Talk:Secret of the Cave (2006 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 Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church 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.Seventh-day Adventist ChurchWikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchTemplate:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchSeventh-day Adventist Church articles

Mid

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

To-do list:
edit history watch purge Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs more sources?

I don't understand why we need more references? I took all of the facts from the official website. Is this not enough? Globalinfo 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DVD cover 2.jpg

Image:DVD cover 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 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 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 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book vs Film

Colin, nice to see you found this article. Figured you would after I categorized it. Anyway, something I've been pondering the past couple days is the lack of coverage on the book. And apparently someone else has said the same thing. I inserted {{WikiProject Novels|class=Start|importance=}} to cover the novel. However it was removed. I think we need to:

Make this article about the Book and Movie and created the respective sub sections covering each, or
Redirect this article to Secret of the Cave (film) and make this article about the book with an ambig on each.

I was not sure which approach to go with but was leading towards number one because wasn't sure each had enough info for their articles. What are your thoughts? This/These article(s) can be improved but I want to go in the right direction. Share your thoughts. --Maniwar (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your preference, to keep one article with different subsections for now. [My reply is two years late! :-).] Colin MacLaurin (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]