Talk:Meatballs (film)

	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 Canadian cinema task force.

Canada: Cinema Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force

Comedy High‑importance

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

"Spaz"

I think it should be pointed out that "spaz" was a slang word for a nerdy, uncoördinated person who was no good at sports long before Meatballs, at least in Southern Ontario, where coincidentally, the film was made. Kelisi 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Spaz" is short for "spastic". The term is in usage outside of the Anglosaxon world, where it certainly wasn't derived from this here movie. Maikel (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Counsellor"

This is a Commonwealth spelling, and Commonwealth spellings may be used on Wikipedia. There is no need to Americanize them. Kelisi 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The basketball game.jpg

Image:The basketball game.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The basketball game.jpg

Image:The basketball game.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) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain?

I have removed this statement: The film itself is suggested to be in the public domain as there is no copyright notice on the current Sony release. because I consider it moot. If you want to reinsert it please provide reference. Maikel (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

Why is the movie called "Meatballs"? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian

Just to bring over more information from the WikiProject Film article, I think it's safe to call this film Canadian. It's in the Canadian Film Archive if that helps it any, (source) and the British Film Institute calls it a Canadian film, It's production companies on the BFI website list it as Haliburton films (Canadian), the Canadian Film Development Corporation (obviously Canadian), Famous Players (Canadian), and Mount Royal Productions (Canadian!). Any further thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no argument, I'll change it now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems the logical conclusion. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The use of current Rotten Tomatoes reviews clearly shows the flaw in this method. While it was a commercial success, certainly no one thought it a good film at the time except the 14 year olds who saw it. To indicate a 75% positive rating from that website indicates only that the critics sited have very bad taste AND that the craft of reviewing/criticism (different things I grant) has utterly hit the skids over the past few decades. I allow that there are such things as "guilty pleasures", as well as reevaluation of films through different eras (such as with "A Christmas Story", a movie utterly trashed when it came out, and yet becoming an adored seasonal treasure a few decades later), as well as an individual's defense of what is largely perceived to be a bad movie, but championed by a lone defender...however "Meatballs" can't possibly be in any one of those categories. It was junk in '79, and having just seen it, remains junk. Now I realize this is my POV perspective...my point here is that to indicate a largley positive rating from Rotten Tomatoes, based on what must be the dumbed down opinions of mostly poor reviewers skews how the film was thought of then, as well as now by anyone older than 35. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.93 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Linking

I made a recent major "housekeeping" edit to the page in which I deleted uneeded extra spaces, ensured that actors/directors/etc were referred to by there last name after the first mention, and also cleaned up the Wiki linking per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked as there were many actors/words that were linked many many times. Note that the MOS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." and thus a second Wiki link is only optional if it serves the page (let alone the third, fourth, fifth, etc, etc) but it is by no means necessary.

Following this, an anon editor restored all the Wiki linking in the Cast section - including red links for actors who will never have a page of their own. After I reverted the anon's edits as "good faith efforts", but contrary to the MOS, Epicgenius restored the anon's edits saying his opinion that the MOS was only a general guideline. Honestly this has nothing to do with my opinion of Epic's opinion, as I've routinely seen Wiki links of the same actor 3-4-5x's on a page (infobox, lede, once after the lede, again lower down if it is a very large page, and in a photo or two). However the Cast section on this page is a mere inches below the Plot section where all these actors are already linked and the page isn't that big. Not a huge deal and I'm happy to be wrong, but IMO its clearly overkill. Ckruschke (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

In my view, the wikilinks should be there because some people want to see the wikilinks in one huge list. I would understand if the wikilinks were in the same paragraph (or, in some cases, the same section), they probably should be removed; however, this is a new list, and the wikilinks should probably be there. Just my two cents. Epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not many people follow the MOS, so this is a link to the relevant policy: WP:OVERLINK Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius - WP:OVERLINK has the exact same text as MOS... Ckruschke (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I know, it is part of the MOS. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The MOS mentions that links may be repeated in tables. I think that in terms of the "Cast" section, tables and lists can be interchangeable. I assume the MOS permits that flexibility because readers may look up information in different ways. Not everyone will want to dive into the plot summary just to determine an actor associated with a role. It's not a very navigation-friendly approach. As for the red links, I think we can apply WP:REDLINK here. We can quickly look up the red linked actors on IMDb and see if their filmographies are extensive enough to possibly warrant an article at some point. I'm assuming with the age of this film, it's not likely, so we could just delink these instances. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Erik & Epicgenius that in general you want to present the Wiki links in several different ways (as I stated above in my opening comment). However, with the Plot section and the Cast section within inches of eachother, I don't see the point of having everyone Wiki linked twice in this small space. In contrast, the Star Trek (movie) page is about 5X longer and is (in my mind) a good example of how Wiki linking should work. The actors are all Wiki linked in the infobox, the lede, once in the upper body and then again in the lower body, in addition to here and there in photos. Seems to me that having all the actors linked twice on this page in such a small space is a classic case of how to overlink. Ckruschke (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I didn't realize Craven was already linked. However, in the case of films, the links should be in the "Cast" section rather than anywhere else. When wanting to find out who was in a movie, I always jump to the cast section rather than searching through the lede or the plot sections. Having all the links close together makes life easier. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill the Cat 7 - I was actually the one that put all the links in the Plot - as I was responding to what appeared to be the page concensus on Wiki linking. I'm not sure what the concensus is now - which isn't a slam on anyone, just a statement. Let me shift them all back into the cast section and we can go from there. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I was simply stating what my own personal preference was. If you like it where it's at, then I can live with it. No biggie. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]