Talk:The Lillywhite Sessions

message: whoever attempted to re-write the opening paragraph did a piss-poor job. it was fine the way it was. thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.38.248 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

message: This page has major Vandalism problems. --Falconus|Talk 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: If someone wold like to format my references i suck at it and cant get it to work / link up right, but they were provided int he reference section.
I have just edited the page and provided the citation necessary. Disc Two is a reality that is little talked about and provides just a smaller glimpse into the bands working of the album. While the info is from one site, one thread is old links of original postings of the mp3's and the original posters. While the other article was written by a site manager who is tied with the band and has also provided numerous citations (also cited) and information retrived latley from an archive run by the owners of dmbalmanac.com.
I hope that clears any misunderstandings up. 
davehead86 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Disc 2 stuff.  If a second disc indeed exists, please provide proper citation or else it does not belong in the article.  Milchama 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As a DMB fan, I can tell you that an unofficial second disc does exist, and it consists of studio outtakes from the sessions.  However, this is by no means an "official bootleg," but more of a disc of low-quality studio outtakes and does not deserve to be listed here on Wikipedia. Crashintome4196 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc 2? 

message: I added the template  to the page because it is technically an album, however I did not include it as part of the band's chronology.  Before adding the infobox, I checked similar articles, such as the article for Phish's The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday, which was also a bootlegged album and features a similar infobox.  Unlike that article however, I decided not to include it as parts of the band's chronology as I did not feel that it was appropriate. Note that the image in the infobox is an open-source public domain image a user-created copyrighted image of the album, and although it is unofficial, it has been widely released across the internet and is considered by many to be the "official unofficial album artwork" for The Lillywhite Sessions.  The album is included in the band's chronology, however it is listed as a bootleg and does not interfere with the the chronology between Everyday and Live in Chicago 12.19.98.  —Crashintome4196 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a great job of cleaning up the page. —davehead86 08:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image from the infobox. In the age of the Internet, when most people who hear a bootleg will not even have a hard copy, there's absolutely no need to include one bootlegger's (not especially great) idea for cover art. The name "Lillywhite sessions" sticks, despite not being an official name, because it's the unanimous name for these. However this cover art seems more like something people just want included because they think it looks nice. Something like this that never saw release and never had cover art designed for it, should have no cover art in Wikipedia, otherwise it's very misleading. If you want, you can include the cover art in a separate image further down on the page with a caption like "A popular cover image created by a fan for the unreleased album", however, that might be rightly deleted later for irrelevance. 172.144.166.215 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album infobox