Talk:Kings of Crunk
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Lil-jon-and-eastside-boyz-kings-of-crunk.jpg
[edit]
Image:Lil-jon-and-eastside-boyz-kings-of-crunk.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 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kings of Crunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406122824/http://www.tower.com/kings-crunk-lil-jon-east-side-cd/wapi/106629327 to http://www.tower.com/kings-crunk-lil-jon-east-side-cd/wapi/106629327
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Release date
[edit]12 years ago an IP editor changed the release date, from October 8 to October 29. I just noticed this and was going to revert it, as it's a popular form of vandalism and Google search shows October 8. However, once I started looking into it, I found out that the situation is way more complex: there are at least 3 different release dates.
- October 8 is reported by XXL magazine and AllMusic (I know that we ignore AllMusic's sidebar, but this date was also reported in their 2003 published guide book; might need an Internet Archive account to open the link)
- October 29 is reported by MTV and that's the date contemporary newspapers ads used ([1], [2], [3])
- And to make things worse, Billboard magazine reported October 22
All 3 sound plausible to me now, all 3 are Tuesdays (pre-2015 release day). An option would be removing the date, leaving just October in the lead, and mentioning all three dates further in prose. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- An ad in September 2002 issue of The Source magazine also mentions October 8. Anyway, I went ahead and boldly replaced the release date with "October 2002", explaining the situation in prose. Until a journalist investigates this or there is a clearer consensus in sources, we can't definitively say it was one date and not the other. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 09:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
