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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
This article uses box-office mojo as a source for the box-office. I'll ask you to look at the contradicting numbers in other websites. While all sites agree for the domestic box-office, around 85 million, I've found two reliable websites where the foreign box office is DOUBLE that of box office mojo (45 million against around 95 million). Please check out the website Numbers and French site jpboxoffice. Could box-office mojo be wrong by about 50 million dollars in foreign revenue?--Munin75 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I recently took a photo of Michael Biehn signing a copy of the film's DVD cover, and after adding it to the article, it was subsequently removed by User:IllaZilla on the grounds that the photo is not relevant to the Interpretation and analysis section, in which I placed it. I'm not certain that photos always have to bear a direct relevance to the section in which they're placed (though that is preferable, I think, when possible), but the reason I placed it there is because I figured that the photo had some relevance to the article material on the home video versions of the film, which is discussed in the Special Edition section, which is just above the Interpretation and analysis section. I thought it might look okay on the left side of that section, but ultimately decided not to place it there because the caption of the Sigourney Weaver photo in the Accolades section just above that one dips below into the SE section, and I wasn't sure if that would look good, or possibly violate WP:STACKING. I'll re-added it to the article, now in the Special Edition section, and added a clear tag to the bottom of the Accolades section to make the two sections more distinctly separate. However, if a consensus here decides that it's best to leave it out entirely, then we'll just do that. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I've moved the Sigourney Weaver pic up slightly in the Edit field so that in the saved version, its caption doesn't dip down into the next section. Again, discuss. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks better now. I didn't like it in the "interpretation and analysis section", which it has nothing to do with, or the way it shoved the "References" and "Notes" headers over to the right on my screen (this will of course vary based on screen size & settings, but it didn't look good on mine). It looks better within the relevant section and with the Weaver pic moved up. I added the "upright" parameter to the thumbnail to avoid it showing up so wide. For vertically-oriented thumbnails, use "upright" so they appear the same size as horizontally-oriented ones. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)