Talk:The Oracle (The Matrix)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stub
[edit]removed stub boilerplate text, mainly because the article doesnt seem like a stub any longer. feel free to add it back, but the page is pretty in-depth. Applegoddess 07:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Matrix oraclesitsandtalkstoneo.gif
[edit]Image:Matrix oraclesitsandtalkstoneo.gif 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) 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
MINOR EDIT
[edit]Made a little change to the article, including some information already sourced in the Matrix Online article (Paradise and Nightmare versions of the Matrix etc). Also noticed that the article argues its own point about the Oracle's foresight a bit too much, so made a few small changes to give balance (I hope) there. Oposie (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My personal problem with this article and the article on the Architect is that it seems not only speculative but the speculation is not rationally satisfying.74.101.177.155 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)