Talk:Other People's Money

	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 Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:OtherPeoplesMoney.jpg[edit]

Image:OtherPeoplesMoney.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is what's wrong with wikipedia today[edit]

Nowhere in this article does it say whether this is a good date flick. Opinions from those who have seen it? 180.159.121.247 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Staecker: re this where is the reliability policy on IMDB? 180.159.121.247 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see IMDB mentioned specifically at WP:RS. Wikipedia articles about movies generally won't tell you about what is and isn't a good date flick. That's not really what wikipedia is for. (Unless lots of reliable sources are for some reason writing about whether or not it's a date flick.) Staecker (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally won't"? You probably mean, our articles should NEVER use language like that. What is or is not a "good" film is and always has been and always will be totally subjective and hence completely unencyclopedic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to reflect critical reviews. Relying on early reviews from a single source (rottentomatos) for a film that has obviously aged well is just plain bad editing. 114.84.141.82 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's obviously aged well then feel free to add in some sourced commentary to that effect. Staecker (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good date flick?? oh that's funny.. that so subjective, personal.. ie, eg; speaking of Peck.. My date and i viewed Cape Fear, Silence of the Lambs, and Prince of Tides all w/in a year. 1991?? '92? Quite upsetting, but for us.. great acting. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:2C0B:CE09:357C:5903 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Danski454 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other People's Money → Other People's Money (film) – Since Other People's Money (novel), Other People's Money (play) and Other People's Money (1916 film) do not have their own articles and are only WP:DABMENTIONS, consensus would be unlikely to support the redlinked form Other People's Money (1991 film). However, as of this writing, the entry for the 1991 film does not even have a hatnote pointing to the Other people's money disambiguation page and, even with such a hatnote, the uppercase/lowercase differentiation of the film from the dab page does not seem sufficient, thus suggesting that it would be more intuitive for Other People's Money to serve as a redirect to Other people's money. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Caps is enough to distinguish this from the phrase, which would not normally be capped. Hatnote added, which was a good idea, and should direct people pretty efficiently to where they want to be. Dohn joe (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also inclined to oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Adding the hatnote was an easy fix, I don't think this requires any further action as long as those other topics remain red links. PC78 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. Station1 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.