Talk:Eating Out

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

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.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

for real?

this is it? For real?--Mtxoracle 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a match made in therapy" sounds more like a marketing-man's catch-phrase for the film than a reader review. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a marketing site. This should be changed or deleted.

Wikipedia is also a Wiki, so anyone is able to change it.

Only gay interest film with a sequel?

What about Boys in the Sand and Basic Instinct? Both were American, both were released theatrically and both had sequels. Is there some reason why they should not be counted? Otto4711 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oppose: I've never heard of this film. Moving it to Eating Out isn't proper for Wikipedia. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 05:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that you've never heard of it have to do with anything? I'm sure you haven't heard of a lot of things, but that shouldn't be the basis for deciding what is or isn't proper for Wikipedia. Otto4711 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose links to Wiktionary via template, which explains most likely usage. 70.51.11.252 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a film, not the act of "Eating Out". – Axman (☏) 08:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a film. The two items at "Eating Out" are disctionary definitions, which do not belong on WIkipedia. Otto4711 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No other proper nouns go by this title. Reginmund 21:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We're not discussing what should be at Eating out. There would be no reason to capitalize the second word if not talking about the film, so I don't see a problem here. We can put a dablink at the top. Dekimasu よ! 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

None of the reasons given opposing the move have any bearing, according to our naming conventions. This article has been renamed from Eating Out (film) to Eating Out as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eating out.jpg

Image:Eating out.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) 07:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]