Talk:Vampires Suck

Notability

Has been established? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As soon as it is it will be. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party sources are present if you haven't noticed. Also, don't be so witty. I hear that is against the wiki-robot Code of Conduct.68.1.89.162 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blogs are "third party sources". They aren't reliable sources, though. Citing a blog that cites IMDb and boxofficemojo is worse than citing IMDb and boxofficemojo directly. IMDb is not a reliable source for this kind of info and boxofficemojo is already listed. A tip: If the proper cite involves someone named "Uncle Creepy" (this guy), it's probably not the New York Times.

As for "All Headline News", I see nothing to indicate they are reliable in any sense of the word. Other than there broad claim to be , "AHN is a leading provider of real-time, dynamic news and content that informs, entertains, educates and engages" and a vague statement that they draw info from "a variety of sources", there is nothing to indicate what the site is. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what a reliable source looks like, oh grand master, no need to tell me. All Headline News looks fairly reliable to me. There is no reason to think otherwise. Editors should not make distinctions on their own, however. Please abide by WP:Verifiability when making the decision of whether or not a source is credible. Your opinion of the source doesn't matter, only the policies to which you are bound.68.1.89.162 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no indication of the site's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a new organization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a "news organization". Is it a reliable source? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also... The Washington Post is copywrited material? Surely the editorial review can be implemented in some way.... 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the warning more carefully. Virtually all sources are copyrighted. We can use the information in them, but plagerism is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say, fuhrer. 68.1.89.162 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's copyrighted. SummerPhD isn't just making stuff up. That's how it is, and none of us have any control over that. Reach Out to the Truth 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anneliese van der Pol

She was listed in one unreliable source. However, a fairly extensive cast list in the Washington Post does not lit her. I've removed her, failing reliable sourcing. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• What about this? (Note to wife: I only admitted to liking her on Facebook, which is not real.) Drmies (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty odd. From the trailer, it looks like she's in it (and in a fairly substantial role). However, no clearly official sources mention her. There has to be a clearly reliable source somewhere, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised, yes--this doesn't really cut it, even though it's written by a 24/7 Harry Potter fan. The best thing I found in Dutch is this, and that's less than nothing. Odd. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From those around the web claiming to have seen the movie, I'm half tempted to bet she'll show up in the credits as Alan Smithee. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

spike tv sourceMrjinxed (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With the recent troll gone from this article and recently resurfacing as a sock at least once, I checked your edit history before I checked your source. (Nothing personal...) Looks like you're the person most likely to be able to clarify this mystery: since she seems to have a fairly prominant role, why don't the film's promotional pages mention van der Pol? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anneliese has a supporting role, (ken jeong is the only supporting character that seems to be getting billing) so we understand why she hasn't been mentioned too often. also an official press release hasnt been sent out, so blogs and press only have imdb (the films page currently isnt set up by the films actual credits) to go off.Mrjinxed (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced additions will be reverted.

If you make an addition that is unsourced, it will be reverted. Anything added that does not cite a source will be undone. Additions unsourced that are, reverted will be. Ourcedunsay ditionsaday illway ebay evertedray. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Justine Lang

Resolved

______________ someone tagged this person as an actress in this movie and she's not alive ... shouldnt someone change this to the proper person?

Michelle Justine Lang (31 January 1975 in Vancouver, British Columbia – 30 December 2009 in Kandahar, Afghanistan) was an award-winning Calgary Herald reporter and the first Canadian journalist to die in the War in Afghanistan.[1}

Michelle Lang in this movie is not Michelle Justine Lang. I removed the link. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait--we're denying a dead person the right to play in a vampire movie? That strikes me as odd. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're confused, Drmies. She's dead, not undead. Plus, people can play something they aren't. The living can play the undead just as sure as straights can play gays (and viceversa). I saw Anne Heche in "Hung" where her character is married to this dweebie dentist guy. She plays a very convincing sane woman. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you SUMMERPHD! i would have but i dont know how! 97.65.234.3 (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)der!

Sources

The film's official site links to their official Facebook page. Under WP:SPS it would not be a source for anything controversial about the film (e.g. is the film any good). Cast is not controversial. IMDb, on the other hand, is generally accepted on WP for the cast of released films. It is only clearly authoritative for some writing credits as all of the rest of their content is user generated. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Chihuahua

Jacob does not become a werewolf. He is a Chihuahua. Shouldn’t this be stated instead of a werewolf? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the movie is clearly (but poorly) making fun of werewolvs, which as fictional animals can be portrayed as the director sees fit, it might as well be kept as werewolf. I doubt there's a more specific word for a person who changes into a Chihuahua anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.91.231 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

7?

Does it really need 7 sources to back up the claim it's based on Twilight? Seems extreme. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9...yep 7. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. I reduced the number of citations to one, using Washington Post. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Parodies & Unrated Version

Don't you think we should add a list of parodies from the film onto this article (including the ones from the unrated version?)? And now that I am on the subject of the unrated version, should we add a heading 3 section about the extended and unrated scenes? 68.114.142.130 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Any parody information that cites a reliable source is welcome. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New attempt at a Jenn Proske article

I made a page for Jenn Proske, personally, the star of Vampires Suck. I think the page should be updated to add a link to her name so you can link to her personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adder888888 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You created a redirect at Jenn Proske(actor) which was deleted as an unlikely typo. As there are no other articles for anyone named "Jenn Proske", the article should be a Jenn Proske. That article, however, was deleted by an AfD discussion in August 2010. It has be recreated several times since then, each time being reverted to the redirect to this page. At the time of the AfD, it was decided that Proske was not notable because this was her only substantial role (actually, her only role period) and there was not substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (This was also discussed on the talk page for her article.) If you feel this has changed, you will need to demonstrate this, or the article will be deleted again. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vampires Suck. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_o4d6tdtM&gl=US&hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Professionalism and Formality

Not even one-third of the way through reading the "plot" section and I have found numerous usage of slang/casual language that require readers to understand their slang meaning in order to discern what this article is saying. I was thinking about slapping a cleanup template like an Extensive Rewrite or something similar onto this. What are your thoughts? Widgetdog (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In general, casual language should not be avoided or replaced by overly formal language, just for the sake of formality. Per Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles: "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader". So a change in tone should ideally help readability.

If you find slang terms which are only known to people of a certain background, create ambiguity, or are uncivil and potentially offensive, then cleanup is recommended. Just try not to overdo it. Dimadick (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Vampires suck: New movie 2010" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vampires suck: New movie 2010. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 21:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)