![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Belle
editOh, dear. She pops up from nowhere, and that sentence is not in English as we know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.124.193 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Two rode together poster 1961.JPG
editImage:Two rode together poster 1961.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 04:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Production section
editWoah nelly. That production section seems like it was authored by a complete troll. "One of the film's most renowned and impressive shots has been credited solely to Ford's mean streak"? Seriously? I haven't seen the film or read much about it, but someone who has should rewrite this and add citations. Toscaesque (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
editI've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)