Talk:Mystic Pizza

	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.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plot summary[edit]

This article could use a plot summary.216.80.110.88 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant of the same name[edit]

While it is appropriate to mention that such a restaurant exists and that it is popular with tourists because they associate it with the movie, the article is about the movie so descriptions of the restaurant do not belong here --especially considering that the restaurant was NOT the motivation for the story or characters in the film in any way; it only provided a cute name. In short, advertising the restaurant is an inappropriate use of this article. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The restaurant might qualify for a footnote link at the end. Since it has NO connection with the restaurant in the movie, except for the cute name, it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Of course, the restaurant by the same name has been pretending that there is a connection for nearly twenty years ans using that pretended connection as a hook to lure in credulous tourists, and perhaps that could be better described. And again, it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph about a MOVIE. Think you can do that, o anonymous one, instead of just repeating advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.113.170 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for finally taking this to the talk page.

Except that the restaurant was vistited by the screenwriter before the movie was written [1], and the then-existant 3 lines on the restaurant (then uncited) is now a 2 line cited point. Please read Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox (particularly point #6) and state exactly how the current sentance in question possibly works as an advertisement? It merely states the restaurant has existed since 1973 and was popular both before and after the movie. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work as an advertisement? Your linked reference was the restaurant's own advertising. I suppose it is possible that you simply have no clue what you are talking about, and you're not really trying to abuse Wikipedia for commercial interests. The restaurant on Main Street in Mystic was a "dive" nearly out of business throughout the period from 1973 until a few years after the movie was released when it was re-modeled to take advantage of the popularity of the film. The ONLY aspect of the film based on the restaurant previous to the release of the movie was the name itself, nothing more. Since the release of the film, the restaurant copied numerous features from the film to create an illusion. That re-creation may deserve some mention at the end of the article (it is about as relevant as the comment on "goldfish crackers"), but it is directly and intentionally misleading to suggest that the restaurant has any significance to the film other than the name. Oh, and enough of your self-serving regurgitation of Wikipedia "rules". You are in position to preach.205.178.113.170 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, one is a first hand source as is allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF, the other is a pefectly valid third party source. You would go much further in your arguement (which appears to be "I don't like it") if you were not so condescending, o anonymous one. You're speaking with a lot of "first hand opinion", but I don't see anything to back that up. You're reverted, and I will further removal without reasonable discussion (ie: state HOW it is an actual advertisement) will be considered wp:edit warring as you are reverted cited points. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All they seem to use of the real restaurant is the name because it fit the story and location but that's really all. B-Movie Fan (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mystic Pizza. 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/20110926064728/http://www.mysticpizza.com/about_us.aspx to http://www.mysticpizza.com/about_us.aspx
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=48

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]