This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 24 April 2014 by reviewer Gigs (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives articles
Not sure how this came to be tagged as paid-for page, but I've gone through and checked all the citations, linked to existing Wikipedia articles, removed all inline URL's. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was due to the page being started by an account in the name of the film's distributor. Rankersbo (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Was that User:Trinityfilms? I see mention of this on their User Talk, Page, and that it was accepted and the article has survivved. Do you agree classification should remain Start Class, Low Importance? Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was them, but they haven't touched it for some times, and lots of other editors have since (including yourself) edited it extensively. So if you think it no longer warrants the flag I don't object to you removing it.
I'm sorry I'm not much use on assessing class and importance. Rankersbo (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
