Talk:King James Version (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingjamesversion.jpg

Image:Kingjamesversion.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) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Has been replaced by a new fair use version. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GOCE CE June 2023

I think perhaps some of the background and legacy section might be better in the main band article, and those can be cut down a bit. I left {{primary source inline}} tags throughout the article where claims were only substantiated by citation to the band's website. Finally, I think it's odd that an article on an American band uses British English, but I went with it per MOS:RETAIN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

hi!

1. thank you SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS LOL :)))
2. Yeah, good point, legacy is clutter. and background can be cut to the substantial bits
3. there's definitely in line citations i can deal with (omit); others, not so much? i.e. the press bio, but yes thanks for pointing it out
4. british english was most likely a mistake that i will deal with

overall! thank you very much! Chchcheckit (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN says, An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another, absent consensus to the contrary. I think you'll have to get consensus for making that change, but given that you've been pretty much the only active editor for several months, maybe we should ask Help:Desk? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)