Talk:Outrageous Fortune (film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Outrageous Fortune.jpg edit
Image:Outrageous Fortune.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Requested move edit
I suggest that we move this article to Outrageous Fortune (film) and move the article Outrageous Fortune (TV series) to this title. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#1 October 2008, and Talk:Outrageous Fortune (TV series)#Requested move for the discussion.-gadfium 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Move to Outrageous Fortune (film) has been done. Outrageous Fortune (TV series) remains under that title. Outrageous Fortune is a disambig. Ex nihil (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Spoiler Alert edit
No need to ever see this movie now, the short paragraph described the entire plot to the end. What a shame. No other way on earth to be encyclopedic yet still retain some hidden aspect of an unseen work in the article so as not to ruin it for the non-initiated, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.160.175 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)