Talk:Violet Beauregarde

Removals of two clauses at ends of their sections
Alright, first of all, it's a well known Wikipedia standard that unpublished works of any sort, for the most part, are inherintly non-notable, and at the very least need a large burden of evidence to prove themselves worth of inclusion. I'm just not seeing that here.

Secondly, there is no evidence to support the theory that the off-screen friendship inspired the on-screen one, so it IS just speculation, hence my removal. --InShaneee 17:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The article on Violet's mother, Scarlett
Please put back the article on Violet's mother Scarlett. People would want to know who she is. Thank you. --User:Angie Y. — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 4 March 2006
 * Scarlett Beauregarde is now a Rdr to Mrs. Beauregarde. Since no history merge appears to have been done, i am inspecting the two histories. --Jerzy•t 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Book Illustration
Does anyone know where an illustration of this character can be found from Quention Blake's drawing of the novel? It should be added... JackOfHearts 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace in Violet Beauregarde
(cc of message left on User talk:24.67.162.157 regarding )

Hi, the article doesn't need that whitespace, and is not different from other wikipedia articles as far as I can tell. Could something be wrong with your browser settings or style sheet? The whitespace just comes across to me as weird. If you think the sections are too close together in the standard Wikipedia article format, the solution is to update the standard format (you could suggest that at Village pump (technical) if you think it's worth it) to put more space between sections, not manually insert a bunch of &lt;br> tags in individual articles. I personally haven't seen a need for more space, but maybe that's just me.

Also, the px directive for images is deprecated and shouldn't be used without a good reason. If you have a wikipedia account you can set your personal choice of default size in Special:Preferences and without a px directive, the images will be shown at the size you choose. With the px directive, the directive overrides the viewer's choice of size. We generally prefer to avoid overriding viewers' choices of default size since they can always click on the picture if they want to see it bigger. Remember that we have a lot of users with small screens, viewers using dialup connections that load large pictures very slowly, users with weird browsers, etc. We want to let them make choices that reflect their own requirements. Note you can also set up a custom style sheet for yourself (at least if you have an account) and that could add whitespace if you wanted it to.

I'm going to revert your change for now. Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page.

Regards 67.117.130.181 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Violetposter.jpg
Image:Violetposter.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 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The explanation or rationale template was put and completed in the current Image:violetposter.jpg description page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16:02 & 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Violet-1971.jpg
Image:Violet-1971.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) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video
The YouTube video featuring portions of the play clearly constitute a copyright violation and should not be included in this article per our policy on external links. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
This article has no sources. The character can easily be boiled down to a short paragraph. There's no reason for a separate article - especially as this character has not been the subject of any significant article or academic work. Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, but shouldn't the merge discussion be at Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, instead of on the individual pages?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it seems like a tag should have been placed on the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory article. none of the information from this article was placed in that article. indeed, the article cites no sources, but unsourced information should be challenged before removal. please use the cn tag for any information that is dubious, and it can likely be sourced. Badmachine (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion. The consensus was to merge. Unilaterally un-merging it is not appropriate - especially when it's obvious nothing has changed (no new sources). Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)