Talk:Spider Baby

Fair use rationale for Image:Spider baby.jpg

Image:Spider baby.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 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Curse section" - Why was it removed?

I know, it was probably considered to be too "trivia-related", right? Perhaps it was. But then again, perhaps it wasn't. If it was reporting facts concerning the film's production, then I feel it's entirely relevant. Wikipedia is a great source for this kind of information, and ALOT of people (most, from what I hear) really appreciate such interesting tidbits. For me, it added somewhat to the quality of the article, and certainly didn't make it bloated in any way, as this a short page anyway. I liked it and would like to see it returned. Any objections or feedback out there? (I'd be surprised if this page even gets many visits). Monk777 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, over a year later I noticed this. I removed the curse because there was no curse. The examples given were ridiculous.
"The Curse of Spider Baby

Several things happened during the movie and the various stage productions that have lead to the belief that the script might be cursed. Just a few examples are

The mysterious car crash of Jill Banner.

The death of Lon Chaney Jr. after wrapping production

The planned production in Los Angeles that was going to open a new theatre but before rehearsal could begin the theatre burned down.

The director of the Oregon production contracted cancer"

Banner was killed 20 years later, Lon Chaney died nearly 10 years later, fires happen and it's not unheard of for someone to get cancer. Nothing here pointed to a curse, just to real life. There is nothing anomalous enough to even suggest a curse. Caligulathegod (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

tag removed

Removed wikify tab as article is heavily linked throughout. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spider Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070211043434/http://www.rickmcgrath.com:80/jack_hill_movies/spider_baby.html to http://www.rickmcgrath.com/jack_hill_movies/spider_baby.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite and Expansion

This article is poorly written/developed, with most of the article needing to be rewritten. The formatting of the article is also very poor and will need to be adjusted as it's rewritten, there are also sections that could be merged with other related sections as well. A lot of the information found in this article is unsourced and should either be removed or given proper citations. There is also information that is missing from the article such as information on the film's theatrical release and reception which needs to be added to the article with proper citations (IMDb is NOT a good source), I have already started on a reception section which can be further expanded. Considering how lard a cult following this film has it's quite sad to see this article in such a poor state. Hopefully the right person comes along and give this article the proper attention it needs.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you at least took the time to make a talk page post about your rewrite tag, but I have to say this is not a helpful explanation. You say that the article is in a poor state and needs to be rewritten, but the only specific issues you bring up are that citations and reception info need to be added, which has nothing to do with rewriting. If the article indeed needs to be rewritten, surely you can name at least one problem with it that could be addressed with a rewrite? Martin IIIa (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been over three weeks now with no response, and looking at both the current version of the article and the old revision from when the tag was placed, I can't see anything that could be improved by a rewrite (at least, not anything which wouldn't be better served by conventional incremental improvements), so I'm going to remove the tag.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Release date

We cite 3 dates in December '67, 8th 13th and 24th. It's possible that 24th was "general release" or some such, but if so we should say. (The source used just gives the 24 Dec date, and also says 1968.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC).