Jump to content

Talk:Room at the Top (1959 film)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:268414.1010.A.jpg

[edit]

Image:268414.1010.A.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) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested multi-page move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, except for the 2012 film. The page views to show PRIMARYTOPIC for the 1959 film are on the edge, so we should use editor opinions to make the decision. There seems to be no consensus on any better name for Room at the Top (TV film) so it is not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



– The 1959 film was mentioned to me in another discussion. I learned that disambiguating films of a similar name and precision could overcome criteria of primary topics of a similar name, especially when "(film)" is used for one of films of a similar name. That's what happened to Psycho (1960 film) and Independence Day (1996 film). Stats for the 1959 film are either very vague or dishonest, as readers might be looking for either the TV film, the dab page, or the novel. As for long-term significance, either longevity and impact of these topics equally weigh, or there is no long-term significance. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original proposal

[edit]

Alternative proposal

[edit]
Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such term as a "miniserial": a "serial" is short by definition. "Miniseries" is an American term, "serial" British, and since this is BBC production the British terminology should be adopted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TV-NAME supports the current disambiguator of "TV film," but if reliable sources are more often referring it to as a serial, that might be ok. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but two broadcasts seems much more like a two-part movie than a series. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2013 (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.