Talk:The Bone Collector

message: Shouldn't this URL be dedicated to the book and not the movie?
: No, I don't think so.  We have one sentence on each, so splitting it up into two articles would be mad.  If both grew to be particularly large, and if a second movie (or a TV show or video game) were made from the book, then there would be more reason to split them up. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
::I'm going to have to disagree. The article can certainly mention the film, but as for The Bone Collector being primarily a film stub is just not correct. The book came first, the film was based off of the book, therefore the main article should be about the book, just as Alice in Wonderland is about the books, and not the collection of films. As for now, I'm going to make it about the novel, and give mention that it a film of the same name is based off of it.  -- MacAddct1984  01:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as it is primarily about the book and not the movie, should we still have the actors and actresses name's listed after the characters? PeteShanosky 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article seems to be exclusively about the film and not the book, as there is little or no information regarding the book, and is formatted as an article for a film.
More importantly, it could be argued that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all due to its irrelevance.
Alephbot 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, sorry but that is completely untrue... The article can be about both, when they get bigger then you split them into seperate artciles.  This actually does belong on Wikipedia, see WikiProject Films and WikiProject Novels. Cbrown1023 12:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: The sequel section said: "It is unknown if a bone collector 2 will ever be created. It was said on another site that Jeffry Deaver isnt a series writer, so there are no chance of a sequel being created."
I have deleted it because it does not give a straight answer and it has unreferenced material. Lethe naiad 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: :Image:Bone collector poster.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bone collector poster.jpg

message: This article is full of typos and redundancies and inconsistencies that make my head spin. For example, I clearly remember the hero being able to move his head in the movie. Lots42 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos And