Talk:The Lady Vanishes (1938 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Languages
The film is primarily in English but there is a fair amount of dialogue in other European languages: French and German for sure, I think Italian, maybe Czech, and probably a couple of others. Should that be added to the infobox, or is that information supposed to be for the film’s primary language only? --Mathew5000 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] copyright status
I've removed the statement that the film is currently in the Public Domain, as the US Copyright Office lists the film as having it's US rights restored (see document dated 22/Aug/1997). Davepattern 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lady Vanishes shootout.JPG
Image:Lady Vanishes shootout.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.
— Save_Us_229 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lady moviep.jpg
Image:Lady moviep.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 ensure 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) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External Links?
I'm new to Wikipedia and wish to discuss the proper use of an external link on film sites including this one.
Is it permitted to enclose an external link for a site where the film in question is reviewed and presented? The external link points to a site run by a published film writer, director, actor and television personality in Tokyo, Japan (English language).
I am trying to keep the link to The Cinemated Man alive and well because it is informative, useful and the author is a recognized authority.
But each day the links are removed under the guise of 'personal website'. The Cinemated Man site is published by blogspot and the editors are removing it for that reason or claiming the edit is 'spam'.
First of all, it is clearly not spam.
Secondly, even though is is published by blogspot, it is not a daily blog but rather a film review and presentation site. The site is non profit and contains no ads of any kind - not even ad sense, it is informational and is not a 'social networking' entity such as Myspace or Facebook.
Finally, the inclusion of The Cinemated Man link on Wikipedia is a helpful resource for those interested in the films in question. Keeping the link alive can only add to the wealth of resources at Wikipedia. Deleting it can only narrow Wiki's scope.
Also, the external links to Google Video, which has the film in its entirety are also being removed by the same editors for the same reasons. Humbleradio (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The blog qualifies as spam under the criteria found at WP:LINKSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Since you and the other editor have a connection to the blog, this constitutes a conflict of interest. There are many blogs available that address many films, but Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is high. For a film like The Lady Vanishes, there is extensive coverage by third-party, published sources. Adding the blog in light of this is unfortunately not appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What about this:
"Exception: ...For example, if the Wikipedia article is on a movie named "xyzMovie" and the official site for the movie is "xyzMovie.com" then links or references to "xyzMovie.com" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page—however, all other links at that video page still must also be legitimate. Some judgement is needed here. If the posted video just advertises a bunch of products associated with the movie, then it is a spamming video even though it refers to the official site."
Clearly, the site mentioned qualifies. Does it not? Can we get some other opinions here, or are we to simply have to comply with what you judge to be right?
In other words, if Alfred Hitchcock wanted to make a reference to one of his films, he couldn't on Wikipedia? I am missing something here?Humbleradio (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Humbleradio (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)