Talk:Joe Dirt

	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.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture in the text?[edit]

Why is there a picture of a guy with a hockey puck in his head in the main body of text? 137.224.230.200 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Film?[edit]

I think not. --69.204.215.90 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You THINK not. Joe Dirt has deffinitly achieved cult status. Look at the deffinition of Cult film and tell me that it's not. --DevilSavior 01:24, 25 October 2006

It's on all the time on TV. Maybe we should include that? It's became kind of a joke, no? 206.72.25.210 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This film is definitely a cult classic. It should be no surprise that film critics hated it, as they are typically the polar opposite of this film's target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.88.42 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this film get referenced in public atleast once a week. Once a week on Online-Message boards as well. There is no strict definition of a cult film really, but in my opinion this film has reached it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.28.60.147 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Spelling Changes[edit]

I just changed a couple of words from the British variations to American. Since I'm currently on a spelling correction binge on Wikipedia, I thought I should give a rationale. My rule of thumb is to keep British spellings in articles where they already are and just make sure they are consistent throughout. However, once or twice I've come across pages so distinctly American in subject matter that it just doesn't seem appropriate to use British spellings. This is one of those pages: an American film about very American characters and situations. I'm not adamant about it but it seems right to me as an editor. I'm not trying to purge British spellings wholesale. Just so you know. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American film. Knock yourself out. 130.220.79.99 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settle An Argument?[edit]

Does anyone know what car Joe Dirt drives? My mate says it's a Dodge Challenger, but I say it's a Plymouth Roadrunner, judging by the comical rear wing. It would be nice to have a reference to it in the article. 130.220.79.99 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Dodge Charger Daytona Replica. Superbirds have wider headlight openings. Both Dodge Charger Daytona's and Plymouth Superbirds feature aerodynamic nosecones and large wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.14.116 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Joe dirt.jpg[edit]

Image:Joe dirt.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) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

david spade walk out?[edit]

"David Spade himself is said to have walked out on a showing of the movie."

thats going to need a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.74.191 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm going to make this abit clearer.

if i don't see a footnote soon, or atleast a "[citation needed]" over that comment soon i'm going to delete it.

is that clear?--66.61.74.191 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of plot summary[edit]

I trimmed the plot summary down from 833 words to 628 words. Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The plot summary has grown again and is now 784 words. That's too long. I am going to try to reduce it by at least 84 words. Invertzoo (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Cannibal ?[edit]

Please link/explain whatever this be. 59.167.234.198 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]