Talk:Target for Tonight

Untitled
I plan to watch this film sometime this week, so hold off on your AFDs, please. Userpie 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I watched the film and took notes. I'll be doing it when I can. Userpie 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Got my notes up, i plan to do some screen captures. Userpie 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Just 5 minutes to put the article up on DYK and and its up there and I've attracted some other editors. First chance I get, screen captures coming up. Userpie 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I've removed the 'Trivia' section (which I originally added) and had a go at working the information (along with some additional) into the text. Ian Dunster 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

humorous to note that the "original 1942 poster" image shows a bunch of british single-engine "bombers" (spitfires with gun turrets?) and the modern "deluxe edition" dvd cover on the other side of the page features the image of an american b-17 for this raf-based movie. guess one can't be two hard on cnn, etc. who today label every u.s. warship as a battleship. Jmdeur (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TargetforTonightDVD.jpg
Image:TargetforTonightDVD.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 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 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentary vs. Propaganda
The film is described in the lede as a documentary film but in reality it was a government propaganda film. I've just come to this article, and while I'm making some minor or otherwise uncontroversial changes, before labeling the film as propaganda (even though that's what it is), I wanted to ensure that there is consensus for properly describing these state-produced WW2 movies... Martin Shaw via the BBC 2 in an actual documentary on Operation Jericho describes the movie thusly:

I don't have any issue with the film or criticism of it, per se, just want to make sure that it's described accurately in this article. So...? I'll make the edit on my own if I don't hear anything back from anyone, unless someone makes the change before I do. Thanks Azx2 05:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the film has to be either a documentary or a propaganda film - it can quite comfortably be both. One notable source, the BFI categorises its genre as 'Genre: Documentaries / Government sponsored films' (see http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b69d85fc3). Academics Aldgate and Richards (see Britain can take it: British cinema in the Second World War) also call it a documentary. IxK85 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The film isn't really a documentary as-such, it's more of a general entertainment film, however it was filmed on an RAF station with serving RAF crews so it's really a mixture of entertainment with some propaganda and documentary thrown-in as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)