Talk:Pat the Bunny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Failed Good Article
- Auto-fail: Do not nominate articles that are still considered stubs and that have incomplete sections. --SeizureDog 04:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA
Short but sweet, good article indeed. Can I just say one thing? Awwww. ;) Highway Return to Oz... 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add section?
Recently there has been a popular parody of this in America, 'Pat the Politician'. Should we add a section detailing how Pat the Bunny was parodied to make Pat the Politician? Thanks. Ilikefood 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely - I've missed that parody. Put it under a ==Parody== header, I'd say. - DavidWBrooks 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Patthebunny.jpg
Image:Patthebunny.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) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Reassessment
I'm de-listing this article, as I don't think it passes criterion 3 (breadth) of the Good Article criteria. I realize it may be difficult to write a substantial article about a book of this kind, but there must be more to say about something that has sold so consistently for so long. If nothing else, I find myself unable even to visualize the book itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)