Talk:Nude on the Moon

	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.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Winstead, Chase (2006). "Two Faces of Voyeurism: Nude on the Moon and 'X'. The Man with the X-Ray Eyes". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 176–187. ISBN 0786421495.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 22-10-2010 (UTC)

Done-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream ending[edit]

One of the comments on IMDB claims an "it was only a dream" ending. This should be mentioned if true. Septentrionalis 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just one of the comments on IMDb, then, no, rather not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category Nudity in film; question[edit]

Hello @HouseBlaster: I had reinstated the category and reverted you, sorry: I hadn't read your closing argument (at all, apologies) and focused on the nom's rationale. You could have let that discussion run for a bit longer and relist, after only 2 votes, I think. I personally would have !voted for a different outcome and fear this decision will be challenged at some point, if only by users who will add the category to films, in good faith, as I just did (even after reading, too fast, the Cfd). Important films in the history of nudity in film should imv be considered categorisable under Nudity in film, and I didn't see this discussed (except by the nominator). Independently, can I ask what you mean in your edit summary by "Also use semantic markup in the infobox"? Did I touch the inbox? Are the two issues connected?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: I'll start with the last comment, because it is an easier question: you did not touch the infobox. While I was reverting, I noticed that the infobox used <br> tags to create a list, which is discouraged for accessibility reasons (see MOS:NOBR; in short, it helps screen readers and other assistive technology recognize that the content is a list rather than things which happen to have a line break between them). It is completely unrelated to the revert; I just noticed it and happened to fix it in the same edit (as one would fix a typo as part of a more substantive edit).

As for the revert itself, I also added a note to the category which says not to place individual films in the category, and that is really all we can do. People might misuse the category, but we can always remove inappropriate additions. If "people might misuse the category" was a reason to avoid using a category in a particular way, we would have no categories. Both of the non-nominator participants said Purge every individual film, so it certainly was discussed by people other than the nominator. Finally, CfD discussions are sometimes relisted for lack of participation, but this was not such an occurrence: two participants other than the nominator is fairly standard participation at CfD. Best, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this very thorough and polite reply. For the record, when I meant that something had not been discussed by anyone but the nominator, what I had in mind was not the category in general but only the possibility that some important works could have been considered categorisable under the category; but it's more than likely you had understood this and that you consider that the 2 !voters did indeed discuss the very possibility by simply discarding it. Anyway, thanks again and thanks for the note on the the category page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]