Talk:Red Eye (2005 American film)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. This has nothing to do with neutrality; the American Red Eye was more successful and is more notable. The Korean article is nothing but a picture and a single sentence. It barely qualifies as a stub, because the one sentence of text simply restates the title. On the English language Wikipedia, when people link to Red Eye (film) they will most likely be expecting to get the English language film. A disambiguation note at the top of the page is sufficient. Kafziel 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I would say that Red Eye is a thriller, not a horror film. Can anyone explain to me why this is classified as horror? --Melty girl 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB classifies it as both Horror and Thriller.  At least part of the reason for this must be director Wes Craven, best known for his horror films. The meta tags on the official website includes the word "Horror" as the fourth keyword.  The article was listed as drama/thriller but this is redundant (wouldn't be much of a thriller if it didn't have elements of drama, I suspect someone changed the word 'horror') so I cleaned it up to just 'thriller'.  -- Horkana (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Horror film?

message: :Image:RE55mid 273x400.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) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RE55mid 273x400.jpg

message: To me, this article seems awfully pro- film biased, especially the reception section.--Nblschool (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: how about noting that this film makes no sense? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias?