Talk:Aquanoids

message: Why does this synopsis used the word "terminated" four times?  Also, I'm pretty sure the third "terminated" should actually be "impregnated". 66.73.0.121 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

message: 1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources
2) The IMDB reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFILM
3) There is no  full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.
4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 
5) The film is not historically notable.
6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals. 
7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 
8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.
10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. 
11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema. 
12) No actors of notable stature or a director of note
I beleive this film should be given a prod tag. It does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFILM and should be nominated for deletion. Barton Foley (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reminder, WP:NOTFILM is a set of guidelines, not policy, and has "general principles" for notability, not requirements.  That said, the film is currently absent any reliable third-party evidence that it even exists, so with a heavy heart I must agree that the article is deletable.  If someone disagrees, please check out WP:NOTFILM and see if you can add some citations showing that the film is notable. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: An anonymous editor make a number of edits to the summary, notably changing "terminate" to "kill" and pulling some of the color out.  It was reverted, but I'm pretty confident that the edits are correct.  The previous version reads a bit like the back cover blurb, full of colorful language.  Wikipedia should shoot for the most clear summary possible.  If "terminate" means "kill", we should prefer the more clear word.  If terminate means something else, we need to define it or find a more accurate word.  "come randomly" simply appears to be wrong.  "film" is more specific and thus better than "tale."  And assuming that the aquanoids are humanoid creatures, it's perfectly appropriate to mention that. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "film" does not belong anywhere in the article, and anyone who has seen Aquanoids will agree. 68.207.123.151 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah that anonymous editor was me, and seeing as the word "terminate" has once again returned I have taken the liberty of once again changing it back to kill. I'm assuming that whoever changed it to terminate in the first place did so because the term is used in the movie(I wouldn't know if it is or not since I haven't seen the movie) but if I remember their is a guideline on Wikipedia saying that in universe terminology should not be used since those not familiar with it would likely not understand. If you believe my edit was wrong for some reason please message me to tell me why, thanks. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminated vs killed and other colorful language in the summary