Jump to content

Talk:Fifinella

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 14 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}, {{WikiProject Women}}, {{WikiProject Disney}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Widgets

[edit]

This article and Gremlin disagree over what Dahl called a widget. This article says they were baby gremlins, while that article says they were male gremlins. Which is correct? Carolina wren (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifinella was not a female gremlin designed by Walt Disney for a proposed film from Roald Dahl's book The Gremlins. Fifinella was a baby gremlin, according to Roald Dahl - in his book The Gremlins. Disney then used the name for a female gremlin in a proposed film. The original term should be given in this article.101.98.169.98 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fifinella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posters from National WASP WWII Museum

[edit]

Researching another topic, I found these:

that might be of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find, I would recommend uploading to the Wiki Commons. The copyright and licensing status: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1030006/citation/?q=wasp%20dorothy#licenses-permissions
I suspect the original document was created by The Walt Disney Company and the copyright and licensing was then turned over to the United States Army/United States Army Air Corps or United States Army Air Force. -Signaleer (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That copyright statement says the copyright has not been determined, and welcomes people to make fair use of it. That's not going to work for Commons, unfortunately. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source photograph taken by the U.S. Air Force https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Photos.aspx?igphoto=2000573421 -Signaleer (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifinella image is not correctly classified

[edit]

The image, Fifinella, is listed as PD-USG on commons, but I do not believe that Walt Disney was acting as a US Government employee when he created the work, nor do contemporary or retrospective sources indicate that this is the case. I think the right procedure here is to re-upload the same image to Wikipedia as fair use, move pointers to the image to the new fair use one, then delete the commons image. I hope someone watching on this page has some input or interest in the subject, but if they don't this will serve as notice for what I intend to do. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there is a discussion above on this issue, but the claim that the photograph of the image is public domain doesn't make the image public domain. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a version of this file to en.wp with what I feel is a relatively expansive FUR File:Fifinella color logo.jpg. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]