Talk:Dante's Peak

message: The statement at the end of the page (only in U.S Internationally the film was a huge hit) requires clarification.
Does this mean only in the US was it not successful? Internationally it was a hit? Punctuation, etc. are not clear. R5gordini (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fixed. —WWoods (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section on production seems to be copied directly from here , and the website says it's copyrighted. 98.27.7.29 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MLauba (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse the removal.  In addition, the website does not appear to be a reliable source to use.  If anyone wants to use better sources to recreate the "Production" section, leave a note on my talk page. Erik (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Can we get some references for such claims?  Because by the actual financials (if you know how movie financials work), a 180 mill box office on a 120 mill budget is a loss, and absolutely no success.  I've seen this on a number of movie articles.  All wrong. --jae (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Although it was a bigger financial success"… how was it a success? 

message: @Chaheel Riens reverted part of my edit, which I now realize didn't go far enough in removing Volcano from the first line under "Critical reception" (still mentioned "mixed reviews of its rival"). I have a few problems with this line. It's accurate, but also WP:SYNTHy and introduced offhandedly without context. The film's link is duplicated under "See also". Either we mention twin films and maybe how the director sought to be more realistic than rival Volcano, or none of it and just link in "See also". 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad - I agree that it's an either/or situation, and under the circumstances, probably a single link to the film in See also is the better option.  I feel particularly bad, as I'm normally quite strict on removing entries from See Also that are mentioned in the article itself, so that's a self-own on my part.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of ''Volcano'' in  "Critical reception" 

message: Suggestions 49.149.111.22 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science