Talk:Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco

Edit request from XBadgers, 27 April 2010
A small quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. The character Delilah appears to be a Maremma sheepdog, not a Kuvasz, which is a much larger and thickly-framed dog.

XBadgers (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we need a reliable source to verify this, as appearing to be something constitutes original research.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  23:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please change "min." to "minutes" as there is no need to abbreviate the word. Abbreviations should be avoided, clarity is more important. Why is this article locked anyhow? -- 109.77.118.228 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I no longer have the issue, but I once saw a Kuvasz breeder's ad in the directory of a Dog Fancy magazine which claimed "Breeders of 'Delilah' from Homeward Bound 2." She is definitely a Kuvasz; not all of them are larger and thicker. Females especially can be much smaller and lighter. Maremmas are an extremely similar breed, though. The REAL question is how on Earth Riley was determined to be a Labrador mix?!?! If anything he could be a Golden mix dyed with a Leonberger-like coloration?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitherandyon (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputing Washington Post Reference
There is a Homeward Bound II Review on The Washington Post and it is being used to verify that Homeward Bound II got mixed reception. This review is poorly written; It contains too many unnecessary words and I couldn't find what the critic felt about the movie. Instead, the critic decided it was much more important to shove as many nonsensical phrases as possible. This includes too many adjectives as well as phrases where almost every word begins with the same letter. I do not think this review is a reliable source and needs to be deleted from the Homeward Bound II Wikipedia article. In-Correct (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleting sources is not the answer.
 * There seem to be many film articles where editors have added references to reviews but not actually used the reviews to say anything about the film. Editors should try to take these reviews and paraphrase the reviews, using them to comment on the film.
 * The alliteration and style of the first Washington Post review is pretty poor, and for the most part the review is a tedious summary of the story. It is clear the reviewer didn't like the film and I guess they are inflicting horrible prose on the reader as revenge. The last paragraph contains something close to an actual attempt to critique the film, paraphrasing: Rita Kempley of The Washington Post says children may enjoy the arguements of the main characters, and may even find them witty but to adults the voice work is unappealling.
 * The second review is again largely a recap of the story and the final paragraph contains a favourable review, which could easily enough be paraphrased and included in the article. I'd have done it by now if the article wasn't locked. (Frankly forcing everyone to get user accounts would be better than having so many articles locked reasons that aren't very clear.) -- 109.77.118.228 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)