Talk:Wake in Fright

Fair use rationale for Image:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg
Image:WakeInFrightAd1.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 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Correcting and clarifying plot
I have made a number of revisions to this article (a few when I was inadvertently not logged in), mostly to correct and clarify the plot. Examples of errors in the previous version: (a) Grant was stated to be English, but I find no reference to this in the script -- he does tell Jannette that he would like to go to England, but does not suggest that he came from there, and no one ever calls him a Pom or Pommy; (b) The sequencing was confused -- Grant has his sexual encounter with Jannette before he goes to Doc's cabin, not after; (c) after Doc's advances, Grant does not wander around the outback as stated, but makes a reasonably purposeful attempt to hitch-hike to Sydney. Nandt1 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Poster
I uploaded the poster File:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg, which was replaced today by Film Fan with File:Wake in Fright.jpg. The latte is from the re-release ("40th anniversary" ). The original poster shows several characters from the film, and has some historical significance, also has both titles it was released under. So I think this is the better choice. Barsoomian (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the poster you keep adding back is the original US poster, not the Aussie poster. Aussie posters for Aussie films. Film Fan (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1970s poster for 1970s film. Snap. Barsoomian (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Where the poster is from is of more importance than when. I have been in the Wikipedia film images game for some time now and this issue has come up before. Film Fan (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you had read the description at File:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg before replacing it, you would have seen "Australian theatrical release poster for Wake in Fright, which uses as a tag-line the Australian term "Outback". That term later became the US release title for the film." Confirmed by this page, where the original image is described as "Wake in fright (1971) Australian Daybill". So it's not only first release, it's Australian. By your own criterion, it's the better one. And cite the policies you are asserting, don't just pontificate. Barsoomian (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you playing at now? Putting up a crappier variation of the same poster I did? Do you get points for having images uploaded? What's your rationale this time? Barsoomian (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the same version. It's the ONE sheet, while yours is the THREE sheet. ONE SHEETS are the primary forms of the posters. THREE SHEETS you only find in bus shelters, subway platforms and the like. What is your problem?? Film Fan (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The text and images are basically the same, which is why I said it's a "variation" on the earlier one. Of course it's not the same, I never said it was. The quality though of the "one sheet" is much worse. (Which is why I didn't use it to begin with, since clearly you are using the same poster gallery I indicated earlier.) Cite the policy that says we must use "One sheet" in preference to "Three sheets". And actually, File:WakeInFrightAd1.jpg is not a "Three sheet" but a "Daybill", according to the source. And while you're at it, where's your apology for "the poster you keep adding back is the original US poster", when that was untrue? Barsoomian (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Daybills are three sheets. One sheets are the primary forms of posters and are therefore preferred. Film Fan (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Preferred by you, maybe. Cite the Wikipedia policy that says so, or it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * Referring to Template:Infobox_film we see only "an image of the film's original theatrical release poster". Nothing about one/two/three "sheets". May be very important to poster collectors, not all all in this context. Barsoomian (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a question of consistency. How many other Wikipedia articles do you see using three-sheets? Even the other films by this director: click on them. The ones with posters are all one-sheets. Film Fan (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are unable to cite any policy. Find an image of the "one sheet" variation that is as good quality as the "daysheet" and I'd be happy to use it. The one you like for "consistency" is creased and distorted with poor colour. None of the other poster images you mention are as lousy as this one. So it would be inconsistent to use it. Barsoomian (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me. What may have gotten a bit lost in Barsoomian's (shall we say, emotionally challenged) response are a few basic questions. Film Fan, can you cite a specific policy or guideline that represents the idea of posters for film's of that country's release? If not, can you point out wikiproject or noticeboard discussions wherein this unspoken consideration has been determined? If you cannot provide that, nor demonstrate that sort of principle in effect with FA-quality articles, I think you're on poor footing here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And you missed the fact that all the posters in question are actually Australian, despite Film Fan's initial assertion otherwise, so even if the policy he used as justification existed, it doesn't apply. So he moved on to saying the ratio of the poster was the important feature. Anyway, Film Fan was blocked for this and other edit wars so he probably won't reply. Barsoomian (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can wait; there's no hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

contradictory sources
according to the article - and the cited source - "Jack Thompson yelled back 'Sit down, mate. It is us.'"

however, kotcheff here attributes (a slight variation of) the statement to "another voice", with thompson implied as a witness. my best guess is the author of the cited source got it mixed up. k kisses 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Reading that source, I agree. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)