Talk:beautiful (Fantastic Plastic Machine album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beautiful us cover.jpg

Image:Beautiful us 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) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. → Beautiful (Fantastic Plastic Machine album) – The only English source for this Japanese No.38 charting album appears to be https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2986-beautiful/ and the review there just calls the album Beautiful not Beautiful dot. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. In addition, there have been a number of recent move discussions that have established that a fullstop/period is not sufficient to disambiguate a topic and that such punctuation is detrimental to reader comprehension. If needed here, I hope someone might provide a couple of examples. — AjaxSmack 15:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Thanks In ictu oculi for finding quite a few of these obvious moves which clear up confusion over primary topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per nominator and AjaxSmack. ONR (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Naturally. Needs more disambiguation than a full stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and AjaxSmack. Ending periods are generally not disambiguating. 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Support – periods really aren't used for disambiguation purposes. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.