Talk:Diamond Days (Out of the Grey album)

Fair use rationale for Image:1994diamonddays.jpg

Image:1994diamonddays.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) 19:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It's been nearly two years since this album received its tag for questionable notability, with no assertion of such added to the article during that time. I've recently been involved in a discussion with another editor who has asserted that this article should be not just retained, but should be the primary topic for the term "Diamond Days" despite the existence of a much more prominent album of the same name. If there is some evidence that this should be the primary topic, or that this album does in fact meet the standards of WP:NALBUMS, it should be presented. Otherwise, I'm inclined to propose deletion. -Dewelar (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that discussion was with me, you're either outright lying or deeply confused. If that discussion was with another editor, they're delusional. I never stated that this should be the primary topic only that there was no need to move it from Diamond Days (album) as the other album is located at Diamond Days and there was a hatnote here pointing to that article. Feel free to propose deletion, but I just have to find a few refs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that I misunderstood you, and if so I apologize. On the other hand, your statement above does not seem particularly civil. You also seem to be misunderstanding the nature of disambiguation. As I've mentioned, the article Diamond Days is itself about an album, and therefore calling a second article Diamond Days (album) is unclear. That's why I don't understand your insistence in this matter. As for finding references, please do. I was unable to find anything reliable myself -- I did find in my research that this album reached the top 10 on the Billboard Contemporary Christian album charts (peaking at #9, I believe), but that is not in and of itself notable. -Dewelar (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was meant to be factual not uncivil. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to be both, although attempting to be "factual" about another person's state of mind is treading on thin ice already. -Dewelar (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About as thin as misrepresenting another person's comments.

In short, I agree that this article needs references. The other is more notable and as such the primary topic. Where we disagree is that this article had to be moved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between misunderstanding honestly and misrepresenting intentionally. To accuse one of doing the latter for no reason beyond your own opinion makes it appear that you're participating in confrontation-seeking behavior, especially when that accusation is incorrect.

On topic, perhaps you could explain your rationale for believing that, when two albums have the same title, giving the less notable one the disambiguator of "(album)" is in any way clear or precise. -Dewelar (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that: the hatnote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have already pointed out why that is not sufficient by Wikipedia's own guidelines, there is no need for further discussion here. If you still feel the page should be moved back, I suggest that you submit a request to that effect. If you're still in the process of finding references for this article, you should probably do that before said submission so that the issue of notability isn't a stumbling block. -Dewelar (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, to reverse the consensus of the previous move discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My above statement will be my last on this page regarding this issue. If you wish to discuss things further, do so in the proper forum. -Dewelar (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch, since the move request discussion would also take place on this page since the move would be "controversial". What I should have said was that I will not discuss the matter further in any forum until an official move request discussion has begun. -Dewelar (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]