Talk:That's Entertainment! III

Fair use rationale for Image:ThatsEntertainment3.jpg
Image:ThatsEntertainment3.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 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) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

British DVD release
The 2005 British (region 2 PAL) DVD box set doesn't include any bonus material except subtitles, not even a musical index page. Furthermore it's presented in 4:3 letterbox format rather than 16:9 anamorphic, and the print quality isn't especially good despite the closing credits for part III claiming that the clips are 'restored'. They really need to buck their ideas up when it comes to a blu-ray release. Lee M (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's More Entertainment
IMDb makes note of a 1995 72-minute MGM home video release "That's More Entertainment!". It seems odd that there's no mention of it here. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup required
This article is in urgent need of a rewrite, as it reads like something from a fan site. It totally disregards style conventions in every imaginable way, and I'm not clear how it got to this state. I hope to take a crack at the rewrite but will tag meanwhile. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

To rescue this article I've had to stubify it. I've cut out all the fancruft: the listing of every single person appearing in this film and every single musical number. I retained the DVD section even though it was unsourced. The article was basically one big fancruft piece. We now have to add back in standard encyclopedic material on production and critical reaction. There is not even one mention of how the critics responded to this film. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)