Talk:The Zombie Diaries

message: This page shouldn't pretend that this movie was critically acclaimed. There has been speculation that a lot of the positive reviews are from people to do with the film, IMDB and Amazon and Rotten Tomatoes pan it. I liked it, but I'm the kind of person that would like anything with zombies and suspense. Earfetish1 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might be referring to my changes. If so, I have never actually seen the film, nor am I involved in any way with it or it's publicity. However, I removed a change that contained uncited speculation about why people voted as they did. It does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I will remove the piece that I do not agree with and leave the rating comment. BananaFiend (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reaction 

message: :Image:Zd cover.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 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Zd cover.jpg

message: There is no evidence that the film was made for $12,000, however the IMDB has stated for a few years now that the budget was £500,000 so that is what it should be stated as on here. Also there is a pedantic amendment changing 'platoon of soldiers' to 'several soldiers'. The soldiers are clearly around 15 in number and accompanied by jeeps etc. The term platoon is more accurate. The reference to the Dawn of the Dead remake is irrelevant in the description of this film. It is however right to discuss the similarities with Diary of the Dead as they both came out around the same time and released by the same distributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.223.109 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing it is good - but you should also STOP edit-warring and reverting the other person's edits while you talk about it. Try to achieve a consensus here first, before you make any further changes -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, Seeing as neither of the two warring editors has provided a reliable source for their claims regarding the film's budget, I have removed both claims and left it blank - IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is open to unsupervised editing, and I don't think we can retain the $12,000 figure as that is clearly now disputed. If either of you wishes to add a figure for the budget, please only do so if you can provide a reliable source. As for the "platoon" argument, that seems like pedantic trivia to me and plays no real part in understanding the description of the movie, so I don't really think it matters - but you must stop warring over it. I have no opinion on the "diary" issue myself, other than the same comment about warring. Finally, if anyone thinks they have evidence for a conflict of interest, I suggest you present it in an ANI report, but refrain from making public accusations here. Now, this is my last attempt to try to help gain consensus - the next edit warring I see here will result in an edit-war report against both editors -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

text: PS: I've also changed it to just say "soldiers of the British army". "Platoon" is not just a collective noun for soldiers, and whether a group of soldiers constitutes a platoon is not just based on how many there are. Also, "several" seems clumsy. Whether the soldiers actually constitute a platoon, or whatever, seems of no material relevance to the plot description, and so I hope the way I have changed it is suitably neutral now. I may have a think about the "diary" part later and try to word it in a suitably neutral way too, avoiding both editors' arguments -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Glad you're both happy with the current state of this now - discussions can easily get a little heated at times of disagreement, but I'd suggest that we can move on from this now that we all find the content acceptable -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh come on children - stop it, please! -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant amendments to the budget on wiki