Talk:Casablanca Records
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I personal think that Brie Larson was not a main act, but Lindsay was. Beagle, 10:41 August 16, 2006
[edit] This Wikipedia article needs much work
As its stands it is a total travesty. Where is the content about the 70s and 80s? No-one is frankly interested in some half-baked relaunch with no-name artistes.
I agree with the poster above that the page is very confusing and needs a good re-write, and I have no bias for old vs. new like he/she does. I don't know anything about Casablanca, so I hope an expert can help here. The History section is weak. I thought the Intro actually did a better job of telling the history than the History section itself. 1) Provide more clear delineation for which text was about old vs. new Casablanca. 2) What years did it exist in the first incarnation? 3) For old incarnation: Consider adding topics like: What band/single was their first breakthrough? What hit was really their climax? What human or market factors led to their rise? What human or market factors led to their eventual decline? Look at other Wikipedia pages for examples 4) For new incarnation: There must be something more relevant to say about its history. The page currently discusses the history of only one band (a no-name band with an anticlimactic story). Why focus on that band if the new incarnation also had some big names and releases? 5) This sentence is bizarre: "Not wanting to risk pregnancy so soon, Karla decided to leave as well". I don't understand. She can't stay in the band without getting pregnant? This could be clarified, but much better yet, the whole paragraph deleted. 6) Add old releases to Releases section --Catapultsam 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rumors don't belong
Rumors don't belong on wikipedia, if they do they need a source Markthemac 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Casablanca logo.jpg
Image:Casablanca logo.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) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
