Talk:Ashes to Ashes (film)

message: :Image:AshestoAshesDVDcover.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) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AshestoAshesDVDcover.jpg

message: The themes sections seems to be original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Lots42 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The themes 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus that this topic is sufficiently distinguished without the year (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashes to Ashes (1999 film) →  – This may well be an uncontroversial technical request to reverse a unilateral move. This entry was created in April 2006 as "Ashes to Ashes (film)" and remained under that main title header for over 11 years, until it was unilaterally moved in June 2017 to "Ashes to Ashes (1999 film)". However, other than an episode of the Australian TV series Wednesday Theatre, which has an entry under the header Ashes to Ashes (Wednesday Theatre), there are no other films bearing this title. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted, however, that Ashes to Ashes (Wednesday Theatre) is 55 minutes in length and thus shorter than even the shortest television films, such as the 73-minute ones produced for ABC Movie of the Week. While an argument can be made for plays broadcast by such expanded-in-length anthology series as CBS Playhouse, ITV Play of the Week, NET Playhouse, The Play of the Week or Playhouse 90, treating episodes of hour-long or for that matter half-hour TV anthology series as films would force entries delineating theatrical feature films or even one-reelers / two-reelers to adopt parenthetical qualifiers "(19XX film) / (20XX film)", rather than simply "(film)", due to the existence of same-titled anthology TV episodes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Short films are still films. But in these cases of television plays, I agree with the usual naming convention of disambiguating with the anthology series title, even if they are "films"... but we need to keep their status in mind when naming other stand-alone films and ensure no ambiguity. Adding the year in this case is a low-cost solution. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be further noted that TV plays from that era, such as "Ashes to Ashes", were broadcast live and were recorded, if at all, on videotape, not on film, thus the use of "(film)" is arguably a misnomer. Since the main title header Ashes to Ashes (Wednesday Theatre) does not use the term "film" within its parenthetical qualifier. I cannot find any other instances that would support the use of "(19XX film)" to disambiguate against an hour-long episode of an anthology series. There are various other examples, such as the hour-long Marty (The Philco Television Playhouse) and its Academy Award-winning film version Marty (film), not Marty (1955 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 March 2023