Talk:No. 10 (The Guess Who album)

Latest comment: 4 years ago by NapoliRoma in topic Title workaround

Fair use rationale for Image:10 by The Guess Who.jpg edit

 

Image:10 by The Guess Who.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.

BetacommandBot 13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Title workaround edit

I know someone made a similar move about a decade ago, but:

Since the title of this album is presumably pronounced "Number Ten", and not "Ten", I'd suggest a more accurate workaround title would be No. 10. This is one of the example workarounds in WP:NCHASHTAG (Point No. 1 for the album Point #1).

Since this would be the only article with that actual title, the disambiguating term "(The Guess Who album)" could be dropped—or it could be left in place, eliminating the need for a hatnote pointing to the Number 10 dab page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since there was no objection, and as mentioned above it aligns with the suggested workarounds for articles including a "#" symbol, I made the move. I left it with the disambiguating term, as it's pretty clear this article wouldn't be the primary topic for the name "No. 10". --NapoliRoma (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply