Talk:Little Monsters (1989 film)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American

	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 American cinema task force.

Requested move 2 April 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Doesn't look like a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to me. What do you think? --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If we had to have a primary topic, it's the least obscure one, and probably by a fair amount, but we don't have to have a primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't know - looks to me like this article gets a fair amount of traffic, and well more than the other articles combined (from March views):

That's 84% of the traffic (not counting the 240 views for the dab page), and it seems a reasonably popular article - 45,000-50,000 views a year. We are not required to have a primarytopic of course, as stated above, but this seems like a good case for one. Otherwise, we'd be sending a large number of readers to the dab page when they could have gotten straight to the article they wanted. Dohn joe (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no topic is an absolute majority in G books, and we don't follow page views as partly self fulfilling. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the overwhelming majority of page views this has is good enough to establish the primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 02:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment I don't think there's a consensus to move, but this could do with a bit more input to try to settle it one way or the other. — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there's no good reason to call this topic primary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does anyone have an argument to move this besides In ictu oculi? I disagree with him, but at least he tried to make a point. (I don't think Google Books is case-sensitive, so his searches may not be valid.) Pageviews, which is one of our two major criteria, are heavily in favor of the current primary topic. Red Slash 20:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the "revival screening" even notable enough to be presented in this article?[edit]

Users such as Properorange apparently have a thing for reinserting mention of a revival screening of a 35MM print of this film at the Mahoning Drive-In Theater in Lehighton, Pennsylvania that occurred on October 14, 2022. He has not provided a source for this except for the archived listing of its screening on its website...as an external link. The question is, does anything in that section fit WP:NOTABLE at all? Revival screenings of films happen all the time at various independent movie theaters around the world; they are not unique to the Mahoning Drive-In in any way nor are they usually given their own sections in Wikipedia articles. So is there a point in this article having a section devoted to a revival screening of Little Monsters? That Article Editing Guy (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I “have a thing” for this information because i worked on the film; and the programmers at Mahoning worked hard to find a 35mm print of the film. Took 2 years to track it down. Properorange (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to reliable sources then. That's the rule on Wikipedia. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section until reliable sources can back up the claims. As it read it was promotional in nature. Ckoerner (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]