Talk:Jay Love Japan

message: Its been released. I have a copy... I will edit the page so its more up to date.--Redslap 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future album?

message: Although the album's release is sketchy, it makes little sense to remove it from the chronology.--NPswimdude500 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "album" is very sketchy - on what basis was it added to the chronology in the first place?  From definition it would have to be an album and be released, or at very least a concrete future release date backed up by something more than message board postings.  After at least a year and a half of this album being announced, it's only been an internet bootleg - and even that has been discredited by the label which is supposedly going to release the album.  It should be removed from the chronology until there is solid evidence that it is going to be released. 69.234.106.35 05:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, you're saying that Jay Love Japan shouldn't be added to the chronology on the basis that it has no set release date and that album rumors have circulated for a year? I tend to disagree for several reasons: First, there are loads of articles on albums that haven't been released. These albums are almost always included in chronologies. Secondly, albums that have been recorded and not released (often shelved as a result of a record label dispute) are also included in chronologies (just look at Q-Tip's albums Kamaal the Abstract and Open). Thirdly, a year is not that much time when talking about album releases. Kamaal the Abstract was recorded in 2002 and still hasn't been released. A great example of this at work is Dr. Dre's long-awaited third studio album Detox. It was first announced in 2000, and 7 years later it still hasn't been released. Finally, considering the fact that Jay Dee passed away, the likelihood of any other albums following the re-release of Ruff Draft is minimal. For these reasons, I believe it to be entirely reasonable to include Jay Love Japan in the chronology.--NPswimdude500 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "First, there are loads of articles on albums that haven't been released. These albums are almost always included in chronologies." -- That's a problem with poor wikipedia users, not a valid reason.  J Dilla also has an unreleased album made for MCA records in 2002/3, you might as well add that too.  Jay Love Japan should be taken off the chronology for the validity of the J Dilla article.  There's now another release date set - if it appears that the album will really be released on that new date then it should be added.  69.234.106.35 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: :Image:Jaylovejapanqr3.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 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 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jaylovejapanqr3.jpg