Talk:Foodfight!

message: I am scaling back this article to match the few available sources. I will continue to revert any and all unsourced changes. Should it become necessary, I will have the page protected to prevent all edits by any unregistered users. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sticking to the sources

message: Is it possible to mention why it was shelved? Quite a major point. Centrepull (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure -- if we WP:CITE a reliable source. - 16:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelved 

message: Ok, is this every getting a release? Or is information just gonna sit around. Ive heard about this for like the last four years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.181.184 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had a reliable source saying what was going on, we could/should/would include that in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Release

message: Even though the film has not be distributed, Lionsgate is still credited as being the distributor (they even released a publicity still via their Lionsgate Publicity website).  Perhaps they did pay for the distribution rights.  Not sure why the film was not released and the article doesn't make it clear -- are there any information out there about it? —Mike Allen  01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also to Summer, even though we don't use IMDb as a general source, the writing credits come from the WGA.  See here.  Also when you reverted my edits, you also removed other tweaks I did.  I redone the cast section per the WP:MOSFILM.  The other acting credits came from Allmovie (located in the external links), which is a reliable source for film information.  I removed the starring roles in the infobox, since it's unclear who had starring roles.  Thanks. —Mike Allen  01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, given the tenuous nature of most of the info for this article (and the repeated drive-bys by apparently conflicted editor(s)), I'm trying to keep as much of this sourced as possible. In the even this goes to AfD, I want it to be clear what sourcing we do have. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lionsgate 

message: Look at this article from Cartoon Brew: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/for-sale-foodfight.html --Morbid Duck (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've added it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Sale 

message: An in-depth piece from the Times. I don't have time to work through it right now. If anyone wants to, feel free. Otherwise, I'll get to it in a few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''NYT'' article 

message: An editor has repeatedly re-added various claims that are unsourced/trivial/incorrect.
:
First, we have an opinion, citing what seems to be their own posting at Rotten Tomatoes. We do not use individual user postings.
:
Next, we have a claim of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. There are no professional reviews on RT and the user score is 73%.
:
We have a claim of 1/10 on IMDb. We do not use site users' scores and the score at IMDb is 2.4/10.
:
I'm at 3 reverts. I'll leave this for someone else to revert or revert it tomorrow (assuming the user continues to ignore talk requests). Assuming the reverts continue, we can block him. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhappy viewer 

message: Due to its limited release, Foodfight! doesn't have the volume of critical reviews normally associated with a critical consensus, for instance Rotten Tomatoes' entry is basically blank. Currently cited in the article we have a New York Times article and the AV Club (both mainstream sources) and two popular YouTube reviewers (not mainstream, but the film's place in the "bad movies" internet subculture is notable). Additionally there exist at least five more published critical reviews from non-mainstream reviewers, though these haven't been quoted yet and probably shouldn't be. All agree that the film is terrible, and the film's poor quality is evidently one of its most significant features.
Can we agree a way to get some sort of critical appraisal into the lead? --LukeSurl t c 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not enough reviews to determine a collective consensus, and we cannot do that anyway based solely on individual reviews. It is not always possible to reference such a reaction in aggregate. The best we can do is to just reference the authoritative reviews on hand (and to leave out the blog ones). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two youtube ones aren't reliable sources and wouldn't have been included in the article at all had the New York Times not made passing references to Foodfight's harsh reception amongst internet critics.  There just isn't enough criticsm from reliable sources to include something like that in the lede.LM2000 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we describe the film as a critical faliure in the lead? 

message: I have reverted 's removal of a sentence linking to Nostalgia Critic. I have done this for the following reasons:
*Nostalgia Critic is a notable entity, in that he is notable enough to have an article.
*If this article is not permitted a link to that article, there are few, if any, articles that could link to Nostalgia Critic and make that article not an orphan.
*The film has had little "mainstream" critical attention, so discussing 'lesser' critics is useful to addressing the film's critical reception
*The internet's reaction to the film is a significant part of the story of Foodfight, and this is best addressed in a citable way by referring to Nostalgia critic.
What are others' thoughts? --LukeSurl t c 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nostalgia Critic (and the related pages) are routinely added to numerous film articles by drive-by IPs, and routinely removed by just about everyone else. (Immediately before note for your revert was a "thank you" for the removal from .) Nostalgia Critic is a comedian, not a professional film critic. The lack of professional reviews does not mean we drop our usual standards and start adding primary sources for mentions in standup routines, radio shows ("Crazzzy Bob and the Mornin' Crew at Smokin' 107 FM!" or some such probably mentioned it...), etc. Nostalgia Critic's (and related articles') near orphan status does not make material about the webshow less trivial here or elsewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nostalgia Critic is a fictional character played by Doug Walker.  He belongs in the commentary section of films about as much as Stephen Colbert (character)'s opinions belong on political articles.  If a reliable secondary source were to mention his commentary I would be okay with mentioning it as it would make his satirical comments notable but I haven't seen anything like that.  The New York Times mentioned "Internet purveyors of bad cinema" but never mentioned anybody by name, it would be WP:OR on our part to assume they meant JonTron and Nostalgia Critic.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just chipping in: while I certainly have led (and will continue) to lead my crusade for Internet original media (because seriously, guys, we're in the 21st century, traditional amateur/pro d...[that's a discussion for another day]) to get more recognition on Wikipedia, I will note that the essential problem lies at the fact that Doug's "reviews" as the Nostalgia Critic are written with very few exceptions to be as scathing as possible. Now, regular viewers will note that he occasionally includes actual criticism/commentary in there as semi-out-of-character summaries, but the focus is on being entertaining. The moment he chooses a film to make a review on, you know that most of his comments will be mocking and generally negative.190.109.207.3 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to campaign for that, by discussing the issue. Please do not crusade by adding material against the current WP:CONSENSUS. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't choose the best words there. My campaigning is indeed primarily urging people to have better criteria when choosing the most appropriate sources in talk pages. I have tried a few times to talk people into not giving undue weight to more viewed pages written by people who clearly are not specialized enough (yes, subjective), but I desisted when I got against a revert wall. 190.109.207.3 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nostalgia critic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foodfight!. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html%7D%7D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221152115/http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html to http://www.thresholdanimationstudios.com/foodfight.html
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) 08:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Our current source for the box office takings in the infobox is The Numbers which reports $73K. This appears to exclude $46K in takings in the UAE reported by Box Office Mojo. Which source is preferred? --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As BOM is apparently more complete than Numbers and is one of several [recommended by MOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office] I'd suggest we go with that. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office 

message: In regards to a 2004 NYT article, this article from AVClub argued that it "feels more like a press release than a work of journalism".
If one wants to use the 2004 NYT article as a source, think about what AVClub said about it.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on a source (2004 NYT article)