Talk:Rocka Rolla

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Fair use rationale for Image:Rockarolla reissue cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Rockarolla reissue 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 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 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rockarolla reissue cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Rockarolla reissue 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rockarolla.jpg[edit]

Image:Rockarolla.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, would somebody who can ask Judas Priest copyright holders if their album covers are ok to be displayed. An ok from the band won't do it, as only copyright holders have the right to give an ok to reproduce images. In the future, US copyright law is going harder and harder, and the rest of the world must follow under the pain of invasion. Only licenced users can reproduce an image on a website, regardless of use, you will have to pay to view an image you may not want to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.123.148 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in the infobox[edit]

I have noticed that an edit war is beginning regarding the genre(s) in the infobox on this article. Rather than wasting time reverting edits, let's try and reach a consensus here. Johnny338 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having five genres for one album is ludicrous. One genre is sufficient, possibly two. Some people need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and remember that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Also, this page should have been left at the original version before discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other Priest albums are simply labeled Heavy metal this one should be no different yes there are Blues, Progressive rock influences in the sound not found on latter releases but not enough to label the album as such. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavy metal" ought to be enough, and prog rock is pretty silly. But the best way to settle such disputes (outside of violence) is to add reliable sources to verify these genres, and then whatever is not verified can justifiably be scrapped. Johnny338, sources are where it's at. Breton, you know how this works: find the proper references and you can't go wrong. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest plan for any music related article (artist or album or song) should be to keep the infobox fields which are "opinion" as sparse as possible and then expand those field topics, like musical style, in the main body of the article as referenced prose. Maybe we will all see a grand day when this is the way of the project for all and the fanboys who keep bloating the infoboxes will be gone (I know it will never happen ... but its nice to dream) Mr Pyles (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a "genre" is not an opinion, at least not one of ours. The best way to combat such edit-warring (and we have a template for that, "genre warring", somewhere) is to have a consensus based on, and footnoted with, reference to reliable sources. Article improvement is the best way to, well, just about everything. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of you: reliable sources mean that you have to back up a change with evidence, not just merely say, "This sounds like hard rock to me, not metal." and so on. I think the reason why this particular Priest album is in the middle of an edit war is that unlike later albums, a good argument could be made for pretty much all of the five genres that were in the infobox (although some, granted, are a bit of a stretch). But that doesn't provide any weight here. Sources need to back everything up, including the infobox. Unless anyone can find sources disputing that of what is already in the infobox (heavy metal), then it should stay as is. Johnny338 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rocka Rolla. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Album Cover Art[edit]

I'm not sure about the wording here "The band had filed a lawsuit with the Coca-Cola company." The use of "with", as written, is very ambiguous. Did JP file a suit WITH Coca-Cola against a third party, or did JP sue CC, or did CC sue JP? I'm thinking the latter is most likely to be true, but I cannot find a good reference for that. On the surface, CC suing JP makes the most sense, CC had the trademark using that font forever so CC could get JP for trademark/copyright infringement and make them change the album cover. If anyone can find something that backs it up then please feel free to clean up this sentence to have it make sense. Thanks! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]