Talk:Slacker (film)

message: I don't know whether I can come up with any documentation, but the film was first screened in 1990, not 1991.  However the 1991 version was slightly different, so perhaps that's why that date is used. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Found it in a 1991 review (): "Since this review first ran in the summer of 1990, Slacker has been picked up for national distribution, blown up to 35mm and fine tuned in a few places." I'll add a cite when I have another minute. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:    I finally added this info to the text, with a few citations. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: :Image:Slacker.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Slacker.jpg

message: *Slack Where We Started
*Slacker 101
*Slack to the Future
:to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles

message: As evidenced by YouTube endorsed vendor FilmBuff, Slacker is available on YouTube in full length for free viewing. I believe my edit was therefore removed either in a superficial manner or in bad faith. // Gargaj (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing on YouTube, nor on the uploader's own website, that indicates this is a permitted, licensed, and/or otherwise legitimate use of the work. (I've never heard of a "YouTube endorsed vendor," and couldn't find anything about that on YouTube.) Granted, if it isn't legit, it's hard to understand how someone would get away with this while maintaining such a high profile. If we have evidence that this YouTube upload is indeed legit, then all we really need is a simple  in the External links section. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   and  // Gargaj (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second link (a blog) is confusing, it says a dozen films are available for (paid) rental. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slacker on YouTube 

message: I removed the lead too short tag per WP:DETAG. Tag was placed with no discussion on talk page and the lead seems adequate length for this short article. Also, it seems difficult to provide a quick blurb for a film that's basically plotless. Not sure what brief content from article could be added to the lead to expand it. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Lead too short tag