Talk:Still Climbing (Cinderella album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stillclimbing.jpg
Image:Stillclimbing.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 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) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Album Genres
This is the same thing I wrote on the talk page of Heartbreak Station, since it seems there is the same problem here. There is source provided for this album being glam metal in order to prevent users from taking the genre away without a reason. Please express your opinions here before changing the genres. I might be wrong, I do not claim that what I say is "the Truth", but allmusic says this album is glam metal and I really do believe it is. So please discuss the matter here if you disagree. I know it is less glam metal than the previous albums, but it still is and there this is backed up by source. FateForger (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unfortunately the album was the victim of new MTV policy that ignored it, and a record company that barely promoted it, all in order to test different markets[1]," -Maybe it did at one time, but this footnote does not lead to further relevant info, unfortunately. Fp cassini (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

... all in order to test different markets[1]
"Unfortunately the album was the victim of new MTV policy that ignored it, and a record company that barely promoted it, all in order to test different markets[1]," -Maybe it did at one time, but this footnote does not lead to further relevant info, unfortunately. Fp cassini (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" re: claims made about "Talk Is Cheap" and "Freewheelin"
So currently, the article contains the following text:

'"Talk Is Cheap" first appeared during a Cinderella show in 1987, although the version on the album is longer than the original, with slower vocals. "Freewheelin" was an older song that had been written and demoed by the band in 1985, prior to the recording of their first album. [citation needed]'

This information is mostly true. (The only slight blip is that I think "Talk Is Cheap" first appeared during a Cinderella live show in 1985, not 1987.)

This information can be verified through both YouTube videos and setlists featuring old live performances from the band; there is at least one video I found showing the band performing "Talk Is Cheap" in 1987, and at least one I found of the band performing "Freewheelin" in 1985 (and at least one video of the demo as well). I also found a setlist from a 1985 show that lists both "Talk Is Cheap" and "Freewheelin". (For the record, I also found at least one bootleg live recording listed on Discogs with 1985 performances of both songs as well, but I won't link that here.)

Setlist, Empire Rock Club, Philadelphia, 1985

"Talk Is Cheap" live during Night Songs tour, Japan, 1987

"Freewheelin" live at Empire Rock Club, Philadelphia, 1985

"Freewheelin" demo

However, I suspect that none of those can be used as citations, and I scoured Google to see if I could find any others, to no avail. Should that information just be removed, then, since there don't appear to be any usable sources?

For the record, I'm not sure who added those facts or where they got that information from. It's unfortunate because I would like to see it included, but I'm not sure how to cite it appropriately. Afddiary (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just put these sources in then, its better than nothing --FMSky (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)