Talk:Stupid Teenagers Must Die!

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Stupid Teenagers Must Die Final Poster.jpg[edit]

Image:Stupid Teenagers Must Die Final Poster.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 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 (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, this is an ad[edit]

It is written in a promotional manner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.142.182 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reviews removed from article...[edit]

I have placed the reviews here for access:

Additional reviews

Clean up[edit]

I would not consider the the above list notable "reviews". I have cleaned up the article by removing some of the unreliable information (most of the reception section) and sources. - Josette (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the removed reviews have been returned per WP:RS as reliable in context to what is being asserted. Reviews of horror films by horror film experts... experts in the genre whose opinion is respected within that genre, may be considered in context to what is being asserted. Per guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody doesn't become an expert per WP:RS just because they make a blog. This interpretation of our rules would throw the rules out completely for a free for all of totally bogus sources. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not some fan fest. DreamGuy (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Horror film critics should be established authorities. It cannot be a self-published website that covers horror films, which most of these are... this does not bestow people who write reviews at these websites with authority. Fangoria and Dread Central are a couple of reliable sources for horror film reviews. ScreamTV, listed above, seems okay, too. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Yes, horror genre experts would quite logically be sources to seek for horror genre reviews. DreanGuy's particular interpretation of guideline is not supported by the guidelines themselves. Unlike DreanGuy, I actually did some research on some of the sites...
  1. Evil Dread review by Jayson Champion: A reliable source for reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  2. This is Some Scene review: According to a bit of actual research, I find "Guerilladelphia - A Declaration of Independents! Guerilladelphia has developed ThisIsSomeScene.com to report and review the entertainment world in true Guerilladelphia style! R. James Ippoliti created Guerilladelphia and This Is Some Scene and is joined by Chris Blake Sasser, Kristin Theckston, Andrea Fix and Adam Young in covering entertainment news, reviews and interviews. We are in the process of adding to the Guerilladelphia crew of writers."... and then they share a list of editorial staff. Nope, not a blog. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Other editors are free to follow the links and see I am cazy or making this up.
  3. Dorkgasm offers a review by their senior staff writer Kenneth Holm. Editorial oversite. Not a blog. Not SPS. No more user-driven than the New York Times. Dorkgasm reviews horror genre films. The article is about a film. Makes sense to me.
  4. Fatally Yours has an editorial staff. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  5. Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
  6. Fatally Yours also does an in-depth review of the film too. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
  7. Horror Society review is also another by a source that specializes in reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a bblog. Not SPS.
  8. Killer Reviews offers a review by staff, not by users. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  9. Movies Made Me Do It offers a decent review, and invites commenets, however it too is not a blog. Not SPS. To use the reader comments would be wrong. To use the staff review would be appropriate.
  10. Killer Reviews also is one that offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not a SPS.
  11. Film Arcade offers a staff review and then accepts reader comments. Staff review, okay. User comments, not okay.
  12. Dead Lantern offers an in-depth staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  13. Scream TV offers a staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  14. The New York Times as least shows the film is not a hoax. Not a blog... or is it? Hmmmm...
  15. DVD Resurrections offers an editorial review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  16. Horor-Fanatics offers a review and release informations. Not a blog. Not SPS.
More research underway. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The teaming-up of like-minded people does not equate editorial oversight. The rule of thumb is to look at the footer of each website and see if they are credibly backed. For example, Killer Reviews just says KillerReviews.com. Not much credibility there. ScreamTV, in comparison, has Scream Television Network, Inc. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these sites just are not influential. With an Alexa rank lower than 500,000 and less than 120 inbound links for the whole site, Fatally-yours does not appear to be a source that many people go to. So the fact that it reviewed a movie in depth, while interesting, even complimentary to the site's staff for their hard work, isn't really important to our readers. If a site is not "notable", we can think that perhaps it's not relevant what that site thinks. We are not a collection of links. The spammish tagging is valid. I kept the sites that have significant traffic or that appear to have at least some influence. But I removed the ones (whether blogs, fansites, or whatever) that are used nowhere else in the project and that have low traffic, such as Fatally-yours. Many are worse. Dorkgasm for example has only 20 inbound links. As Erik says, we should be providing only external links that are important and relevant, not every external link we can scrape up. - Josette (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Reception" section, I support the removal of unreliably sourced statements, including dorkgasm.com, deadlantern.com, fatally-yours.com, and moviesmademe.com. Fangoria statement is clearly pigeon-holed for rescue purposes; suggest actually looking at the page scan, incorporating the review, and replacing the citation with {{cite journal | title=Latest Horror News | work=[[Fangoria]] | year=2007 | month=October | issue=268 | pages=93 }}. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... I suppose my own concerns were in the way ALL were being called trivial coverage by the nominator. Had the statement been made that all were in depth but that not all had been yet individually qualified as reliable in context to this specific genre, I would have probably replied that the ones that are good enough, show the notability... and that the ones that are not good enough could be ignored. But to read someone state that in-depth articles in OC Weekly and Fangoria were trivial mentions when it just was not the case... well, genre-specific in-depth covereage needed to be shown. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stupid Teenagers Must Die!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stupid_Teenagers_Must_Die!&oldid=1204571562"