambiguation therefore don't add per
WP:OVERPRECISION and
WP:AT more generally. Lowercase title per guidance at
WP:NCCAPS and
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films, which has an example directly comparable to this case here.
WP:NCCAPS is given voice at
WP:AT and
WP:NCFILM is acknowledged at
WP:AT. A search of Google books
here belies the statement that all English-language reference books ... are unanimous in listing such titles with English-language-style capitalization. See also Rethinking the Arts after Hegel. A search of JSTOR
here shows mixed capitalisation as does
this search of google scholar and
this search (though a little less specific). Notwithstanding the specific guidance in
WP:P&G that would tell us not to fully capitalise this specific term (ie we should not cap per the present title), the general guidance at
MOS:CAPS tells us that we would only fully capitalise this if it is consistently capitalised as such in English language sources. The evidence shows that capitalisation in sources is mixed and, in accordance with the general guidance, this title should not be fully capped (ie we should affirm the proposed move). These various search results also show that non is frequently not capitalised, even if the other two words are capitalised. An argument is made pointing to some other titles and falls along the lines of
"other stuff exists". On the otherhand, we see a link to
Category:1970s Italian-language films (provided above) that the format of the proposed move, if not always followed, is quite consistently followed. The exceptions noted are more outliers than the norm.
WP:CONSISTENT supports the proposed move and these outliers should probably be corrected. The prevailing
WP:P&G does not support retaining the present capitalisation. The prevailing
WP:P&G, at multiple points, and evidence providing a broader view of usage (rather than just a selection of specific examples) would support a move to the proposed title.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.