Talk:Twins (1988 film)

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 72.204.23.135

This says they are fraternal twins, aren’t they actually identical twins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.23.135 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Twins Poster.jpg edit

 

Image:Twins 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 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) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

boo1210 edit

I started the 1988 article on the movie. Hope you do not mind.boo1210 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was unecessary, this article already has a hatnote pointing to the 1925 film. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requested move edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Contested: WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. I think a blockbuster that grossed $112m is more important than erotica. 87.113.103.202 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves.

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

Redirecting Twins (film) to this page negates the point of the name change edit

Please can we revert it to either a redirect to Twin (disambiguation) or its own DAB page – I don't buy that disambig pages must use the disambig parenthetical qualifier. This page disambiguated films called "Twins"; seems perfect to me. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK I fixed all the mainspace links to Twins (film) then pointed the link to Twin (disambiguation). --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sequel? edit

Was there really a sequel? I can't find any information on it...

A sequel to a 24 year old movie? They must really be out of ideas at Hollywood. (Unkown)