Talk:Biggles (film)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Film: British / War

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bgls poster.JPG

Image:Bgls poster.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 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 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to just "Biggles"

I undid this move.

As can be seen from the R2 DVD image also on this page, the full UK title is "Biggles: Adventures in Time", not just "Biggles"

Google seems to support this as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paste in from my talk page:

Dear Chaheel, why did you just revert my changes to the article about Biggles? I just saved them 10 minutes ago, and you can't have checked all the references in that short time. This film is universally known just as "Biggles". See IMDb, BFI, BBFC etc, etc. Even New York Times call it Biggles. The title Biggles: Adventures in Time only applies in the USA, and was introduced two years after the original title. Please note that even the version you reverted back to states that the film's correct title is Biggles and that the other is the US title.

The fact that there are region 2 DVD's with the US name doesn't change this, but is unfortunately very common, as many of the UK distributers of older films get their masters from the US and are very ignorant about film and seldom check BFI and BBFC to see if the UK has a different title from the US. This film was actually shown by Film4 only yesterday, and with the correct British title, of course.

I've spent several hours researching and working on this title, and I would appreciate if you would revert back immediately. Please never simply revert an article before checking all the changes. All my other changes and additions disappeared as well when you reverted. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you've spent several hours researching it, please post your research here, and I'll not argue if you revert the change back. You have to see it from the point of view though that you made an unsourced change from one title to another, and at the same time removed an image which supported the original title, and not yours. Even assuming good faith, that looks a little strange. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks strange"?! I've been a Wiki editor since 2005, and I would never revert an article unless there is obvious vandalism and the editor is anonymous. I would first contact the editor and ask why the change was made, if the references don't support it. If you had spent some time to check the changes I did, and their references, as well as check the entries for Biggles at IMDb, BFI, BBCF and even New York Times, before just pushing the revert button, you would have seen that I was correct. Even the previous version says that the film title is "Biggles, known in the United States as Biggles: Adventures in Time". Sure, I didn't post an entry on the talk page, but there are no Wiki conventions that say that you should log all your changes there, especially as everything is referenced in the article. I understand if you may have been upset that I removed the DVD cover that you had uploaded, but that's no reason for a blatant revert. In all friendliness, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted the changes to the article, but will have to ask an administrator to revert the reverted move.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been here since 2005, then surely you're aware of wp:burden and wp:brd. I would have also thought that an experienced editor would know to use the article talk page - especially when a discussion had been started - rather than the users talk page, but that's by-the-by. I stand by my comment: The article was called "Biggles: Adventures in Time" This is supported by both the image in the infobox (albeit in Spanish), and the R2 DVD cover. You moved the page to a new title, and removed the English language DVD cover supporting the previous name at the same time. To paraphrase you yourself - there are no wiki conventions that say I should ask for an explanation before reverting - indeed that is a core concept of wp:brd in that once a change has been reverted then we discuss it - as we are doing so now.

Still, it seems that your sources, now shown, are conclusive. I have no objection to the move. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by User:Sladen. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biggles: Adventures in Time → Biggles (film) – Another user reverted my previous move by mistake, but the system requires and administrator to revert the revert. The film's original name is Biggles, which can be verified by checking IMDb, BFI, BBCF and other reliable sources., while the current article name refers to the title the film was given when released in the USA two years after the UK release. – Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since two parties are debating this on Talk, it seems like a controversial move. It would be good to hear whether Chaheel Riens now agrees with Thomas that the move is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - however, I'll point out that I did not revert the move by mistake, which implies an error on my part. I clearly explained my reasoning above, which is more than Thomas initially did. AGF, and all that! Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - obviously, as I am the instigator of this. As for calling Chaheel's revert a "mistake", I apologise as it obviously causes offence. However, I would like to point out that my move did follow wp:burden, and that wp:brd also contains WP:ROWN, which states that a revert should only be done "after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit." The title had never been debated, and the article actually had the correct title as its first word, and then explained that Biggles: Adventures in Time was the US title, so my move was merely a question of tidying up an old error. Anyway, it's good that we are finally in agreement of which title the article should have, and I intend to shortly replace the Spanish poster with the original UK quad format poster. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the basis that both actor and reverter are now in agreement. The shorter name does have the disadvantage of (parentheses) which means piping this on linking, but that is likely to occur anyway if the much-longer US-title gets piped. —Sladen (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Helicopter crash - 3 years after filming finished.

The fact that the 'copter was destroyed 3 years after filming had finished is completely non-notable and irrelevant. If it had crashed during filming then it would warrant a mention, but not so much later. No rationale has ever been forthcoming as to why it's important enough to be mentioned in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The helicopter used for filming was later destroyed in a crash in January 1989."

I have been removing this sentence, as despite being sourced, it's not relevant to the article. The crash happened three years after the film had been produced, and had no bearing on the film or even production of the film.

What is the relevance, and why does it need to be included? Each insertion has been made without edit summary - and obviously in the knowledge that it's been removed, as each insertion has been by the same editor, so although I'll not be reverting at the moment, I'd like to know the rationale for keeping it, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dh Sk Faruk vai (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]