Talk:Talk to the Hand: Live in Michigan

Page Title

I would like to suggest that the title of the page return to Talk to the Hand. I don't think the subtitle should be included in the page name, as I think 95% of the public looking up this album would look up the main title, and not include the subtitle. I can see the argument both ways, but I think the most useful title would simply be Talk to the Hand. It is similar to how Bob Barker is an article, while his full name is Robert William Barker (which is the lead of the article) - they don't have to match. It's just what most readers would look up when looking for the title TheHYPO 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• The title is the title. BNL named it. If we're not keeping to the real titles - as encyclopedias should - what's the point of even doing an article in the first place? BGC 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your point, I'm not saying to move the article to "BNL live DVD". In my reading, the title is "Talk to the Hand" and the subtitle is "Live in Michigan". Just like on Disc One, the title is Disc One, and the subtitle is "all their greatest hits" (with or without the dates at the end). I also think that that article should be moved to just Disc One. Wikipedia policy is not to title the page based on "technical full titles" of things, but to use the term most easy to access for readers. I think Talk to the Hand is what 95% of people (fans or laymen alike) would look up - the main title, not the full subtitled title.

I should note that, as to "official title"ness, on the back cover of the CD/DVD, the text even refers to the DVD including "Talk To The Hand Concert Plus Extras:" I also cite the fact that on the spine, the title is split black and red between the main title and the subtitle. On the band's own storefront, the title for the items are: "Talk To The Hand" - Barenaked Ladies Live in Michigan DVD, indicating Live in Michigan to be merely a descriptive subtitle, not the main title.

I do however acknowldge the other side of the argument which is that almost everywhere else shown, where it could just say "Talk to the Hand", they do include "Live in Michigan", (even though the storefront descriptions say "Talk to the Hand" Live in Michigan - a weird format). iTunes includes it in the title, but mislisted it Live from Michigan. I should note that other then possibly itunes(?) I haven't seen it written anywhere with a colon, so that's somewhat of an arbitrary decision, but I don't necessarily disagree with it. As I said, I see both sides of the argument, I'm just leaning towards the "easier to find" title for readers. This is why I am curious about the opinions of others besides myself, including yours, but also others.

The wikipolicy on "what would readers look up" is why articles are titled The Rebel Billionaire, when the full title of the series is "The Rebel Billionaire: Branson's Quest for the Best". I think this article is less clearcut than Disc One (Have you ever in your life casually mentioned Disc One by its full title, including the dates?). I can see people using "Talk to the Hand: Live in Michigan" as sort of abstract/explaination title split (like Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman), but I still think most people would look up the article under Talk to the Hand - like Frankenstein is the article title for the book "Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus", which noone would ever look up. or One Good Turn vs "One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw". I'm not suggesting the title be replaced by some other text; just shortened to only the main title, not the subtitle as well. The full title can easily redirect, but if one were to refer to the DVD in a sentance, I think they would say "You should hear their new DVD - Talk to the Hand", which even the band refers to it as in interviews that I've seen; not, "You should hear their new DVD, Talk to the Hand: Live in Michigan". That's just a subtitle explaining the content. TheHYPO 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BNLHand.jpg

Image:BNLHand.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) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)