This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
A fact from Nude Nuns with Big Guns appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
As I expressed when this films was nominated for DYK, the article is little more than a
coatrack for discussion of the lawsuit but contains hardly any referenced text about the movie itself. Expansion of the film's cast, production, and other sections would go a long way toward alleviating this concern. -
Dravecky (
talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I think that the article contains enough detail (although more would be welcome) to avoid allegations of
coatrack. It's also quite entertaining to have an entry with such a great title... Benny DigitalSpeak Your Brains 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Somebody needs to clean up the "Plot" section. It's horribly written. I tried to, but ran into snags because I have not seen the movie, and so I abandoned the attempt.
Applejuicefool (
talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Parody, right?
This is a parody film, right? Because the plot is so preposterous (clerical drug ring) that it wouldn't have even gotten the greenlight in the exploitative-heavy 1970s. Why did any of the actors sign on to this disaster?
Newjerseyliz (
talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
A fact from Nude Nuns with Big Guns appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
As I expressed when this films was nominated for DYK, the article is little more than a
coatrack for discussion of the lawsuit but contains hardly any referenced text about the movie itself. Expansion of the film's cast, production, and other sections would go a long way toward alleviating this concern. -
Dravecky (
talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I think that the article contains enough detail (although more would be welcome) to avoid allegations of
coatrack. It's also quite entertaining to have an entry with such a great title... Benny DigitalSpeak Your Brains 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Somebody needs to clean up the "Plot" section. It's horribly written. I tried to, but ran into snags because I have not seen the movie, and so I abandoned the attempt.
Applejuicefool (
talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Parody, right?
This is a parody film, right? Because the plot is so preposterous (clerical drug ring) that it wouldn't have even gotten the greenlight in the exploitative-heavy 1970s. Why did any of the actors sign on to this disaster?
Newjerseyliz (
talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)reply