Talk:James II (record)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:James II EP.jpg
edit
Image:James II EP.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.
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-10-01T03:48:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:James_II_EP.jpg){kind=link}
It's a single
editOne track each side. Normal length. 45 rpm. It's a single, not an EP.--Michig (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Square One (Black Pink single) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 29 November 2016
edit- 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: moved to James II (record). SSTflyer 08:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
James II (single) → James II (EP) – A separate RM was suggested following the close of the last RM above. In short, WP:SONGDAB specifically recommends avoiding the term "(single)" in disambiguation, as it's ambiguous and potentially confusing. Such is the case here, where there's not actually a song named "James II". As such, other sources call this an "EP". Sources call it an EP: "Two years later, their second EP, James 2, was released..."; "The 'James II' e.p. eventually came out in 1985"... Per our guidelines, we should follow suit. Cúchullain t/c 18:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not an EP. It's a 7-inch record with one 3 minute track on each side running at 45rpm with no extended capacity or content, i.e, a standard single. "(single)" isn't the slightest bit ambiguous or confusing to disambiguate a single. By contrast, when "(song)" is used to disambiguate the title of an article about a single, that is confusing. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support a rename of some sort. The word "single" is just wrong here: "Single" implies a song of that name released on a 7" vinyl or equivalent format. This is not a single called James II. Personally, I would not call it an EP, since that implies a longer record, but since reliable sources describe it as such, that would be OK. How about James II (record)? --MrStoofer (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Singles are so called because there was a single song on each side of a record. "Single" has never meant one song. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- "(record)", "(recording)", or some such would be fine with me. The problem with "single" is that to most readers, especially in post-vinyl era, "single" implies a recording tied to a particular song of that name, the "A-side" of historical single records, and there's no song called "James II". This is one reason that titles including "(single)" are specifically deprecated by WP:SONGDAB. The album is short for what's often considered an "EP", but these sources do use that to describe this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a problem largely of Wikipedia's making due to ill thought out guidelines. Effectively banning articles about singles from using (single) disambiguation is ludicrous. This is in no way an 'album'. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- "(record)", "(recording)", or some such would be fine with me. The problem with "single" is that to most readers, especially in post-vinyl era, "single" implies a recording tied to a particular song of that name, the "A-side" of historical single records, and there's no song called "James II". This is one reason that titles including "(single)" are specifically deprecated by WP:SONGDAB. The album is short for what's often considered an "EP", but these sources do use that to describe this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Singles are so called because there was a single song on each side of a record. "Single" has never meant one song. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- support alternate title of James II (record). as per discussion above. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:42, 7 December 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.