Talk:Slap Shot 2: Breaking the Ice

Fair use rationale for Image:Slap shot 2.jpg
Image:Slap shot 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 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 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 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
I don't know anything about Rotten Tomatoes, so I have hesitated changing the article, but from the facts I gather from the site, the reason it has a "0% Rotten" rating is nobody has reviewed it yet. Thus, including this information in the article means any movie that hasn't received a review would carry a 0%. Clicking various tabs, I see "T-meter Critics - 0% / 0 reviews; Top Critics - N/A / 0 reviews; RT Community - 26% / 15 reviews." I honestly have no idea what any of this means. Bad movie, sure, but not a 0%.

One more thing - I don't think the movie makes any hint that Sean Linden, the character played by Baldwin, is in any way related to real-life Trevor Linden from the Vancouver Canucks. The Canuck was well respected by his teammates and fans, whereas the movie character found himself lost in the minors, inevitably sacrificing his dignity for a mockery league, after missing a great career in the NHL because of suspected gambling in a rigged game. Trevor Linden doesn't share any characteristics with the movie role - no minor career after he retired and never a suspect in any unethical activity, on or off the ice. Makes me wonder what the author was implying - just a name similarity?

Because of these two disputes, and the missing citation from the glowing puck reference, I would recommend the "Miscellany" section be deleted, and the Rotten Tomatoes rating (if accurate) could be included in the introduction.Kingdomcarts (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)