Talk:The Rugrats Movie

message: Here is not mentioned Laurie Anderson. How comes? --Popski 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :While a few (mostly younger) fans did enjoy the movie, it was considered to be a disaster by many long time fans and even casual viewers of the show. Many felt that the inclusion of the characters Dil (and his subsquent introduction to the show) was Rugrat's first jump the shark moment. It is still the most popular moment according to [jumptheshark.com]. Others felt the movie was simply "dumb" and revolved too much on potty humor previously used on minimum levels on the show (another thing that carried on afterward), and was as a result a break from the shows original humor stylings and roots..
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fan complaints, unless properly sourced, referenced, and noted. --FuriousFreddy 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the following personal commentary: 

message: I had to scroll down for about 3 seconds at fast speed to skip the summary, so I think it's too long. Is it possible that someone can make a simple sypnosis, instead of every single moment listed here? Abcw12 04:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever shortened the summary. That was just too long! Abcw12 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Summary too long? 

message: :Image:TheRugratsMovieposter.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 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheRugratsMovieposter.jpg

message: :Image:TheRugratsMovieposter.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 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheRugratsMovieposter.jpg

message: It seems that another user has readded some bits of what looks like fancruft to me.  Statements like these have to be reliably sourced, and don't use IMDb because that's not considered to be a reliable source. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the IP user.  IMDb is not always a reliable source, and some of the "Reaction" material, like that addressed by the IP, should be deleted. Marcus2 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction section

message: Someone has labeled the sentence on Rugrats jumping the shark as "nonsense", based on the edit summary he/she provided. The fact that many people believe this is undisputed, although this may constitute original research. So calling such a sentence "nonsense" is insane. Therefore, the sentence has been restored. 67.80.144.146 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense? 

message: Why are there two sections for reception on this page? There should only be one right? Consider either deleting one, combiniding the two, or changing reception to "public reception," and "audience reception."-James Pandora Adams  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.168.148 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception? 

message: :::When did the Rugrats Movie get released onto VHS and DVD? I know it must have been sometime in 1999. Could somebody please put down the home media release date on the artical? --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I just took care of this. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, so if there is information you'd like to see added, it would be helpful if you could volunteer your time to find sources for the information you want added. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cyphoidbomb! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Media Release/Edit Request 3/3/14

message: :::Could someone please put the Post-credits scene that appeared in the movie to the plot section on the page? The scene shows Grandpa Lou taking a nap in the Reptar Wagon. The goat that he had then bashes into the wagon, which causes it to roll out into the street. The goat then realizes what it has done and then chases it. I also have an edit request above this one that hasn't be done or answered yet that needs to soon! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, your suggestion is appreciated, but the purpose of these articles is to give readers a general overview of the movie's plot, not to provide a replacement for actually seeing the movie by detailing all of the film's nuances. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks my old request from when I was just a wiki contribute nearly five years ago eventually ended up getting for-filled after all. The info has been on the page for a while. If you're still out their Cyphoidbomb, you realize a lot of films Wikipedia pages mention post-credits scenes, right? What you said Cyphoidbomb was a stupid excuse. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-credits Scene/Edit Request 4/9/14

message: I'm giving this page a semi-protection since it's been recently vandalized by IPs. It should expire in a few days. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: Per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot summary should be limited to 700-words, a limit we have reached. Adding several hundred words to the plot is simply not an option. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary length 

message: afi.com is not exactly right when it calls Nickelodeon Movies a distribution company. All other Wikipedia articles on related movies and the artle on Nickelodeon Movies itself say that it is indeed a production company. I think it's about time you editors started thinking outside the box. And by that, I mean look at other Wikipedia artlcles. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They said it was a distribution company for this film, that is all the reference supports. What their role is on other films does not change their role in this one. AFI is considered a reliable source for this type of information so we go with what they say unless there is a conflict with some other source. As for thinking outside the box. WP:V is policy and says we go with what can be verified. And see WP:OSE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickelodeon Movies production or distribution 

message: The opening of the article mentions that the movie is the first non-Disney animated movie to break $100 million at the box office. However, wouldn't this distinction technically belong to Space Jam, which came out two years prior? I know Space Jam is a live-action/animation hybrid kind of movie, but that still means it counts as an animated movie, doesn't it? If nothing else, maybe it should at least be clarified that it's the first purely animated non-Disney movie to hit this milestone. Thoughts? Firegecko76 (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is literally what the source says. Space Jam only grossed $90 million in the states, Rugrats grossed over $100 million. $chnauzer 16:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really the first to $100 million?