Jump to content

Talk:Vampires Suck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.1.89.162 (talk) at 18:46, 15 July 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Notability

Has been established? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it is it will be. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources are present if you haven't noticed. Also, don't be so witty. I hear that is against the wiki-robot Code of Conduct.68.1.89.162 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blogs are "third party sources". They aren't reliable sources, though. Citing a blog that cites IMDb and boxofficemojo is worse than citing IMDb and boxofficemojo directly. IMDb is not a reliable source for this kind of info and boxofficemojo is already listed. A tip: If the proper cite involves someone named "Uncle Creepy" (this guy), it's probably not the New York Times.
As for "All Headline News", I see nothing to indicate they are reliable in any sense of the word. Other than there broad claim to be , "AHN is a leading provider of real-time, dynamic news and content that informs, entertains, educates and engages" and a vague statement that they draw info from "a variety of sources", there is nothing to indicate what the site is. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a reliable source looks like, oh grand master, no need to tell me. All Headline News looks fairly reliable to me. There is no reason to think otherwise. Editors should not make distinctions on their own, however. Please abide by WP:Verifiability when making the decision of whether or not a source is credible. Your opinion of the source doesn't matter, only the policies to which you are bound.68.1.89.162 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication of the site's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new organization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a "news organization". Is it a reliable source? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also... The Washington Post is copywrited material? Surely the editorial review can be implemented in some way.... 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the warning more carefully. Virtually all sources are copyrighted. We can use the information in them, but plagerism is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vampires_Suck&oldid=373672154"