Talk:Near Dark

message: :Image:Neardarkseverin.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) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Neardarkseverin.jpg

message: This section lacks citations and need to be converted to proper prose and integrated back into the article. Until then, I have placed this section here.--J.D. (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Looks like there is a remake in the works.   --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake? 

message: I'd go with the bigger size myself. I feel that there would be enough commentary to expand critique/themes/cast gossip or whatever so that the total size of the article is over double the size of the larger plot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Per WP:MOSFILM, it should be around 400-700 words. It is currently 876, so it is not that bad, though getting it closer to 400-600 would be better (and a needed step for higher class ratings). Mostly it seems like it just needs tightening up of the prose, with some minor details removed. As such, the current longer plot should stay until it can be edited down, rather than ripping it out to leave a useless stub space. I'd also recommend just moving the cast members into the plot for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was able to trim some without too much trouble. Now for the lead and other stuff to add later. 'Twas a cool film :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually one of my favorite vampire films. I thinkt he plot could be trimmed down quite a bit, but stomping the entire plot in protest seems extreme. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this guy is on some kind of rampage...he's doing this to a bunch of film articles, as well as some play and short stories, just ripping out entire plot sections irregardless of length. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the matter is resolved, at least for 24 hours. If you feel the issue extends to other articles, you might need to present sequential DIFFs, so as to indicate a pattern. Maybe he's just having a bad day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading his ArbCom injunction...I'd say its a long long time issue and that he'll start back up as soon as the block is lifted, from his response to the block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the block has now been lifted. Guess we can expect another rip out soon...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go read ANI for all the comments pointing out that your interpretation of WP:NOT when it comes to plot summaries is completely wrong. I can't believe after all that you are still insisting you are right. And your comments on this page and elsewhere are a major violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't YOU go read the AN/I thread, which doesn't say anything of the sort. Only one person said anything even close to that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's keep calm; maybe things will improve without any further kerfuffle. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: LOL we ECed on the plot cut down (both of us got the same idea I guess). I went ahead and saved mine too, so we could compare versions and then just pick the best. No strong preference between yours and mine (both are just over 400 words). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that. Nice work. C. I also developed out the Reaction section, adding in some more reviews with citations as well as a further reading section. I have some other stuff to do, so maybe someone can take over for a bit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't as much on commentary as I thought in my assorted horror movie books :( Still, I am sure we can find some more stuff out there :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be several promising looking hits in Google news. I have access to a university journal system too...I can see if any articles come up there and download PDFs if that would help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My commonsense instinct tells me there would be material out there as there has been quite a bit of commentary on vampire films over recent years. Not suire whether any of the principal participants has written an autobiography..might be something there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting on size of plot which appears to be in dispute 

message: Removed the following claim: "In his book, Monster Show: Cultural History of Horror, film critic David J. Skal highly praises the film's mix of western and horror genres, and homeless wanderings and undeath."  Could find no reference to Near Dark in Skal's book (isbn 0-571-19996-8); if I'm wrong, a page number for the reference is in order. Richigi (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skal reference 

message: The link for Marcie Leeds goes directly to her IMdB page. Is this allowed? It seems rather unorthodox to me, and I'm wondering if it violates WP guidelines. Can a WP editor give a ruling on this? Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was created using a template meant to be used only in external links sections (Template:IMDB name); I removed it. Inline links leading to external sites are discouraged (exceptions are rare).  In particular, this link was confusing because the template made it appear to be a wikilink. I left the brackets to make Leeds a redlink, but even that may need to be reconsidered—not sure she's likely to ever get her own article. Richigi (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcie Leeds

message: Stub article that could be merged with main film article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with Near Dark (soundtrack) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Near Dark. 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/20100313064531/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/03/10/corey-haim-the-lost-boys-twilight to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/03/10/corey-haim-the-lost-boys-twilight/
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) 12:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified