Talk:Metro-Land (1973 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gnomes[edit]

What's the connection between the Gnomes of Neasden discussion (and image) and the film? It seems a pretty random aside to me. --82.45.163.4 08:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betjeman, who was a columnist for "Private Eye" at the time, used a patent ref to the long-running characterisation of Neasden by the "Eye" as the architypal suburb and a "Private Eye" record as backing. The ref to "the gnome" is a fairly unmistakable allusion to the "Eye". IXIA 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Scene[edit]

It may be hair splitting but we cannot say of Verney Junction that “Betjeman closed the programme here with the words, ‘Grass triumphs ...” He delivered that eulogy at Shipton Lee , five miles to the south. Mattered to me.

RAClarke 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many (belated) thanks. Have amended. IXIA 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Neasden - Private Eye.JPG[edit]

Image:Neasden - Private Eye.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 Wikipedia: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) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wembley - King and Queen.JPG[edit]

Image:Wembley - King and Queen.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 Wikipedia: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) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neasden[edit]

Is it worth noting-- I don't know how to insert this quite and keep the flow-- that JB was for many years the architecture correspondent for Private Eye. I don't know the dates, though have collections of his diaries so I imagine could check up relatively easily?

SimonTrew (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "peacock terms"[edit]

I have re-read this article in the light of the tag, "This article may contain unsourced peacock terms that merely promote the subject without imparting verifiable information ..." I simply don't understand the latter. The only conceivable such words are those in final sentence of the introductory paragraph, which are, of course, borne out by the well-referenced remarks by critics in the final paragraph. All the information in the article is verifiable. I think the caption is misleading and should be removed. IXIA (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-Land (1973 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro-Land_(1973_film)&oldid=1209022333"