Talk:Boogeyman 2

message: OK, well this article basically seems to have been originally copied from the Production Weekly article that is provided as a link. I've done some fixing, but it still needs a lot more work. x 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1

message: There's a separate section for plot and story? Aren't those the same thing? I suggest a merge or deletion.
Byakuya Truelight (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 2

message: I would like to expand upon the article. If anyone has sources/informations in regards to the following things please add them in the article, if you don't have the time to do it yourself, just provide a link and I will add them in. Some of the information needed for the article is: production (casting, filming etc.), release, home video sales, reception. If information can also be found that confirms the film was released theatrically in countries outside of the US, that would also be helpful. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess at this point help isn't as necessary as it was before. Still, if anyone has additional information that couldn't benefit the article, I'd appreciate the help. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: This article states that the film seems to have received small theatrical release in Italy and Russia. Should we still technically keep the category: Direct-to-video sequel films, if it has received a theatrical release? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, hadn't thought of that, interesting catch. But I would assume so. I mean, the movie is American-made and released direct-to-video in its home country. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not too hot set either way, but I figured it would be something that we should consider. I mean, if it was released to home video before its theatrical release, than it could be in play. But I guess we do not have the specific Russian or Italian theatrical debuts, so...Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, we do. :D In Russia it came out in June 2008 and in Italy in July, the same year. Both of which are obviously after the January 8 release date in the US. Should I include their release dates in the infobox? PanagiotisZois (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, it gets more complicated. Per WP:FilmRelease, "The film infobox [...] Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.". So technically we should include that Screamfest premiere, but also the Russian one (as it seems to be the first wide-theatrical release, but can we confirm that it for sure was?) and I suppose the American home video release. It may be a bit confusing, and I wouldn't mind dropping some, but that appears to be what we do now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IMDb, the only other countries that released the movie theatrically were Venezuela and Mexico. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reliable sources for those countries. But still, out of the film's four theatrical release, Russia is indeed the first one as IMDb states the releases for Venezuela and Mexico both occured in 2009. Knowing all of this I would agree that along with the Screamfest and US premiere, the Russian premiere should also be added. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat:Direct-to-video sequels

message: How exactly is this FA status material?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would say it meets the FA criteria, stated here, being 1) well-written, focusing on various important areas, maintaining neutrality 2) following the style guidelines and having a consisten citation stlye 3) featuring a few images that help illustrate the subject with appropriate copyright status and 4) not going into unnecessary detail. As you can see at the top of your screen, you are "free to leave a comment" as to why you feel the article is not worthy of being a featured article. If you don't mind I'd appreciate if you also provided details on how you believe the article could be further improved in order to become a FA. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would suggest that you share your thoughts on the FAC page for this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree that this page should be reviewed, as it doesn't even look to fit Good Article criteria. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Status?