Talk:Roustabout (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:RoustaboutElvis.jpg
Image:RoustaboutElvis.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 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 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale updated. --Northmeister 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed External links, etc.
I removed a few ext links in order to focus on the best one. The removed links simply rehash the plot and essentially review the QULAITY of the various dvds. WP is not an advertisement for dvd audio quality, video quality, etc. nor is it a collection of ex links. Considering the scope of this article, one ex link to a "Presley encyclopedia" is sufficient.

I moved the image to a location that gives the page a compact, balanced look. While images are typically found in the InfoBox, this is not a hard and fast "rule." WP asks us to be BOLD and flexible, to use what works in a given situation as well as to give a page a balanced layout. The page now stands nicely laid out. Please discuss before reverting. Thanks! IndianCaverns (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image
WP:MOS does not insist the image be placed in the InfoBox. It only states that an image used in the InfoBox should be a poster of a certain size. WP has no set-in-stone "rule" about placing an image in the InfoBox. The image where it now stands in the article gives the article a balanced and attractive layout - which is something WP asks editors to provide. Please discuss your objections to the image placement on this page before reverting. Thanks!

The Ex Link provided in the article directs the reader to a well-researched "Elvis Encyclopedia" that is exhaustive in its details. It is not a bloggy sort of fan site. Please discuss you reasons for removing this Ex Link before doing so. Thanks!

Please remember improving articles is our goal - not stubbornly reverting to inferior editions of articles for the sake of edit warring, or to see who comes out on top, or to establish who has a right to edit articles, or to insist on a certain MOS "rule" be followed, etc. Thanks! IndianCaverns (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The image fits the guidelines and should be placed in the infobox. This is why there is a place in the infobox for it. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the image fits the guidelines and is consistent with every other Elvis Presley film article. I can see no justification for changing one unless all are changed. One MOS is not better than the other, however on films that are related (such as all the EP films), a consistent MOS should be applied. I agree that there should not be an 'edit war', but to challenge one MOS on only one film when a few dozen like it are left alone is ridiculous. Please explain why your choice of MOS should be chosen over the one already chosen for every other EP film, and if it is compelling enough perhaps we can make an effort to convert all of them.  However, it the absence of a rational explanation, I feel it is important to be consistent within the same genre.

As for the link to the fan site...no matter how well researched they are, Wikipedia does not allow them. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)