Talk:Kima, Keisha, and Pam

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

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

minor edits are fine but some of the edits removed detailed and relevant information like producers and edits of the main tracklisting were unnecessary and not as aesthetically pleasing. If making an edit please give reasons. Thank you for the minor fixes though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeahartley (talk • contribs)

I fixed it up because 1] it looked like crap 2] it had absolutely horrid formatting (when has Infobox Album ever appeared between the opening paragraph and the track list?) and 3] the new version is more encyclopedic and more similar to other album articles.

I took out the producers because we don't need all of them in the infobox, and I was gonna make a personnel section for it.

And there's no need for a table in a track list unless it's actually that complex (see 4:21...The Day After). --Machchunk | make some noise at me 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you could have been nicer about it, I agree, all were minor edits, I wasnt talking about the table for the tracklisting,(and I didnt draw it) i was talking about the formatting on the text. Anyway thanks for the edits ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeahartley (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I could've. It's also pretty late though, and after doing all of that and seeing that that response, I just got too defensive. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 07:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just changed up the tracklisting, see if you can hear me out, it looks a lot more pleasing to the eye. About the producer thing, I've seen loads of album pages with producers in the contact box, I think it looks neater, I mean what's the point in having a section for producers if you're just gonna use a list which doens't look half as good? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeahartley (talk • contribs)

Could you reword that last part? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reworded lol) I think personnell sections should be reserved for minor things like who played certain instruments, backing vocals, stuff like that. There are never really too many producers, in fact the box looks better the more producers it has in it imo. I was just saying the producer section on the box is there for a reason, it looks really bare with just "Various Artists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeahartley (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I know it's there's for a reason, but the Infobox is the bare minimum for information. After all, It's not like the Infobox needs to have every speck of information; that's what the rest of the article is for. But I get what you're saying, and I respect that. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 18:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and with the ft. Featuring thing, I think featuring looks more professional as a standard (feat., ft. featuring are all used in R&B and hip hop) but as long as its in smaller font I think that's fine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeahartley (talk • contribs)

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

Image:Totalkimakeishanpam.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 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 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pam[edit]

What ever happened to these gurls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.152.210 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]