Talk:Superman III

message: :Image:Superman III DVD.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 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Superman III DVD.jpg

message: The neutrality is said to be disputed, and I agree. I think the Critical reaction Is the main factor for this. Here is something I removed:
*It is generally accepted that while the film was inferior to its predecessors, it was still significantly superior to the universally-derided 'Quest for Peace', which followed four years later.
Limetolime 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is well beyond that. Has anyone actually read the footnotes?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: :Image:S3csound.gif 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) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:S3csound.gif

message: I am failing this article because several of its images have no fair-use rationale. Also, many sections are lacking citations. There are "citation needed" and "weasel word" tags. Lastly, there isn't any production section and the plot summary is too long. Feel free to renominate when these things are fixed. (It is a pretty good movie by the way :) ) Wrad (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: similar to Red and Black Kryptonite Red? Maybe. Black? Didn't exist yet at the time of the film. I just took them both out; comparisons aren't necessary, the description of the fake-K's effect can stand on its own without throwing in what it's "kinda like". There's too many uncited kinda-likes in WP articles as it is. --Noclevername (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: KryptoNot

message: I'm not completely sure about this, but wasn't this film produced in the US. The article, in particular the information box at the top, seems to say that it was produced in the UK.Jaker penguin (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. I thought it was weird that it was filmed and produced in the U.S., but it says that the country of origin is the UK. Is this due to the director being British? Kman543210 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this hasn't been answered in the 7+ years since the question was posed, should it really be called a British film? I mean, it's truly awful, so I'm not eager for the change, but this is supposed to be encyclopedic, yeah? How about dropping "British" and leaving it as just a film... a terrible, TERRIBLE film, but I won't add that to the main entry.69.142.70.108 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 2601:154:C000:3D3F:1128:4C7C:3EEA:A289 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country of Origin? 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: []
If anyone cares.
http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Superman_III_1983.aspx
The asshole who runs the site is an asshole. After giving him a donation to keep the site running a few years back, he banned my account. I disputed the donation with PayPal and got my money back. I just read his reviews (or as he calls these: recaps), but I don't bother with the forum or him anymore.
Apple8800 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: If anyone cares

message: The "MX Missile" referred to in the movie is actually an oversized caricature of the ASALM, Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile.  Interestingly, the real missile was cancelled in 1980.  ASALM
The "real" MX, the LGM-118, is a vertical-silo-launched, nuclear-armed ICBM.  LGM-118_Peacekeeper
This isn't to point out a flaw in the article, just a flaw in the film itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.122.217 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "MX Missile" 

message: There is no mention on the novel of this movie. This is the only Superman movie to be novelized  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  no info on the novelization 

message: Why does it say "Superman III is a 1983 American superhero Parody film"? it is not meant to be a parody of Superman it is the third film in the Superman film series and while parts of the movie are rather silly, they were going with a very family friendly take on Superman in this film and Superman IV. Mattseay3000 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody film?

message: Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004233831/http://superman.ugo.com/movies/supermanIII/default.asp to http://superman.ugo.com/movies/supermanIII/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please review WP:ELMIN. DonQuixote (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite a source that's not IMDb, then go right ahead. But then, it would be better to add a link to the reliable source than IMDb anyways. DonQuixote (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  the external link is for additional information only, relevant to the extended edition. But the citation itself is not IMBD. It's from the Superman homepage discussing what was in the extended edition.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, fansites aren't generally considered to be reliable sources (barring special circumstances). Secondly, if you're citing the Superman homepage, then the link should be to the article on the Superman homepage anyways. The film's article at IMDb is already linked. The point is to minimize the number of external links, and having two links to IMDb is pointless. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

text:  I agree with what you've stated above, but the IMBD link is separate from the general coverage of the film. Let me editing and then review it. Any concerns can be brought up on the talk page. The source I'm using has images of the deleted scenes for verififibility, although I avoid using fansites as much as I can.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Using images to determine differences is original research. You would need to cite a reliable secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: , it's not the images I'm citing. It's page using screenshots for verification with full texts. While I am using this, I'm still searching for better quality sources. This should do for now, but i'll add a tag so people can see.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to be too persnickety about the Superman homepage article (I'll leave that to people who know more about this than I do), but to reiterate, we already have a link to the film's IMDb article, and added to that is the fact that the page you want the additional link to is user generated content which makes it not notable enough to be linked to anyways. DonQuixote (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2018 

message: The split is an effect of fake Kryptonite. not a nervous breakdown. 2A01:E0A:7:A020:59C5:1B0F:D017:F569 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? The Kryptonite only appears to directly affect his personality; it's when he's having a breakdown that he splits. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced it is a direct effect of the kryptonite. We see him demonstrate a similar power in Superman 2 at his ice fortress. I think it is the breakdown that manifests through one of his powers. We can only write it up as we see it though. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman suffers a nervous breakdown and splits into two beings 

message: At least according to the article, he does: "Aaron Smolinski, who had played baby Clark Kent in the first film, appears in this one as the little boy next to the photo booth Superman changes into."~~ 2600:1700:E90:D120:6075:2858:7E08:B4F (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a fix you could have made on your own, but I've gone ahead and edited the sentence for clarity. It does, however, need sourcing. DonIago (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman Changes into a Phone Booth -- Who Knew?