Talk:Rush (1991 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rush (1991 film) cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Rush (1991 film) cover.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) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story line makes no sense!

Someone needs to put:

1- a spoiler warning. 2- Fix the story line. As it is it is a mess. It doesn't tell a coherent story. It has been years since I've seen it or I would do it myself. It's a good movie-god enough to deserve decent treatment here. Any film deserves that. Even Plan 9 from Outer Space which has a much better article here and is considered by many to be the worst film ever made. Someone forgot Xanadu I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.213.140 (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rush (film) → Rush (1991 film) — To disambiguate from other films with the same title or very similar ones. This film not primary use of "Rush (film)". Rush (1991 film) currently redirects here. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The only other article is Rush (1983 film) - which could also be titled Blood Rush - that has only 2 incoming article links and fewer than 200 pageviews per month. Rush (film) has 10-20 times the pageviews, so does appear to be primary use. I've added a hatnote pointing to the 1983 film. Station1 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:NCF, and I can't see how primary usage could ever apply, since both names are disambiguated, and therefore not what one would type in, as it is not the primary name (in this case it would be Rush) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.