Talk:George of the Jungle 2

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal George of the Jungle 2 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Budget section removed

Upon looking at the IMDB page for this film, the budget was listed as $12 million, URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322389/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus. Noticing that this wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia infobox I added the budget section and provided a reference as required, yet the section has been removed without any reason given. Why is this the case and what can I do to get the budget section added back up without being taken down again? I'm sure the change would be considered as "constructive" and there is no clear reason for omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.145.104 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgejungle2.jpg

Image:Georgejungle2.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) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Why is there no plot summary anymore? There was last time I looked. 24.65.125.227 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Although this isn't strictly relavent to the plot, when Lyle's henchwomen get kicked out of the bulldozer and Rocky smacks them into the ground. Do they get killed or not? Stiarts erid (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cuts to plot and cast

I recently purged all of the useless nonsense from the cast list per WP:FILMCAST. I also restored a 2009 version of the plot to the article. That version of the plot was stable for several years before a two-punch series of plot bloat edits added a bunch of details that were not important to understanding the story (in particular, our coverage of it per WP:FILMPLOT guidelines), were filled with horrid grammar and juvenile phrasing, and a load of other problems. I'm not opposed to critical details being added; I've brought it down to 560 words so there is room. I am, however, wildly opposed to restoring a 1000+ word plot in violation of every site and project guideline and policy on writing about fiction, particularly when, once again, the trimmed version was stable for a number of years. Millahnna (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of it was useless just too much waffle in it where it could have been narrowed down.I have already made an offer that should keep us both happy. Although I know this rule of 700 words is in place I still fail to see why it is neccessary although I'm sure someone has got an explanation to me it is a load of garbage. I still think a plot summary should be as long as the editor wants it to be within reason as long as it is not 10,000's of words long. Having said that I am willing toabide by the rules as it seems you don't have a choice to fight them as everyone seems to gang up on you if you dare do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 700 word limit is a somewhat arbitrary limit, but it's in place because readers only need a brief summary of the film and most people don't want to read a 1000+ word essay. Bear in mind we only summarise the main narrative, and much of the extraneaous details you added are not necessary. I don't wish to be rude, but apart from the plot bloat, your level of written English is very poor which raises the question of whether you are competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps you could type your contributions in Word first and run a spell and grammar check? Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George of the Jungle 2. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104205619/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/georgejungle2.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/georgejungle2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]