Talk:Barbie (media franchise): Difference between revisions
SailorSonic (talk | contribs) |
m →Notable?: I don't find the films notable. |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Does anyone have a source showing these films are individually notable? Or for that matter, that they are notable as a collective? Please see [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)]]. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Does anyone have a source showing these films are individually notable? Or for that matter, that they are notable as a collective? Please see [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)]]. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:As far as I can tell, none of these films are notable. [[User:X153|153]] [[User_Talk:X153|[x]]] 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Image copyright problem with File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg== |
==Image copyright problem with File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg== |
||
The image [[:File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg]] is used in this article under a claim of [[WP:NFC|fair use]], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the [[WP:NFCC|requirements for such images]] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|explanation]] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check |
The image [[:File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg]] is used in this article under a claim of [[WP:NFC|fair use]], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the [[WP:NFCC|requirements for such images]] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|explanation]] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check |
Revision as of 22:04, 21 October 2011
Film Start‑class | |||||||
|
Animation Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Toys List‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Notable?
Does anyone have a source showing these films are individually notable? Or for that matter, that they are notable as a collective? Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films). BE——Critical__Talk 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, none of these films are notable. 153 [x] 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg
The image File:BarbieNutcracker.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Empty Links
Several links under the heading "Second Generation (2001-Present)" ,which are meant to direct to pages dealing with individual Barbie films, simply redirect to this page. I think it may be beyond me to fix this and create these pages, but maybe someone else can? 24.138.9.55 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, if anyone creates the pages, I can write up the plots and do typo fixes and whatnot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.158.245 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Why no page for Barbie of Swan Lake?
When I click on Barbie of Swan Lake (2003) in the infobox at the bottom, it redirects to this page. Why does it not have it's own article when all the other movies do? Surely Swan Lake, with it's high production values and great music, is more deserving of an article than a damn workout tape. SailorSonic