Talk:The Ipcress File (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:270436.1020.A.jpg
Image:270436.1020.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 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) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ipcress File (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701090244/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/ to http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Greater clarity and NPOV needed
Rather than simply criticize, the rewrite aims at returning the article to a more encyclopedic style and make it flow better. The Production section has been rewritten to read less like a personal thesis and to stay focussed on the subject of the article. The deleted paragraph there was repetitious and completely unreferenced. Other sections looked like scrappy collections of miscellaneous information and have been reorganized. Sweetpool50 (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. But am pretty certain I did not write the whole paragraph you deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think you did. We seemed to be performing a clean-up at the same time, which is why the explanation above is expressed impersonally...as a warning to would-be wholesale reverters! But while we're at it, Philip Cross, making piecemeal edits is infuriating and not particularly professional. Try copying the areas you want to edit to your sandbox first, or to a Word doc., and then paste the whole lot back when you've finished. & ALWAYS LEAVE AN EDIT SUMMARY or no one will take you seriously. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we are going off-topic here, even venturing into WP:FORUM. It might be best to copy & paste this some or all of this discussion onto my talk page, but for now I will discuss the issues you raise here.


 * Each editor works in his, or occasionally her, own way. Piecemeal edits are easier to revert & change. In fact, I do use my sandbox pages for edits which may be controversial or have the potential to irritate other editors, as it prevents my work from being derailed. Even so, massive a expansion of any article by one editor has the potential to irritate other editors as well. So there is no ideal solution. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)