Talk:Year of the Cat (song)

Fair use rationale for Image:Al Stewart-Year of the Cat (album cover).jpg

Image:Al Stewart-Year of the Cat (album cover).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.

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 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

US Chart Placing

I could of sworn this track reached number 5, but I could be wrong Zobango (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Solo Section

The article claims the solo section involves a violin, but I have a hard time believing it's not a cello. Since it's not cited, I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.22 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cello to me too. 187.97.165.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

Progressive pop

Why doesn't progressive pop apply here? The source says that it's a prog pop song. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Like I said at the album page, you have used one publication to change multiple articles genres and categories, I'm challenging skeptical of that reference, if you think one reference can blanket all those changes you made, that seems awfully POV'ish to me. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain further? I'm equally skeptical that this a "soft rock" song. But it's not up to you or me to decide whether it is - it's the reliable sources who decide (WP:RS). The cited source is a relatively recent book, published by St. Martin's Press, about 1970s pop music. It literally contains a chapter discussing "progressive pop", and the linked page has a list of relevant songs and artists. The authors are Don & Jeff Breithaupt. According to their bios: "Don, a three-time Juno Award nominee, is a musician and journalist; he lives in Bolton, Ontario. Jeff is a freelance writer and arts fundraiser; he lives in New York City." Who are you and where is your book about progressive pop?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I await other editor comments, I'm done for today. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request for a 3O on this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 30 requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If any editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Feel free to refile for assistance at 3O or at some other dispute resolution venue if you are still at a stalemate after thorough discussion has occurred. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Who filed a third opinion request ? please provide a link. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: @Mlpearc: I did. The decline for comment is astounding.

"The reliable source says this."

"I disagree with the reliable source."

"Why?"

"Ask somebody else."

What is there left to discuss? It only takes 2 seconds to resolve this with WP:!TRUTHFINDERS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built around a model of collaboration. The extensive discussion requirement, which is part of all forms of moderated content dispute resolution — 3O, DRN. and formal mediation — is intended to support that model. There must be signs of the parties to a dispute making a real effort to work out disputes between them rather that just saying "is" "is not", throwing up their hands, and calling for help. That's a combat mentality, not collaboration, and to allow it would encourage disputes. For technical help with whether or not a source is reliable, as opposed to dispute resolution, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the dispute continues after discussion there, as it sometimes does, reconsider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)