Talk:Earthquake (1974 film)

Theme park attractions

As has been recently announced, the Florida version of the Earthquake attraction has closed to be rebranded as a new attraction later this year. This section was revised in good faith, but the changes made the article read like there is only one attraction. Subheadings that were added did not make sense with the article text, and an infobox was added that really isn't necessary for an article on the movie that happened to inspire a couple of attractions.

Ultimately, in my opinion, I could live with simple infoboxes, provided two are added: one for the Hollywood version (which is still in place) and one for the Florida version (that is being revised).

McDoobAU93 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-So if i added an infobox for the california attraction then the florida one can be kept?

Sounds reasonable to me. The article is principally about the movie, not the rides, so the infoboxes should not overpower the overall article (or be bigger than the infobox for the movie). Thanks for the input! --McDoobAU93 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Earthquake movie.jpg

Image:Earthquake movie.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 insusaddddasre 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) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something's missing

Any reason that there is no summary of the plot in this article? The reason I add this is that ISTR that this is the movie where, at the moment the earthquake strikes, one of the characters is watching High Plains Drifter at the scene where Clint Eastwood is spun around in the barber's chair, shooting dead three men. A plot summary would allow me to confirm that this is the right movie. -- llywrch (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just watched it, and you're absolutely right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.43.140 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Appropriately, this section is a disaster. I think it may have been vandalized at some point. This is way too long, way to conversational in tone, contains too much excess information. Misspellings. Bad grammar. Sentences containing a single word. Help! PurpleChez (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other parts of the article are equally bad. This needs major work, particularly with syntax and punctuation. There are parenthetical statements with no clear reference...very tough to read. PurpleChez (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and trimmed out a lot of the subplot information and the characters that are only mentioned once. It's still close to 1000 words, which is over the desired FILMPLOT recommendation of 400-700 words, but FILMPLOT does have provisions for complex plots to go over that. Feel free to keep trimming or adding back information that drives the main plot. --McDoob AU93 16:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@McDoob, That looks a lot nicer. Thanks! Juno (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]