Talk:For Tomorrow (comics)

Fair use rationale for Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.jpg
Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.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 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) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number   5  7  12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For Tomorrow (comics) → Superman: For Tomorrow – The current title is ambiguous, the new one is to help identify that it is a Superman comic book storyline. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the title matches the publication and it's use in reliable sources. There is no need for additional disambiguation. And even if there was, the title suggested would not be the way to go about it. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still say Rename to avoid ambiguous.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons listed by Tiggerjay. Dimadick (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.