Talk:Incident at Loch Ness

Redirect

Why does Zak Penn redirect here? Doesn't he have his own page?ka1iban 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does, it is located at Zak Penn and there is no longer a redirect. Cbrown1023 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a stub?

The page seems substantial enough to be more than a stub. I think the notice should be taken off.

Al Fecund 10:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

Cut down and rewrote much of the plot synopsis as it was more a review than a synopsis (ie, breaks wiki rules on original research). RoyBatty42 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

There are some negative reviews from well known sources that should be included to balance the article, but I need to get going (hey, "Heroes" is on soon! LOL).

Fair use rationale for Image:Herzog lochness.jpg

Image:Herzog lochness.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official site link is dead

The link to the official site of the movie is dead. Instead you're redirected to a foxmovie site that tries to sell you the film. If no one minds, I'll remove the link.Gubben Nilsson (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless

It's interesting that this article doesn't state what this movie is actually about, which is commercialization and the types of people who buy into it and use pathetic deceptions and phony rationales to cover up the fact that what they are doing is 100% inept. It's about the characters, and these kinds of people really exist. That's what Penn and Herzog are saying here. THEY are the lake monsters of Loch Ness, not Nessie. ; ) 71.112.38.38 (talk)

A comment such as that would be POV, and violate Wikipedia rules. Eligius (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shows a pretty facile understanding of wikipedia... :P As is, it's original research, but if a published analysis of the film had that conclusion -- then it would be fair game to include in the article. The N in NPOV is neutral, not non, and all notable POV should be represented. --139.55.4.191 (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incident at Loch Ness. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]