Could we get a better quality image for this one? You really have to squint to see what it is. --Tydaj 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Along those lines, an image of a different documentary is worth considering. While F9/11 is certainly well-known, there's also a good bit of controversy as to whether it's actually a factual documentary. That said, I don't really have a better idea.... — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:04:59, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I'd rather have no picture at all than a poster of F9/11. Thinking... thinking... android79 19:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I've nothing against F9/11 (though, to be honest, I find Moore's films totally annoying, even though I tend to agree with the politics); but the pic isn't readable to begin with; and it's too loaded a choice of documentaries. Something like a Movietone News poster might be more fitting. That, or Triumph of the Will. (slight irony alert) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm changing it to a National Geographic documentary cover. No controversy whatsoever about it and more wellknown than Farenheit 9/11 gren グレン 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Usage of a fair use image in this context, according to Template:DVDcover, is possibly copyright infringement when not used strictly to illustrate the topic of the image. While I understand good-faith usage of the DVD cover here, for legal reasons it may be best not to. (It may be difficult, if not downright impossible, to find a DVD cover legally usable here, so having no image on the template may have to suffice.) --Wikiacc (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed it to a poster for the 1922 Nanook of the North, which should be PD. As a bonus, this is considered the first feature-length documentary and what it symbolizes in terms of representing reality is a problem of all documentaries.--Pharos 20:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent, I just thought it was a bad idea to have a controversial film as the basis for all docu-stubs -- like having porn for film stubs? I didn't really think about the legal implications (which is bad) so I think everything has worked out well. Thanks for cleaning up after me :) --gren グレン 21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)