Talk:Gatchaman (Imagi film project)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gatchaman-posterart.jpg

Image:Gatchaman-posterart.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 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 06:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gatchman 2009 poster.jpg

Image:Gatchman 2009 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 ensure 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) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, I can't find this poster on Imagi. Unless they've changed in the last few months, the suits in the film, according to Imagi's production art, are of a different design than the ones on the poster. For example, the poster has the team with face-concealing helmets, not the open ones on the prod. art (and the source series). It's my assumption, therefore, that this poster is a damn-good fanart. But, I'll wait for input before making a decision to remove it. After all, maybe it is real.24.30.95.221 (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move to Gatchaman (Imagi film project)

Now that this has become THIS, I think a title change might better reflect that the film is in production hell and yet still best serve Wikipedia, as it is the ongoing problems that have caused the topic to meet WP:N. If or when the film is ever released, we can work toward incorporating some of the current content into Imagi_Animation_Studios#Setbacks and then return an expanded and sourced article about the film itself to a name reflecting its (then) release date... whatever that might ever be. Sensible? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Go for a renaming to reflect better the focus of the article which are the studio setbacks. --KrebMarkt 18:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, the content has been comfortably merged. No effort was made to relegate mere plans to the section of the topic of actual notability—the subject matter—and the article falsely presented this as a film that was guaranteed to come out. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)