Talk:Voyage of the Damned

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Voyage sheet.jpg[edit]

Image:Voyage sheet.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) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Article[edit]

Is this article about the book or the movie? Shouldn't there be a separate article for each? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.165.126 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, as long as both the book and movie are notable, they should have separate articles linked to each other. in this case, the book is notable as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voyage of the Damned. 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) 09:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why no "Reception" category?[edit]

No critic reviewed this film? Autodidact1 (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception on TV[edit]

Audiences in these countries may remember how this film was viewed and received, esp in the countries where the people came from, and where they had lived previously, i.e. Germany, France and Holland.Philotrio (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you may add this information if you have sources and write it yourself - you can't just add whatever headings you want and leave them blank. Please stop making this edit. parqs (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]