Talk:Critters (franchise)

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock Song

Does anyone remember the rock song that was played in the first Critters movie and or who performed it. The song was playing when the two bounty hunters aboard the ship take on human form. It was a really cool sequence that stayed in my head til today. I haven't seen the movie in years, though. I'll probably rent it for kicks this weekend. HOLLA --Scott Free 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The song was "Power of the Night". It was written by Terrence Mann who plays Johnny Steele, the fictional singer in the film who sings the song. The song was featured on cassette copies of the soundtrack. I don't much about it beyond that. --Bacteria 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Critters poster 2.jpg

Image:Critters poster 2.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 ensure 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) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Crite: Merge to the series article?

I'm not convinced that the Crite creature is notable outside of the context of the series itself, so I'm considering proposing that this article be merged with the full series article. There are other fairly serious issues with this article (most of which fall under WP:OR), but I think a merge at least helps several of these issues. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that merging this article with the main series would actually probably be a good idea. As for verifiability, would citing videos, blogs, and IMDb posts cover that, or would I need to cite more "official" sources such as New Lines Cinema's website itself or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamikazePyro13 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go ahead with the merge (and glad to hear you agree), all of the above would suffice for sourcing, as far as I'm concerned. Good stuff! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do the merge is the only problem facing this article now I think, since I've added a few sources for the claims in the article, which I hope are satisfactory enough.KamikazePyro13 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As both articles already need a lot of work, I performed a basic cut-and-paste merger. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There is also consensus for retargeting Critters to Critter. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critters (film series) → Critters – The film series appears to be the primary topic for the name, as pointed out by others. Paradoctor (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the move, but would support retargeting Critters to the disambiguation page, Critter. There are more meanings of "critters" than the film and the comic book (both of which are notable franchises), including as a plural of most things individually called a "critter". bd2412 T 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not at issue, disambiguation is primarily between notable topics. The point in question is whether the film series is the primary topic for "Critters". Traffic stats for Critters, Critters (film) and Critters (film series) have the yeas. Paradoctor (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per BD2412, including retargeting Critters (currently a redirect to Critters (comic book)) to the disambiguation page. --do ncr am 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a primary topic, disambiguation belongs at _(disambiguation). Paradoctor (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My contention, which several others have now agreed with, is that there is no primary topic; if there is no primary topic, then the appropriate solution is retargeting to the existing disambiguation page, Critter. bd2412 T 05:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My contention": I got that. That's why I provided evidence that the series is the primary topic. Paradoctor (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critter is also an often used term for domesticated animals, did your search to determine the primary topic take into account that a person typing critters may be looking for information on that topic or some of the other enteries on the critter dab page? If that was the case even though this page has the most hits of any page titied critters it may not in fact be the primary topic since most people would be looking elsewhere.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different items. We're talking about the plural form "Critters", not the singular. Someone looking for "Critters" is not looking for "critter". Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure about that since several other users suggesting redirecting to critter obviouly disagree meaing that the assertion in in dispute?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue" Give me relevant facts or policy not yet mentioned, and I'll change my mind. Regards Paradoctor (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's evidence you want, do a Google Books search for "Critters" and you will see that by far the most common use of the term is to refer to the plural form of the generic and ambiguous "Critter". bd2412 T 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not directly determine navigation. Will users type, e. g., "Heroes" when they want information on "hero"? Naming and disambiguation is about facilitating navigation, and redirecting those searching for "Critters" to "critter" doesn't seem to help. Paradoctor (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the primary topic for critters is critter. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that meshes with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Paradoctor (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the primary topic of sausages is sausage. likewise. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no film series by the name of "Sausages". For an example of the plural form being a distinct topic from the singular form, see Heroes. Paradoctor (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect "Critters" to the disambiguation page critter. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the reason for that? Paradoctor (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Heroes points to a dab page. Critters should too. Someone suggested to look at page view counts, but it appears that they didn't provide the actual numbers or describe the ratios. The nominator should provide the evidence, not make people look it up for themselves. But even if the number of page views on Wikipedia is lopsided, that's not everything. "Critters", for most people, are animals, not a film series. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the oppose arguments are more valid, and I agree with themTweedledee2011 (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Critters (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Critters (film series). 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:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive failure. Adding archive URLs for dead YouTube videos was a complete a waste of time, the web archive was only able to save the text not the videos, it was a total failure to provide anything useful. The bot simply should not even try when it comes to Youtube video links. -- 109.79.166.202 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]