Talk:The Company (miniseries)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plot[edit]

The plot summary sounds like it's straight from a network press release; poorly written with a lot of adjectives. If no one can provide a better summary, I think we should delete it. Discuss?

Personally I sort of like it, less drab and boring. Then again, it would be nice to have a plot summary that's more detailed and whatnot. Xaritix 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, copyright violation[edit]

Yes, it certainly looks like it was copied directly (with ONE minor change) from here: [1]. I like the way it reads, but, I doubt there is any room for argument, it is a clear copyright violation. See [2]. I have no idea how to list this under copyright violation as suggested in the referenced article-anyone? Or would someone want to undertake a rewrite? JeanColumbia 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the plot line to alleviate copyright concerns. 66.28.217.228 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Callow[edit]

I don't understand why Simon Callow is mentioned as an uncredited cameo. His name appears in the credits at the beginning of the show, and the MSNBC review referenced calls him a cameo, but doesn't state he's uncredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.213.246 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Company Poster.jpg[edit]

Image:The Company Poster.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) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe i have sorted this Pat (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre footnote[edit]

What could possibly be the relevance of footnote #1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.128.233 (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed it is irrelevant but at least it does not appear in the actual article as i have seen in many other wiki pages, for example such mindless drivel as " it is interesting to note that both actors previously worked together on "INSERT PROJECT NAME"" so its just part of wiki i suppose, whatever the editor feels to be "useful" information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.149 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if it does belong on the page, it clearly doesn't belong there of all places. I understand that it might be considered an interesting tidbit, but I think it would be more notable if all three actors mentioned were actually part of the same movie or series of movies. I feel that it should be removed from the page in its entirety. Dustman15 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]