Talk:Ninjas vs. Zombies

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Sources edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I mentioned at T:TDYK that a lot of the sources here are questionable. Here we go: 1.Ninjas vs. Zombies press kit is self-published, it's ok for some things but should be avoided, especially for making value judgments (in a previous version of this article this source was used to say what the film has been compared to...big no-no).

The current article makes appropriate use of the press-kit for information on the cost of production, etc., not for value judgments. Nothing wrong on this front. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

2.BD Horror News ref is some sort of blog post or something, I don't know what BD Horror News is but it doesn't look like they have very rigorous inclusion standards. I have kept the source in for now just to keep the quote that it's referencing, but even that is iffy.

Not sure how you can conclude it's either "iffy" or inappropriate when you state "I don't know what BD Horror News is." Also, the reference in the article is to a single line from a movie review from the site. It is being cited for the subject of its review rather than as an authoritative source on the movie. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

3.Arrow in the Head ref pretty much the same problem as above

Arrow in the Head is a publication of JoBlo.com. It is a well-respected movie review site that has been recognized for its notability in its own wikipedia article. As noted there: "The web site has received notability over the years. It was referenced in Entertainment Weekly as one of their '25 favorite online entertainment sites.'" Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

4.HorrorTalk News there isn't a permalink for this ref

Horror Talk News has been around since 2002, and though not a mainstream news publication, it is cited in the article only for the opinion expressed there about the movie. Also, I'm not aware of a "permalink" requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. Even many newspapers don't typically include their article in their online site for an unlimited time, but the article is there now and can be verified. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

5.Beyond Hollywood ref samem problem as #2 and 3, but worse...very bloggish. The only reason I kept it in for now was because it was the only dissenting opinion in the Reception section. Actually I'll probably remove it in a few minutes because I'm fickle like that. —

Beyond Hollywood is a publication dedicated to movie reviews of Asian, foreign, indie, horror, and genre movies. It is not an unknown blog, but an established publication that has been in existence since 2001. Again, it is being offered for a brief reference to its review of the film and not as a source for anything other than the opinion set forth in the review. I think that limited use is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding some explanation of these sources. This is an area I don't have much experience in, so your judgment is helpful. As for the HorrorTalk thing, the only reason I mentioned the permalink problem is that the thing mentioned is currently at the index page, and I presume within a few days it won't be there anymore, and unless someone is paying really close attention and is able to update the link once the article goes off the front page then the link won't be useful anymore (and I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I won't be paying close attention to this article after several days have passed).

As for the press kit source and the Arrow in the Head source, I agree with you that those are probably ok in the article...thanks to your edits, the press kit source is being used appropriately now, and the AitH source does seem more legit than a lot of the other stuff.

I'm still not sure about the BD Horror News source: even though we're not using it as an "authoritative source on the movie," even a source for a review should have some sort of standards, because we don't want to include the reviews of every random person with an opinion—rather, we just want the reviews that can be said to represent a notable or significant part of the community. So I'd just be more comfortable with that ref if we could find some evidence of more rigorous standards for inclusion in the BD Horror News blog (even just the fact that it's a respected blog, like AitH, rather than one person's personal cite). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic