Talk:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Downandout.jpg
Image:Downandout.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) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] audio book
please add a link to the audio book!--Sonjaaa (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Plot summary
Wow, leave out a ton of details, tell the reader the end ruining the story, and copy paste the last few lines. That's what I like to see out of Wikipedia! --TIB (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was just about to go hunt down any WP Guidelines for plot summaries because of this. I've seen it many times before, developing in me a conscious avoidance of Wikipedia entries for specific media that could be spoiled (television shows, films, books). Sometimes, such as here, I'll hop on to check it out after I've read/watched it. It's an interesting question as to what people want Wikipedia to be in this regard. Regardless, in this case, beyond simply ruining the ending, I don't understand how quoting the last several lines verbatim is even useful in the book's encyclopedia entry. —Rhododendrites (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well that was fast. Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer are pretty clear :) Still, I think that any meaning offered by the word-for-word quote of the last several sentences could better be described some other way. I'll try to look at it again tomorrow if I have time, having just read the book. —Rhododendrites (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creative Commons
The article states that the book is now under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike as of 2004, but the official website still links to Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 1.0. Can someone verify which is more correct?