Talk:The Best of The Byrds: Greatest Hits, Volume II

message: :Image:BestByrdsVol2Cover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BestByrdsVol2Cover.jpg

message: Notwithstanding the possibility of interfering with links to it, and given that there may not be any, I think we should remove the words "track listing" for aesthetic reasons and given that they are superfluous. Cbben (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it really matters that much. From what I've seen, listing an album title by name followed by "track listing" seems to be pretty standard practice on Wikipedia whenever the article demands it. My feeling is to leave it as it is. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: track listing

message: I've begun to think that perhaps this article should be split into two separate articles, with information pertaining to the U.S. version of the album staying at The Best of The Byrds: Greatest Hits, Volume II and info pertaining to the UK release being relocated to The Byrds' Greatest Hits Volume II (which is currently a redirect page). The reason for this is that although both albums are clearly intended as a follow-up to The Byrds' Greatest Hits, they were released 13 months apart, the track listings of each album only have six songs in common, and they each have different titles and cover artwork. I feel that a strong case could be made for them being two distinctly different compilation albums, rather than regional variations of the same album. 
On the other hand, I can certainly see the logic of keeping both albums as one article—especially from a navigational point of view. For example, although the title of the U.S. album begins with The Best of The Byrds..., I've seen many Americans referring to it online as simply The Byrds' Greatest Hits, Volume II. Currently, the redirect pages mean that an American reader searching for the album under that title will still end up at the correct article. If it was decided to split these two albums into two separate articles, a hatnote would be required at the top of the The Byrds' Greatest Hits Volume II article to direct U.S. readers to the U.S. version of the album. So, anyone agree or disagree with this? Comments are most welcome. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in lieu of any other comments or input, I'm going to split this article into two now. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting into two seperate articles