Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Proposal for altering naming conventions

There was recently an issue at Talk:Hoćemo gusle where a user argued that articles on albums with titles not written in English should appear at translations of the titles. I attempted to find some specific guidance on it but, as far as I can tell, this issue isn't specifically addressed in any naming convention. Therefore, please discuss the following proposal for an alteration of/addition to the last paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Naming:

If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world. For example, Født til å Herske, not Born to Rule, Swanesang, not Swan Song, but Chant, not Canto (because the album was marketed as "Chant" in most English-speaking countries).

If the album title does not use the Latin alphabet, the article name should be the transliterated form of the title using Latin characters. For example, Vrisko To Logo Na Zo, not Βρίσκω Το Λόγο Να Ζω or I Find the Reason to Live, and Kaihōku, not 解放区 or Liberated District, but Common Jasmin Orange, not Qi li xiang, 七里香, or Seven Mile Fragrance (because the English name "Common Jasmin Orange" appears on the album cover along with the Chinese name). The title should appear in its original language in the opening line of the article.

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

— AjaxSmack 17:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Does the above proposal correctly represent current practice? Is it too specific? Is the use of examples appropriate? Have I missed an earlier debate on the subject or a policy guideline lurking somewhere else? — AjaxSmack 17:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I like this; it seems to cover everything pretty well. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. It improves over the current text by clarifying the transliteration translation rule, which should help us to avoid discussions like the one at Talk:Hoćemo gusle in the future. It also cohers with the consensus of an earlier discussion that touched upon the same subject: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_24#Song_titles_in_foreign_languages. And I like the use of examples, it eases the understanding of the rule. – IbLeo (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. I support this, but I don't understand the part "Titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless..." From the examples, I see that actually foreign titles should be used. Isn't this contradictory? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right — it doesn't make a lick of sense — and I wrote it. I have added the missing clause in dark red that may clarify things. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit sleepy this morning when I read your first version. It didn't make sense - it does now. Same thing for my own comment :-) – IbLeo (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that titles in languages that do not use the latin alphabet should not be used as titles in their own alphabets and instead transliterated into the latin alphabet. Foreign titles are used, but only in the latin alphabet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. That is how I have been doing it. The only thing though is that I would not consider "Født til å Herske" do be transliterated correctly since ø and å are not part of the Latin alphabet and instead are from the Finnish alphabet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of any alphabet derived from the Latin and was including these letters as well. This is controversial to some — see WT:UE for earlier discussions. — AjaxSmack 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and I would suggest extending the initial phrase to "If the album title uses the Latin alphabet or any alphabet derived thereof, ..." to make this clear. – IbLeo (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we word it like the original proposal, but change the link to the derivations article? -Freekee (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, that would do the job and keep the wording simple. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support It makes more sense now. I spent a while last night trying to understand exactly what you meant, and decided to wait and see what other people had to say. :-) I think there's a level of pickiness that it doesn't support, but I say KISS. Should this be run by WP:NAME? -Freekee (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose we start by updating our own guidelines before taking it over there. As far as I can see there is no conflict, WP:NAME does currently not say anything on song, album and band names in other languages than English. – IbLeo (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was reading WP:NAME again, looking for conflict. One place says, Name your pages in English... unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers, and another says, Use the most commonly used English version of the name. So... I agree with you. -Freekee (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The examples clearly show a need for initially stating the rule to use an English title which appears on the album or in the marketing of them. Then you don't need exceptions to exceptions. Otherwise, it seems to be covered by general existing naming convention rules; use an established English-language name, etc., with nothing peculiar to albums. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Existing general guidelines are a little contradictory. The problem with titles of publications is that those titles are actually what most of them are known as, and translations are merely for the convenience of consumers. Unless the album was released under a translated English title, a simple translation is wrong, for our purposes. -Freekee (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Since Hoćemo gusle is mentioned as the impetus for this discussion, and since it was moved as a result of requested moves, why in the world is this article missorted in its categories. There is nothing which pisses me off more than the English-bashers who run around changing names of articles to use something other than English, without fixing the resulting article so that it sorts properly. Will someone please fix that? What can we do about fixing that problem in a more general sense? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

English bashers? How can wanting an article to be named for the album as it was published be considered a negative attitude towards English? -Freekee (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Christgau's Reviews of Black Sabbath

A friend of mine recently purchased Paranoid and went to its wikipage surprised to find that a reviewer had given it a C-. As the only 2 metalheads in our department we are both well aware that most people don't like our music. However, we never thought that a metal critic could give Paranoid anything but a top review. So we looked into the review and were even more astonished that to find a short, trite four sentences that didn't even hint at the innovations, the down-tuning, the lengthy solos, the unique vocals, etc. Of course we did not like the review, but after calming down all we could think was "Who gives a crap what this guy thinks about Black Sabbath?" After looking him up and finding out that he has been a critic in the music industry for several decades, there must be something there. So then I started reading other reviews of his and was shocked to find that most of them were as short and without any sort of real criticism present. If these reviews had been submitted to an English teacher, Christgau would have failed miserably. Then I found his review of a Neil Young album. At last this one actually delved into the music. I still thought his review was extremely pretentious and devoid of anything meaningful...BUT AT LEAST IT WAS A REVIEW!!! Knowing how art critics work, he is most likely par for the course and I could personally write him off. But I am struggling with the knowledge that other people will visit the Paranoid article and link that C- with the album. If Christgau had written as much about Paranoid as he had written about that Neil Young album, I wouldn't put up any sort of fight and begrudgingly accept it. Of course I would at least expect him to complain about the unnecessary distortions, the fantastical lyrics, and the poor vocals. Instead he chides them for being like a "horror movie" and that's just a misrepresentation of the album. And what Lucifer bit is there? I can't think of a single song on the album that mentions Satan or anything Satanic with the exception of the hopefulness that War Pigs will burn in hell. Hardly "Lucifer bits." So then I went to find other Sabbath reviews he had done. Low and behold that was probably the best one. He spends his review of Black Sabbath attacking numerology and the apparent philosophy of the band, which has no basis in reality but one wouldn't know that after reading his review. His review of Master of Reality is actually a review of Grand Funk Railroad...then out of nowhere he mentions Black Sabbath and I think he's comparing the 2 but never actually does so. He then proceeds to attack the band. Never once does he mention the music on the album. At least he gets it right that at least someone in the band is a Christian and not a Satanist. But that has nothing to do with reviewing the album except noting that one of the songs on the album has very strong Christian overtones, which he does not note. The reason the band did that song was because most people outside their circle knew that at least one member was very devout at the time. Can't we expect a journalist to find that type of information out without waiting for it to be stated on the very popular band's third album? There were journalists then that knew that, but Christgau apparently did not.

So after that rant let me try to clarify my point. I am not here attacking Christgau. I am not here attacking his review. If that those were my aims, I would mail Christgau my thoughts (which I am deeply considering). I am here because I find it preposterous that his review should in anyway be tied to an informational page on these albums. His reviews provide no useful information about the albums, not even what type of music. From his reviews, I would probably surmise that Black Sabbath played some kind of Voodoo related folk music. Thus I would assume that his grade of a C- means that if I care for Voodoo related folk music, this is a mediocre offering. Instead I can look at Allmusic or Blender's review and find out that its at least a Heavy Metal album, and that its considered one of the better albums. Now I don't care for either of those sites' reviews either. I used to read Allmusic religiously and could disagree with the material time and time again. But at least I was disagreeing with the review and not with the type of article I was reading. So can we institute some kind of minimum criteria that even a notable reviewer must meet before we include the review? I'm not even sure how to classify my complaint since I don't consider what he wrote to be a professional review. Ughhh, thoughts anyone? marnues (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Christgau is notable. he's written for the more influential magazines back then including Village Voice and Creem. And for the record he is known to have some very strong statements about some genres including prog rock, heavy metal and well, Radiohead. He hates them! It's important to include his reviews as he has some of the few internet accessible reviews of the era. Christgau doesn't doddle on with speech, he writes his blurb and reasoning and gets on with it. And for me, that's fine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Christgau gave Sonic Youth negative reviews, so they wrote "I Killed Christgau with ..... " in response. MegX (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over again, latest here and here. Both these discussions started out on Scarufi and derived into Christgau, and both of them showed that there is no consensus for removing Christgau from our list of reliable review sites. – IbLeo (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking for removal. I am asking that we only include Christgau's reviews for albums that he actually has written a review/cares about the music he is reviewing. His sparse writings on Black Sabbath are not a part of that set. Let me restate that if it were a review of 60s rock or 70s funk, by all means include his review. But just because he is notable as a reviewer in some areas does not mean his opinion is well regarded for all genres. So we should limit his reviews to only some genres. marnues (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't do that because it would misrepresent critical consensus. It's not just Christgau; in the early 1970s heavy metal was critically reviled. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Release histories

I'm beginning to question the actual use of the 'Release history' sections made in articles. First and foremost, these sections are completely optional. There's no policy saying this section should or shouldn't be included. When albums are on their way to good articles or featured articles, these sections almost always removed. They're also almost impossible to source (except by sites like Amazon.com, but become a problem when trying to cite a release date of, let's say, Haiti and Egypt) and become excessively long, as seen here and here. Not only that, but because the first release date should be in the infobox, as explained in the template of the infobox, there is often a conflict of interest (especially IPs) who feel the United States release date should be first in the infobox, very rarely do I see first release dates in infoboxes. I'm thinking these sections should probably not be encouraged, but I'm not sure how it should be dealt with. Thoughts? DiverseMentality 22:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I've never seen anything like that (but then, I'm usually looking at older albums like Pink Floyd etc., where you'll be lucky to find one original release date). I completely agree that where it's unsourced it should be removed, though I'd prefer to find the person who added it first and ask them to cite their sources; it's a shame to undo all that research if they can document it properly. I don't agree that this is impossible to source. Somebody is getting their info from somewhere (I don't think you're accusing them of making it up), they are just not bothering to say. You're certainly right that there is no reason to put the USA release date in the infobox, nor put it first in a list of release dates by country. Either make it alphabetical or chronological; if choosing the latter, the artist's home country will usually be among the first. Regarding older albums, especially those that have been re-issued many times, re-issue (esp. remastering) dates are often listed, and are usually properly cited, which can be useful, especially when there are notable differences in the various editions. So I don't think this kind of section should be discouraged, but insisting on citations should address the problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think having the release history is a great idea and have been using them for a few months now. A lot of albums are released more than once and its a lot better than the old way (tons of dates in the infobox with country flags). Now, I put the first release date in the infobox with a link to the release history; it works well. Here's a good one for example [1] (all dates are referenced somewhere in the article). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring this section up for discussion for some time actually; I think Release history tables shouldn't be prescribed in the guidelines at all. Wikipedia is not a repository of release dates and catalogue numbers, it is an encyclopedia. Considering that record companies reissue albums (esp. classic albums) in a number of formats and editions in many countries, I don't see how it is beneficial to document all those release dates. Besides, more often than not the tables are unsourced, and they don't make for particularly good reading.

To provide an analogy, notice how our articles on books/novels don't have release history tables. Do you see any benefit in listing out every publisher who has printed Sherlock Holmes? indopug (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're all talking about different things? The original post talked about overly long lists of release dates in various countries, and complained that the info is unsourcable. In articles I've seen, there are no long lists, and as stated before, I see no reason why this info should be considered unsourcable. Obviously a list of every Sherlock Holmes edition would be huge and unsourcable, but is it a fair comparison? If there are certain articles that have a problem with an unweildy table of release dates (and I'm sure there are, since there are now two complaints about this), they should be fixed, but I fail to see why we need a policy that could affect other articles where there is no problem, and the information is beneficial. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A fake image?

As his first contributions, Gimme46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming that File:That's Where You Take Me.jpg is "is a fake" which he "made and put on internet", and tried to nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me.jpg. The assistance of editors more familiar with this subject matter is requested in verifying the image, to determine what administrative action is necessary. Thanks. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 04:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all, the AFD was rejected because it's not an article; it may be reviewed again if an FFD is submitted, as recommended. Also, you posted the same question on the Admin noticeboard where it is already being discussed; comment should go on that page to keep it in one place. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronology wording

Another use feels the wording of the Chronology section is a bit confusing, specifically this sentence: "Only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology.". To clear up any confusion, I feel it needs to be reworded. I'm thinking something along the lines of Only studio albums should be included in the chronology; exclude live albums, compilations, singles and EPs. Thoughts? DiverseMentality 08:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't exclude other releases because then it downplays the importance of other releases by an artist. Christmas, remix, live, and greatest hits albums should be placed alongside studio albums. I think instead it should say Studio albums, live albums, compilations, and EPs should be included in the chronology. Singles are only the release of a single song but some EP's and single CD's are confused but that's a different discussion entirely. Ratizi1 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratizi got a point here. Although I agree with the current guideline (BTW, the sentence is clear to me), what about EPs? Compilations? Does that mean that an EP article should only link an EP in its infobox' chronology? --Efe (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing, the line does say "usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs". I'm guessing this means that unusual cases, like with albums that chart considerably or something along those lines, where it's worth noting that it was released, it could be mentioned in the chronology. Question is, who determines the importance of a single album? I think the guideline for chronology needs to be more concise with what it says. Ratizi1 (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've always mostly ignored this page's advice on the use of this field. It just doesn't make sense: we're using the same infobox for studio albums, live album, compilation albums, EPs, and a number of other releases, yet we're saying that some of these don't "count" for the chronology field. It's not like the chronology field disappears when you change the "type" to live or EP. So what is one supposed to do? Only put live albums in the chronology if the article is about a live album? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Not including singles makes sense, because there's a separate infobox for singles that has its own "singles chronology" within it. But it doesn't make sense to exclude live albums, compilations, EPs, etc. Heck, in many cases these releases are just as important to an artist's career as the studio albums (ie. Alive!). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is another instance where the page jumps in right away with instructions, without first giving a sense of what the field or feature is intended for. The first sentence of this section should say something like: "This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations." (since it says "albums" several times, why do we need to mention exluding EPs and singles?) "Where an artist has multiple live albums, compilations, or EPs, other articles in each category may also be chained with these fields." - and then go on to explain how to code it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the infobox album chronology should definitely include live albums and compilations, to establish a chronological chain between articles for all of a band's albums. I think the guideline about usually excluding them was written on the basis that live albums and compilations are often "lesser" works, but for many bands that's not true. In particular some bands use live albums to release significant new material. As for EPs, it's a bit of gray area, because they're "sort of" albums. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The restriction to studio albums matches the recommendation that only studio albums be listed in the "short" discography on an artist's main page, when they have a separate discography article (a topic of recent discussion, where we also noted that this is not appropriate for all artists, but still, is a good rule of thumb for most). Of course, you are right, there are exceptions, but inviting the inclusion of compilations (and even live albums in some cases) can be problematic, as comps are often issued without the artist's input, especially foreign editions (foreign to the artist's home country, that is), and exact release dates for such items are often unavailable, making them difficult to put in chronological order. We could modify the instructions to say: "In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should only include other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations". I still like the idea of recommending those types be separate chains, because that's how it's usually done. I probably already said this, but I think the discussion here is about making the rules clearer, rather than proposing changing them. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are the rules, and how do we know that, except by looking at the infobox instructions? I guess there might have been discussions about what the rules are, and feel free to provide links to them, but this might be a good time to discuss them further. Since there are good arguments for including and for not including live albums, and also compilations, I would really think it should be left to the discretion of the editors to decide whether to include them or not. For example, with Allman Brothers Band albums, it would just be crazy to leave At Fillmore East out of the chronology. That's a perfect example of a live album that's key to a band's body of work. Also, their following album, Eat a Peach, is both a live album and a studio album. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: the rules should not be restrictive. But they can suggest a usage that would be most appropriate in the majority of cases, which I guess is a matter of opinion. I'm for keeping the current article's suggestion, but leaving it open ended. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think the guidelines should be improved to provide a suggested usage that is more precise than today. Like A Knight Who Says Ni I would also support recommending a separate chronology chain per album type (studio, live, compilation, EP, etc.). That's how we usually organize the artist templates (examples: Template:Genesis, Template:The Byrds) and I find it logical to have the same album chains in the artist template and the album infoboxes. As for bands were another album subdivision works better (Mudwater mentions Template:Allman Brothers Band) I don't see any problem in allowing this, as long as the chain synergy is maintained. – IbLeo (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having the chronology being split up like it would be on an individual artists info box. While some artists who have released several studio albums, live albums, and ep's might benefit from having them go in chronological order for separate kinds of albums, there are a lot of artists who haven only released a few to maybe just one ep and it would be weird to have it by itself in its own chronology. I think all releases that are not songs/singles should be grouped into one albums chronology. Ratizi1 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to be against live albums in the chronology, except in cases of important albums. But over time, I softened in my opinion. There is often much debate about whether an album is "important" or not. But now, bands put out lots more live records than they used to. They'll put one out after every tour, because it's relatively cheap, and people buy them. Is it necessary to have all of these in the chrono? One one hand, it's nice to have them in the chrono to give a context, but on the other, who cares about all these live albums? -Freekee (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The artist probably does, most music sites (allmusic, musicbrainz) certainly do, and from an objective standpoint we should too. A live album is a signficant part of an artist's catalogue, even if they have several of them. If the album is noteworthy enough to have an article (and most albums by notable acts are) then there's no reason to exclude them from the chronology just because we may not think it "counts" as a "real" album. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So is the decision here to include any and all albums in the chronology? DiverseMentality 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily one chronology. If you want to have one for all albums, that's okay. If you want to have one chain for studio albums, another for live, that's okay too. The instructions reflect what is probably the most common usage, but I see no reason to go from one "rule" to be applied to all artists, to the opposite. Putting live albums on a separate chain does not delcare them to be of lesser importance. From the replies that appear here, I think the "chaining" feature of this field is still not understood. (Maybe I'm wrong.) See Pulse (album) for a live album in a chain of live albums in the infobox, and note how it matches the navbox at the bottom of the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a separate live chronology. I am opposed to linking a live album to the studio albums adjacent to it but linking the studio albums only to each other. I've seen that done, and it's kindannoying. -Freekee (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that would be an incorrect chain, linked by someone who didn't take a look at how the chain system works. That is a mistake which should be corrected. It isn't a policy issue, though. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and updated the instructions. See here for current version, and here] for the old version (latter link does not automatically scroll down to the section). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it should include live and compilation albums. I've seen many albums that are live or complilation + 3 new songs or something like that so I feel they would be lost. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More tweaking needed!

The template has been updated again, but I don't like the wording (to be clear: I have NO problem with the intent!). Here is the current wording:

This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains but can also be included in the same chronology as studio albums.

Two problems: first, it's not clear that two different methods are being suggested: keeping live and studio albums in separate chains, or mixing them together. Second, the current wording is saying that live albums can be in their own separate chain, and also be inserted in the studio album chain. I don't think that was what we meant to say. Proposing change to:

This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains. Alternately, for some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain, but care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album "A" points to "B" as the next album, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) album.

Sorry this is making it longer, but if we want to be clear on what we're saying, I think we need to do this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I like that sound a lot better. I think this would help keep things in order. Ratizi1 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you meant it to say, go ahead and change it now; I don't think there can be any controversy about this being an improvement. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this debate a bit odd. Depending on the format of the release, the album field in the infobox states what that is, ie. studio album, live album, EP, compilation, etc. Basically what I've always done is only put albums in the chronology if it's an album infobox, only compilations in a compilation infobox, only live albums in a live album infobox, and so on. I feel that's pretty straightfoward. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought, but apparently others have been using the field differently, and can point to instances where all of the artist's albums, regardless of type, are in one chain. There does not seem to have been a rule stating how it should be, just a presumption on our parts. I do agree there are exceptions, as others have proposed, where for a certain artist it would make sense to combine their live and studio albums in one chain. For example a lot of Neil Young's "original material" albums are actually recorded live, with the live presence downplayed in the mix. Frank Zappa did some of that too, or took live guitar solos and plugged them into studio recordings ("Inca Roads" being the classic example), and if these get classified as live albums, it would mess up the discography chaining to remove them from the "main" studio album chain. For example, Zappa's Weasels Ripped My Flesh should be in his main album chain, but it has more live material than studio, and might be classed as a live album as a result. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Idea

I have an idea that I've started to put into use. Use two chronologies (we have the extra one template) and have one be a general releases which would include studio album, live albums, compilations etc, while also having a second chronology dedicated for the type of album you are looking at. For example, the studio album Kainourgia Ego was released after a live album. In general releases, the live album comes before it, but in the new chronology that I made for studio albums (since this is a studio album), the previous studio album is shown. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that idea will get much support. Previous arguments against the "normal" use of this field is that it's not appropriate for certain artists, and I think others would agree with those cases. So it wouldn't be helpful to do the linking two ways just to please everyone; that's not the issue. Also, in the case of compilation albums, it's often difficult to say exactly where they go in a chronological chain when mixed in with other album types. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I would have them be put in general releases. I really feel that this idea makes complete sense, I mean it addresses all of the problems and is clean and easy to navigate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notorious Soundtrack

Something tells me that this isn't a very suitable page title. Since the movie article is at Notorious (2009 film), shouldn't this be moved to Notorious (soundtrack)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the cover, it appears the album title is Notorious, with a short sentence below it identifying it as a soundtrack. The word "soundtrack" does not appear to be part of the title. "Notorious (soundtrack)" with the latter word not capitalized, would be an appropriate article title, and "(soundtrack)" should not be part of the bolded text on the first line. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Film (soundtrack) is indeed the conventional namespacing for such articles. tomasz. 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The above is incorrect. According to guidelines on disambiguation a disam. term should only be used if there is no alternative practical title available. (see WP:NCDAB rule 1) So in this case 'Notorious Soundtrack' should be used before Notorious (soundtrack). --neon white talk 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The soundtrack is called Notorious, but so is the film, so disambiguation is needed. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should only be called "Notorious Soundtrack" if it was published under that title. -Freekee (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album covers

Peripitus (talk · contribs) has decided that alternate album covers should no longer be shown on Wikipedia, and seems to have started indiscriminately trying to get them deleted.

I decided to run the first few batches through IfD to gauge the reception as AWB tells me there are over 5K to look at. I'll probably bang a script together (perhaps mod twinkle for me) to make this all a bit smoother. [[2]]

He has opened IfD discussions on:

• Jay Z - '03 Bonnie & Clyde (UK cover) (10 January)

... plus another 25 further alternate covers nominated on this day ...

• Velvet Underground - 1969 live (Volume 2 cover, subsequently released in its own right) (11 January)
• James Blunt - 1973 (alternate single cover) (11 January) - now already deleted
• Spice Girls - 2 Become 1 (U.S. CD cover) (11 January)
• Kylie Minogue - 2 Hearts (UK CD single cover) (11 January)
• Janet Jackson - Alright (European cover) (11 January)
• Amai Yuwaku - GAMs (11 January)
• A Carnival Christmas (13 January)
• Zed and Two Noughts soundtrack (14 January)

An earlier IfD

• Don't Love You (alternate cover) (27 December), was nom'd by Stifle and deleted by Periptus. (Take to DRV?)

There are also current IfDs from J Milburn (talk · contribs) on

• Xenosapiens (vinyl release) (13 January)
• Come Clarity (digipak version) (13 January) - possibly more justified since the variant is more closely related to the original artwork.

Perhaps most sinister of all, though, is the exchange between Peripitus and Stifle [3] [4] (also [5] [6] - duplicates). When it has become clear that the deletion purge was meeting resistance, and might not have consensus, Stifle's suggests rather than nominating them on IfD for all to see, instead to silently nominate them for CSD, using a template which will lead to their automatic deletion in 7 days if it is not spotted. And this is indeed what Periptus finds: I've tried your more passive suggestion - only 3 out of 30 contested so less feathers ruffled - and may try again in a few days. Stifle: Agreed.

Frankly, this is shameful. CSD is absolutely not supposed to be being used for controversial deletions; and Admins are supposed to be selected for their good judgment. Anyone who thinks that the right way to respond is to try to get as much as you can deleted in secret, because they fear there might not be consensus to get it done in public, is showing that they have lost all judgment.

Admins have to be trustworthy. Showing judgment that bad IMO deserves losing the admin bit; or at the very least a lengthy enforced holiday from image work. Jheald (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's template dumps images in subcategories of Category:Disputed non-free images. Note that the (0) after a category name is not the number of files in that cat, it is the number of subcategories. So a subcategory will typically still show (0) even if it is full of files.

Peripitus's additions start from 12 January; but the categories also contain many other images on death row, including album covers sent there by bots, often only because some minor tweak is needed in the use rationale. Jheald (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Only a single album cover is needed to identify the album itself, the others are needed only if they are explicly discussed in a meaningful way. Album covers are not exempt from the non-free content criteria. Take Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) (featured article written by me). There are at least four covers of that available (first edition, alternative first edition, rerelease, American rerelease, then probably some for the Asian releases, plus the demo, the single...) but only one is required to actually aid identification. For that, I use first edition cover. The other covers are not sigificant enough to warrant discussion in the article, and so they are certainly not significant enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Only one [cover] is required to actually aid identification." How do you work that out? If somebody is in the UK, the UK cover will directly aid their identification; but somebody in the U.S. will find their identification directly aided by the U.S. cover. Furthermore, if we are seeking to produce a comprehensive article on an album, we should show both covers that are significantly used for identification. The existence of an alternate, mass-distribution, very different cover is a significant fact about an album. Showing it absolutely fits the required criterion of "significantly adding to the reader's understanding". Jheald (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is, as you claim, such a significant fact, then there will be some meaningful discussion of it in the article's prose. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant fact, and an image, with a caption "alternate U.S. cover", conveys it with admirable succinctness. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In most cases I think it's a judgement call. If the alternate cover is significantly different from the original, such that the two could almost in no way be confused (excepting the titles), and both are widely distributed, or if one is the most common but the other is the subject of specific critical commentary (ie. Virgin Killer), then a good case can be made for keeping it based on fair use criteria. If the differences are relatively minor, such that one reasonably suffices for identification and the alternate is not the subject of commentary, it becomes harder to make the case. I've been on both sides; I recently lobbied (successfully) for the removal of 5 alternate covers from Walk Among Us because the only difference was color variation, and 5 was obviously excessive. I've also had a number of alternate covers that I uploaded tagged for deletion, and for the most part I did not contest because I recognized that the difference between the 2 covers was relatively minor (ie. …And the Women Who Love Them, Fear of a Punk Planet, or Circa: Now!). I would contest, however, examples such as Oi to the World! or High Voltage (1976 album). Just my 2 cents. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to assert that a single cover image is necessary for a complete article, but for any more than one, I think the covers are going to need to be significant in their own right. Consider- we would not include every cover a book has ever been printed under, as books are routinely published many, many times. The only reason we would include a cover other than the original is if it is significant in its own right- in that case, it would be discussed, and the image would be needed to fully understand said discussion. I do not see how alternative covers are necessary to fully understand the article when they are not discussed. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is only one significant alternate cover, and (per IllaZilla, who I completely agree with) it is widely distributed and significantly different from the original, then that in itself makes it significant in its own right, and something that a good article should include. Jheald (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone involved considered discussing their issues with my actions on images with me ? I can see no talk messages or emails at all, just a lot of accusations—people seem to have not been thinking about the process of dispute resolution. The first step is for those with concerns, with my or another's actions, to put the assumptions of bad-faith, accusations and calls for de-sysoping away and discuss and negotiate....you will find that I and most people here are open to criticism and very reasonable. I've been quite open in my discussions and ensured that all conversation on the matter is onwiki for all to see.- Peripitus (Talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think this is a judgement call. I think in the case of 2 Hearts, the covers aren't significant enough to have two. In the case of say Greatest Hits (ABBA album) - then most definitely they should have two - completely different, and both covers very well known. I think albums warrant more than one cover if nessessary, but singles just aren't important enough.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I note that User:Peripitus and User:Stifle have been closing each others FFD nominations and deleting each others CSD tagging, as admins this smacks of collusion given their recent talk exchanges. They should now not be trusted to do so anymore and only independent unbiased admins should now execute deletions nominated by these two. If they continue to do this or any proven improprieties come to light it should indeed result in de-sysoping. I am getting tired of their indiscriminate blanket tagging of WP:CSD on album cover, music videos stills and other non free images that are entirely consistent with Wikipeda without any reference to the articles. Administrators should be unbiased and beyond reproach, Im not seeing this at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.54.103 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, can we please leave discussion of the appropriateness of the actions out of this? If you have an issue with an admin's methodology, raise it with them, there's no need for all these accusations here. The appropriate matter for discussion here is the appropriateness of the alternative covers. For what it's worth, I'm not on either "side" here; I work heavily with both albums and non-free content. Back to the main discussion... Simply saying that something is significant does not make it so. The significance is going to need to be established by discussion in the article. Just as we do not use album covers in the articles about the artists unless the cover itself is discussed, neither do we need to include alternative album covers. If the first edition is not the most well known or most significant, then the more well known or more significant should be included. However, unless they are both significant to the point that they are worth discussing, the alternative should not be included. How can we justify a non-free image as "significant" if it is not even worth discussing in the article? J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree with that as long as the mention doesn't just become "it was released in two different picture sleeves". In the above examples I gave, the Abba one does make significant mention of the two versions, while in the case of the Kylie single, no proper mention could be made given the similarity of the two.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely; there's a difference between a passing mention and meaningful, sourced discussion. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In some cases it's hard to say that one cover is more popular than the other because it really depends on where you are, as the cover of an album in the US might be irrelevant to the same album in another country. Remember that wiki is worldwide, we cannot really pick and chose. I definitely agree that one cover works fine when the alternate is say just made a rectangle because one edition contained a DVD, but other than that is no different. Basically covers targeting different markets should probably be allowed. I also think that if an album was released with a different track listing and bonus material with a slightly different cover than that should be allowed as well because now we're getting into a case where one could argue it is a different album. And there is also the problem that how can the cover of the original release portray the re-release? There is also the argument that everyone hates to deal with which is that with album covers, there is no real threat or harm in having them, since they are promoting the company and there is no loss by the copyright owner. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like I say, I think the author doing the uploading should show common sense and be unbiased about it. Here is an example of 2 completely different covers (the UK and US covers), whereas again, in this example - there's no real reason. Plus, with singles, they can have different covers all over the world, which end up looking a mess with 4 or 5 single covers on a page. I would put albums over singles in importance and say one is enough for a single - everytime - and that should probably be the main cover in the territory where it has sold the most.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album covers - Section Break

Some thoughts on this debate

• There is a general consensus that for Albums, singles, movies and books, as you are discussing a copyrighted thing then a single copyrighted image of the thing does NOT require significant justification. It is deemed that an image of the thing being discussed is justified under WP:NFCC#8 as the entire article is about it and, without the image (especially for movies but also for the other two) the article is far less meaningful for the reader.
• Both the template {{Extra album cover 2}} and it's documentation clearly state, When using this template, please ensure you comply with the non-free content criteria. This includes not using multiple non-free images when one would suffice.
• There has been a lot of commentary, much in IfD discussions and some above, that assert - the simple existance of the alternate cover meets the NFCC requirements.
• The standards required in the WP:NFC policy do no differentiate between different types of media. They are firm rules and only the interpretation differs from image to image.

- Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we are redetermining consensus here, we are aware of how it used to be.

If a single image does not require significant justification, than why does an equally important cover get the boot? It should be allowed for the same reasons as the other. The note on the alternate cover is what we are addressing as many editors believe that the alternate covers do in fact pass the criteria as an original cover cannot represent a release or new edition in some cases. Also, the criteria could be made to differentiate between different types of media if we so wish to start a discussion to do so. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3a comes into play here. In other words if you have multiple copyrighted items you need a good reason to not only have each item but for why you cannot make do with one. What is different from what you say about albums compared to someone stating that the Guinness World Records article requires a copyrighted image of every edition (as the artwork is different - 54 editions I think here). Simply because something exists is not adequate justification for hosting an image of it. I have seem quite a few opposes to the Ifds I've put up where, essentially, the images are identical but with no justification for how this significantly increases a reader's understanding.- Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again you seem to be saying that the commentary needs to be about the actual image which is wrong. The commentary must only be referring to what is portrayed in the image, not about the image itself. Since the whole page is about the album and its various releases, it easily passes that guideline. Your two examples would warrant the cover to be in the text as if they were a normal non-free image of say a celebrity, but we're talking about the infobox for identification purposes. Now whether an image is beneficial to someone's understanding depends on the person. I know that for me, an image of the original cover will not do in representing the re-release. In reality, every related picture increases the reader's understanding, its not like images are there for decorative purposes. Try to keep the discussion related to albums and singles, as no one has complained about books yet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong there. To justify including an image (remember we are more lax in terms of including a single identifying image) there needs to be critique of the image itself. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you are wrong, that has never been done. What is commented on is what the image portrays. Maybe the picture shows someone wearing a dress the caused controversy or something like that that was widely publicized, but what you are suggesting for the album cover are things like it was taken by so and so and is known because of its artistic value. We don't do that for album covers, even those which are not challenged. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt it would be useful to confirm that J Milburn's statement represents his own personal view. It is not a statement of written policy, which sets the test that the image must "significantly improve understanding". Jheald (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like to see alternate covers, as long as they are significantly different. I realize this discussion has to do with compliance to the fair use requirements. It seems to me that there are some instances where alternate covers are allowed, and if that's true, then I can't see why there would be some cases where certain alternate, completely different covers would not be allowed, if it's just a question of ensuring the article is fixed up so as to justify their inclusion. Record collectors do care about alternate covers, and if you approach this issue from a collectors' perspective (assuming the record can be considered "collectable", and most are), virtually all alternate covers should be included. Even if a single was issued with 5 different covers in various countries. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A great example of a good use of a second image is the recently controversial Virgin Killer - there each of the two images are discussed at length and without them the text is far less meaningful. See also White_album#Sleeve. In contrast see All Killer No Filler where there is no mention of the cover and the alternate cover is identical at thumbnail size. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why including two popular covers of an album (say, both the US and UK versions) does not constitute identification. Can someone explain the concept of identification? -Freekee (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying it doesn't constitute identification. However, that's necessary but not sufficient. It is also not permitted to use multiple images where one would suffice, nor to use non-free images where they don't significantly add to readers' understanding of an article, or where their omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

On a side note, I'd appreciate if someone had told me that they were discussing my actions here. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, we're not showing the album cover just to say "the album had a cover". We're showing the album cover to show that "this was the cover", and it significantly adds to the reader understanding to show the identifying image associated with the album. When two widely released very different covers have been used for the album, each of them, as significant identifying images, significantly adds to the reader understanding, conveying an understanding that is not conveyed by the other image. One does not achieve this. Jheald (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue is not so much identification as it is minimal use and significance. We have traditionaly allowed a great deal to latitude when using a single logo or cover to identify the subject of an article. If additional logos or covers are to be included however they need to provide some significant additional information beyond what can be explained by text alone. A good example is articles about books. Over time a book is generaly released, and re-printed in numerous different formats, editions and translations (for example I know the US version alone of each Harry Potter book come in at least 4 different formats (paperback, hardcover, deluxe editions and so on) with different cover for each right out of the gate), but most of our book articles make do just fine with just a first edition cover for purposes of identification. --Sherool (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But your example exactly makes the point. In general, alternate covers of books are not so significant, exactly because there are usually so many of them. In contrast, images for album covers are not changed every couple of years. There is a much closer 1:1 link and association. The expectation is that there is a particular identifying image associated with an album, and that is what gives such images (including alternates when they happen) a significance beyond that of a random edition of a random book. Jheald (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be the expectation you and others have but the policy on image use is fairly clear.

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

If, on this page, editors decide that the image does not require critical commentary it does not change the fact that the policy says that it does. If you want to keep multiple images without such commentary then discussions on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to change the policy are required. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Peripitus, it doesn't help your position to repeat something which has already been rebutted above, without your in any way responding to the rebuttal. The words "of that item" were specifically added to WP:NFC to clarify that the images are acceptable where there is critical commentary on the albums they identify, rather than requiring critical commentary on the images. Look at the archives of WT:NFC, and this is quite explicit. Jheald (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Jheald. The commentary is always about what is depicted in the image, not the image itself. I also hope that this is your last time saying the same thing Peripitus, you have already argued this point, so if you have a new argument, let's hear it, if not, please stop telling us something we already shot down. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If they're really that significant, reliable sources will have discussed them, and so the images can be included alongside description. Even though we will often talk about albums in artist pages, we need only include the covers if they are discussed; the same is true of album pages. A single cover aids identification, but any non-free images must be justified with reference to the text. Why should album covers be treated any differently to other non-free images? J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, policy says that any non-free images must be justified with reference to the understanding they bring to the reader. Policy recognises that that the identifying images of albums - even without commentary - are an important part of the understanding about an album that an article can bring to the reader. Jheald (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I come across such articles, I always remove additional album/single covers except in the following situations, as more than one use would otherwise be decorative. This is no different from any other non-free image situation.

• Notable reason why cover was changed (i.e. the cover was replaced because of a censorship issue)
• Covers are notably different and cover design is discussed in the text with sources.

Black Kite 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now you know that your view is disputed and may not reflect policy, I trust you will desisting in future, until consensus has become clear. Jheald (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well for example, I've just removed one from 2 Become 1 - because they were almost pixel-identical! I'd like to see how that one could be justified. Black Kite 13:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixel-identical ones I don't think anyone is arguing for. The case being made is that widely released, very different covers do significantly contribute. Jheald (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you end up in a discussion about how different is "different"? Are the images in 2 Hearts different enough? Probably not, and they're just alternate UK covers, but if one had been a UK cover and one a US cover would that make a difference? What about a promo cover (Stop (Spice Girls song)? There needs to be a bright line, really. Black Kite 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thw two images in "2 Hearts" are definitely different, even though the style of artwork is similar. They are different pictures. "Stop" doesn't need the second image, but there is nothing copywritable being shown, so the "free use" argument has nothing to do with that instance. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They're different pictures? Yes, they are. Are they both needed to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article? No, they're not. Black Kite 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As strongly as you feel they are not, there are plenty of editors who feel that they do. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - as long as they can explain exactly how the second image achieves that, it's not a problem. Black Kite 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we now can't tell whether the 2 Hearts are different enough, or see whether Black Kite had a reasonable point, because somebody's now deleted it. That really isn't helpful while this discussion is underway trying to establish criteria and groundrules. Jheald (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest that all FfDs for album/single covers should be suspended while this discussion is taking place? I don't think that's very practical and it's of relative ease to re-upload should it prove necessary. The FfD was the correct place to argue keeping/deleting that specific image, not here. --JD554 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you removed the second image of "Stop" by The Spice Girls, but actually - how pointless is the third image (of the 12" promo)? I think numerous images make the page look cluttered and should only be used if absolutely necessary.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I left it because I commented about it above - I agree it needs to be removed, and I will do shortly. Black Kite 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So the first cover is used for identification purposes, and constitutes minimal use. The second cover is used for identification purposes, but any more images than one is not minimal use? So what if you have two covers for an album which sold tonnes in both the US and the UK? Apparently the only way you can use both is to have "critical commentary", and "this is the UK cover" wouldn't seem to qualify. So how do you choose which one to display in the article? This is stupid. Especially the minimal use part. How'd we arrive at a quantity of 1? Why does 2 break the rule? -Freekee (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine example of how the desire by the editors that frequent WP:NFC to remove free-use images is accomplished: by an absurdly restrictive interpretation of WP:NFC criteria #3 and #2. They are incorrect. Criteria #2 clearly states that, although images "that simply provide visual identification of the elements" are not preferred, they are not prohibited. That means for "critical commentary", "this is the UK cover" is sufficient. And two images is pretty minimal under #3. These editors also interpret criteria #8 in a similarly restrictive manner, that the image use significantly increase a reader's understanding of the subject. I find my understanding of these albums significantly increased by seeing the alternate covers, and I imagine many other readers do too. See my discussion below about understanding who you are up against and marshal the troops over to the Files for Deletion discussions if you want them to survive.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NFC is supposed to be very restrictive. As a policy it is designed to exclude all but a limited range of non-free content criteria and it should not be surprising that, as a consequence, much material that people want on the site is excluded. By your criteria I am hard pressed to imagine many non-free images that would be excluded .... hardly the intention of the foundation. Any interpretation of policy that has, as its end result, a blank cheque to add as many non-free images as editors want is not one that will gain any wide consensus - Peripitus (Talk)

It is perhaps worth remembering that the "intention of the foundation" with its resolution was not to reduce the then levels of fair use - we have that directly from Kat Walsh. Rather en-wiki (which at that time actually had rather more fair use than it does now, with use in discographies widespread and accepted) was seen as embodying "best practice", to be rolled out more widely. These images are legal, and they are legal for commercial verbatim reusers. On past form, that is well within the foundation's comfort zone. Jheald (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You said, "By your criteria I am hard pressed to imagine many non-free images that would be excluded..."; I can think of several (for simple identification purposes, at least): an album's back cover, the gatefold, the custom label art, the innersleeve, images from inside the CD booklet, the artwork as modified for alternate formats such as cassette and 8-track tape... some of these may be of interest, but are strongly discouraged because showing the same artwork in multiple images is improper for fair use. Your interpretation of "the intention of the foundation" is just that: an interpretation. As has been pointed out before, alternate art covers have not been disallowed, and it appears the foundation has not spoken of specific conditions as to when they are to be excluded. We are to use common sense, and excluding covers that have the same artwork in different layouts (especially when slightly different) is a reasonable interpretation. A wholesale exclusion of alternate covers is not. It is bringing in a broader interpretation than what the foundation has actually said. And by the way, I'm not desperately clinging to the idea of using alternate art. If it were clear that their exclusion is really what the foundation intended, I'd say fine, and move on. But it's clear from this discussion that there has been no such declaration, and we shouldn't have to deal with editors deleting the contributions of others over what is turning into a power struggle of inclusionist vs. exclusionist ideals. But let me ask, what is the correct way to resolve this? Maybe we should be asking the lawyers for a clarification, or even a decision? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is proposing a full-scale banning of alternative covers, and such a policy (along with any policy referring specifically to album covers) would clearly be instruction creep. Instead, the album covers should add to the article in a significant way- merely saying "here are some other covers that it was released under" does not. If the covers received attention (say, they were designed by someone famous, or they attracted controversy, or they were praised by critics, or whatever) then they are worth including. If not, they aren't. I speak here as both a writer of album articles and a supporter of our non-free content criteria, but not as someone who advocates stricter image policies or the removal of all non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding lawyers- no. This isn't a legal issue, it's an issue of the non-free content guidelines. The lawyers will come and tell us if we're doing anything wrong, we don't need to ask them. The non-free content guidelines are deliberately far, far stricter than U.S. fair use law. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the latest flurry of "keep" opinions on the images had a second look at the articles. Editors are posting, and many participating here strongly arguing we must have for reader's understanding, images that are often so close to identical to existing ones that there is no significant difference—and no difference that cannot be described with a short piece of text. How does having two (or more) almost identical images (same artwork just different background colour or some text) significantly add to reader's understanding that one image fails to do ? - Peripitus (Talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate album covers - third section

I'm not saying that we need a project guideline, but if we had one, what would it say? What self-imposed guidelines do you follow for the inclusion of alternate covers? If I were trying to decide whether to add another image to an article, I would only add one if the cover was a significant one, and if it was different than the primary image. I've seen lots of alt covers that had only minor variations to the original. I don't believe such an image significantly improves a reader's understanding of the subject. Showing a cover that's different than the main image can increase one's understanding. But where do you draw the line? I don't want to show every cover an album was released under, even if every one is different. I think the alternate cover needs some level of significance. The original cover, the one that it sold the most records with, one that was controversial, and so on. I also make sure that the text or caption describes the image, and at least hints at this significance, but that's just good article writing. -Freekee (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Understand what you are up against

To everyone on WP:ALBUMS: understand that you are up against what is basically a project at WP:NFC that is out to remove all non-free content if possible from Wikipedia. They do not want this discussion here, they would rather it be at their project:

I have always been and will always remain opposed to hosting such a discussion on the specific project's page. It is not a purview of a project to interpret/write policy or guideline. That's for a place such as this [project] to decide. ... By pushing such discussions into [other] projects, it inherently biases the discussion. I will not be at all surprised if the discussion ensuing on this subject on the [album] project page will result in the images being retained.--Hammersoft

And that feared retention is possible! What needs to happen on these images is:

1. If you use an alternate image cover, then any alternate covers need to be discussed independently in the text of the article.

2. Ensure that the fair-use rationales of those images are specifically tailored to be relevant to the particular image of the alternate image cover.

Remember, you are complying with precedent on the use of album covers by limiting the use of the images to only the particular album's article. There have been decisions removing them from band discographies, but their use on the one article of that album was also approved at that time. Now that same project is seeking to erode that decision even further. Do not waver, just ensure that you follow the guidelines I metioned above.

Do not let this cabal sell you on the idea that minimal use is being violated here. By limiting the use to one image of each cover, and limiting the use to only the one article, you are fulfilling the requirements of Criteria # 1 3.

They will respond to that by claiming that the use violates Criteria #8. This is a subjective determination about which your opinion counts as much as theirs, perhaps even more considering the editors here "know about albums and [therefore] have the knowledge and insights to usefully discuss that kind of value judgment."

Avoid at all costs the argument that any consensus here can override the criteria at WP:NFC. Your arguments must be within the framework that the use of the alternate album covers meet those criteria. Good luck!--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I'll be very blunt here - I and many other users/admins that are involved in non-free work do not have the goal to "remove all non-free content if possible from Wikipedia", and we have pointed out many times that there is a place for fair use on enwiki provided it complies very strictly with NFCC. So the above user's claims are a blatant lie, somewhat proven by the out-of-context quote that he produces which claims nothing of the sort. Sadly, this is the attitude that many editors have when it is pointed out to them that images on "their" articles may not be compliant with Foundation policy. However, those of us that work with images are used to violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and tend to ignore them unless they're particularly egregious. The continual "us against them" attitude fostered by such editors (see the "Good luck!" quote above) is unhelpful and often leads to such breakdowns in civility.

2) Secondly, what the above editor is talking about (the use of sports team logos in articles other than the main article about the team) has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, as that example was regarding the repeated use of a single non-free image over multiple articles. Here, we are only - in most cases - talking about a single use of each image. So his example is irrelevant.

3) Compounding that is the misunderstanding of NFCC - the user's quote "By limiting the use to one image of each cover, and limiting the use to only the one article, you are fulfilling the requirements of Criteria #1" shows that they have no understanding of the relevant policy - NFCC#1 is about replaceability, not minimal use.

4) It is unfortunately the case that the very nature of NFCC means that, sometimes, the caveats about whether images are in violation or not could be open to interpretation. That's fine - that's what discussion is for. But the bottom line is that the burden is upon those wishing to keep such images to prove that such images are in line with policy - not upon others to prove that they aren't. Black Kite 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I have never edited an album article that I can recall, so I fail to see how you infer any claim of ownership on my part from my comments. It seems that you fail to understand my comments. You may not have the stated goal of removing all, but other editors do have that goal. Just go look at Hammersoft's user page, and I have repeatedly been told that our mission to have a free encyclopedia implies a need to use only free images unless (insert extinction-level event) happens. And Black Kite, you wind up taking that position de facto by setting the bar impossibly high to meet the goals of WP:NFC.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3) Si, I meant Criteria #3. Sorry I don't know them as if written on the back of my hand as would a WP:NFC project member.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

4) And it was in that vein that I wish the editors here, again, "good luck!"--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2) Not one time did I mention, refer or allude to sports logos. I did however, mention, album covers many times over. You seem to have no understanding of my comments.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that its rude to stick your comments into other people's responses. That is not how we conduct a discussion here. It makes it harder to read for those not involved and confuses the rest of us. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 2008Olympian, please don't jam your reponses in between the paragraphs of Black Kite's response. He did not sign each individual portion of his comment, as you did, so it's inappropriate to break his comment up like that, and it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow the conversation. I've minorly reorganized your responses (again) to make it clear whose statements are whose and which points you're specifically responding to. If you want to split particular points up into separate discussions, please start another subheading. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that was impolite. Won't happen again.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to 2008Olympian: First, WP:NFC and WT:NFC is not a project. It is a guideline and policy and the associated discussion of it. Inserting "[project]" into what you quoted of me above is entirely inappropriate. Equating WP:ALBUMS to WP:NFC is equally inappropriate. Second, you claim my userpage makes a claim that it is my goal to remove all fair use content from the project. I invite you to prove that statement, as it is blatantly false. I have a stance against so much fair use being on the project. I do not have a stance against fair use period. Third, continuing to characterize those that disagree with you as a "cabal" and "out to remove all non-free content" is not only inaccurate it serves to directly undermine your position. Further, you are violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As BlackKite notes, those of us working to minimize non-free usage frequently run into this. This does not make it acceptable behavior. I invite you to cease using such methods to attempt to enhance your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft. I feel these comments are extremely disruptive, and serve only to poison the atmosphere of what was a rather civil debate. Turning this into a battle between two projects is completely unacceptable. To you, I'm just one of the fair use "cabal", but I've actually been a member of this project here for a long time. I've written two featured articles about albums, plus a few good articles and DYKs. My very first edit to Wikipedia was creating an article about an album. My aim here is not to get some kind of kick out of removing non-free content, my aim is to improve Wikipedia's articles on albums by bringing them in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my use of the term cabal. I do not, however, see many editors who frequent WP:NFC that fall on the liberal side of that policy despite the fact that there are many, as evidenced by the recent discussion of sports logos, who do. It may not be a dedicated project, but I do see some dedication.--2008Olympian^chitchat 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't many anarchists in the House of Lords either. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Album rating?

Who has the right to be rating albums in their respective talk pages? Like the one for the El Cantante soundtrack? El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment, any logged-in contributor who has not made substantial contributions to the article. (If you want to request an assessment, that's the place to do it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for altering naming conventions follow-up

Just to follow up on a discussion above. There seems to be consensus for a passage in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Naming to be changed/supplemented as follows:

If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world. For example, Født til å Herske, not Born to Rule, Swanesang, not Swan Song, but Chant, not Canto (because the album was marketed as "Chant" in most English-speaking countries).

If the album title does not use the Latin alphabet, the article name should be the transliterated form of the title using Latin characters. For example, Vrisko To Logo Na Zo, not Βρίσκω Το Λόγο Να Ζω or I Find the Reason to Live, and Kaihōku, not 解放区 or Liberated District, but Common Jasmin Orange, not Qi li xiang, 七里香, or Seven Mile Fragrance (because the English name "Common Jasmin Orange" appears on the album cover along with the Chinese name). The original language title should appear in parentheses (brackets) in the opening line of the article following the transliteration.

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

Please review the discussion above and comment there or here if desired. A note by User:Vanjagenije and a suggestion by User talk:Freekee from that discussion have been incorporated in the text shown here. If there are no major shifts in opinion, I will add the text as given. — AjaxSmack 04:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (still). I would say: Go for it! – IbLeo (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support with one minor fix- I think it would be best to clarify that the transliterated title should be first in the article, with the original title in brackets- the same as is done for biographical articles about Russians, Koreans, Chinese etc. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Check out the change in red above. — AjaxSmack 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looks good to me -Freekee (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (again). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment quality scale

I'm not a member, but the quality scale is pretty useless when it only refers to the date of the article that is supposed to be a guideline instead of linking to an article on that specific date. I linked the example GA in this manner as it is easy to find out the date that is used as a reference, I suggest the other example articles should be similarly adjusted, because articles can change a lot in one and a half plus years. Hekerui (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And though the other articles on the list still match their assessment, it's only a matter of time before they're improved. -Freekee (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard infoboxes

Can I ask why non-standard infoboxes (as in, articles in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes) are considered a negative? I personally don't see anything wrong with categorising some albums as, say, split albums or holiday albums rather than one of the (rather arbitrary) categories offered by the infobox? J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion: The categories could stand to be expanded by format, specifically allowing for "split" or "live/studio" for example. But I don't think the categories should be expanded by subject matter, such as "Holiday" or "Rock" or "Covers". The fundamental form of the album doesn't change regardless of what the songs are about; it's still a studio album or a live album. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the type of the album has nothing to do with the genre. Was the "cover album" or "holiday album" recorded in the studio? If so then that is what it is, a studio album. The type should not be overly specific. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that as well, but that view does not reflect what the infobox does currently allow- the infobox allows for "cover albums", but not for "holiday albums". Why is a cover album (or a tribute album) not simply considered a studio album? That's why I described the categories as arbitrary. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that cover album is a bad choice for an album type. Not sure about tribute album, as that seems like it belongs in the same realm as "soundtrack," which speaks more to format than type. But I agree it's hazy. That doesn't argue for expanding the haziness, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A cover album is a band doing a bunch of other people's songs, while a tribute album is (often) a bunch of bands doing the songs of one band. -Freekee (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if not expanded, perhaps the options should be limited? It's all or nothing I think. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised at your suggestion that the categories are arbitrarily chosen. We've been discussing these for years. I'm also surprised that in over three years on this project, I've never heard anyone say that tributes and covers should not be their own types. I must say that this is a reasonable suggestion. -Freekee (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The choices may have been discussed over a long time, but I can't really see any sense to why some album "types" are included but others are not. Cover and tribute album seem, to me, to be just studio albums. If they're included, why not include holiday album, or concept album? J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to sell me on removing covers and tributes (as I mentioned). No way will we add those others. And I wasn't saying the types chosen were perfect, just that it's a very longstanding list. -Freekee (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've raised the matter on the infobox talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've put Evergreen (album) up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evergreen (album)/archive1 prior to taking it to WP:GAN. Any constructive criticism would be gratefully received. --JD554 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Years of Refusal

There is a discussion on the talk page which is having difficulty in creating a consensus on whether or not to include a particular review in the infobox. If there are any interested editors who wish to make their thoughts known (on either side of the argument) please do so. --JD554 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tribute and cover albums

Per this discussion (which stemmed from one further up this page) I have changed all the keywords on the infobox for tribute and cover albums to instead show the albums as studio albums. I'm fairly sure that my coding was sound, but I'm hardly a technological genius. From now on, the types should not be used, and any articles where there are possible errors (there are probably some live tribute albums out there that should instead be changed to "live album") need to be fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Album article names: "Title (Artist album)" or "Artist: Title"?

"Usual album title" (Artist album) → Artist: "Usual album title" — We usually call it "Queen: Greatest Hits", not "Greatest Hits (Queen album)". We call it "ABBA: The Album", not "The Album (ABBA album)". That's all. Usual titles including: The Definitive Collection, The Complete Studio Recordings, Number 1s, Greatest Hits, Greatest, Hits, Greatest Hits Live, Gold, Live at the BBC, Live and The Album JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If disambiguation is needed the format used on Wikipedia is to give the album title and then, in brackets, the artist's name plus the word album. See WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation and WP:ALBUMS#Naming. --JD554 (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just albums that follow this form on Wikipedia, it's anything that needs disambiguating. For example, Name (movie) and Name (book), and so on. It just makes it a uniform method of disambiguation throughout the whole of the encyclopedia. – B.hotep •talk• 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's important IMO. Also note that the proposed form Artist: Album name is confusingly similar to the Namespace:Article name format of wikilinks. This is just asking for trouble. Andrewa (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We do? I wasn't aware of that. I usually refer to them as "Queen's Greatest Hits" or the like. But not as article titles, because that's supposed to match the title of the album. Naming it what you and your friends commonly call it isn't the best idea. But if you think people will really type those words into the search box when they're looking for the articles, you're more than welcome to set up some redirects. -Freekee (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you are associating the name of the group or singer which is on the cover as part of the name. Its like trying to call it Britney Spears: Circus instead of Circus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

God the Single by Rebecca St. James

Can somebody (or a few somebodies) look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:God_-_The_Single and help out. Is this an album or a single? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a maxi-single/EP. MegX (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say EP, I think of maxi-singles as being one main song with several remixes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really; "maxi-single" is a term that came into use in the late 1970s for vinyl 12-inch singles with more than 2 tracks, at a time when alternate dance mixes were uncommon. At that time, "maxi-single" was an alternate name for "EP", and the preferred term in central Europe. But "EP" had already been established in the 1950s and 1960s as a format for 7-inch discs with more than 2 songs, and the reuse of this term for other formats in the 1970s and onward has not been universally accepted. This really doesn't have much to do with the question; just clarifying the history of these terms. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tracklist

I just discovered a maintenance tag placed in the track listing sections of albums that state the section needs to use Template:Tracklist. Was there a consensus somewhere stating that all track listings must follow this format, or is it a suggestion? DiverseMentality 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such consensus, and I know we have recognised content that doesn't use it. I'm surprised such a tag has been created. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that it's up to the editor, but that in general it's better not to use the "tracklist" template, except for more complicated track listings. If that's the case the "cleanup-tracklist" template should not be placed in any articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the template for deletion. Interested parties can comment here. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name for a unique album

The Bouncing Souls are releasing an album this year, in the form of 12 digital singles, being released once a month. The problem is, although they've referred to it as an album, they haven't mentioned an album name for it. Any suggestions on an article name for the album? I was thinking something along the lines of 'The Bouncing Souls 2009 album', but wanted to get someone else's opinion first. -Joltman (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

When unreleased, we generally seem to go for Band's #th studio album or something akin. Has it received any coverage in reliable sources? What do they refer to it as? J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of review sites

In the Review sites list, an editor wants to put Allmusic and Billboard together, with a note, "(reviews derived from Allmusic)". This seems unlikely when referring to every Billboard review, although I notice another entry has this note: "(5-star scale, plus mirror reviews from Allmusic. If the review is a mirror, use the original instead.)" If Billboard is doing the same thing, they should probably have the same note, and there is no need to move entries around. Does anyone agree? I reverted the change for now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the notice to use the original over the mirror should be enough. Incidentally, I'm not sure I've seen an original Billboard review, should we even list it? (Obviously someone will come up with a link to one now) --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They exist in print form with the Billboard magazines I have (1969-1982). Haven't seen many online without a subscription though. MegX (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That would account for it. --JD554 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RMR

Is the "RMR" label of any note? I ask because an article on one Mark Eshbaugh has reappeared, and there's something odd about the whole thing. Though the article claims he's put out a number of books via "RMR Press", Copac lists none of them and indeed not a single book by anyone from RMR. He also lists a lot of records from RMR. I start to wonder whether this might be some vanity publisher. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Whois reveals that the registrant of both rmr-music.com and rmr-press.com is Eshbaugh; I infer that the material is self-published. -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate covers...again

I recently discovered a fresh batch of alternate album covers nominated for deletion here. I was under the impression that we have not decided whether to keep all or not, but that sufficiently different covers would be allowed. These covers are very different from the original. What surprises me the most is that they are nominated with the same rationale that we had decided they passed earlier, and by a user that was involved in the discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus formed that these alternate images pass the NFCC requirements, just an argument that petered out. The place to gain this consensus is on the WT:NFC page - Peripitus (Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS discourages messages like this. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not canvassing. You however are being sneaky and going against consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? Stifle (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion is clear and was that images that are sufficiently different are allowed. So please don't add the same responses to those images that we all proved wrong and explained before. The only thing in dispute as of now is images that are slightly different, but overall are very similar. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is that consensus ? Across two pages (here at WT:NFC), we largely had youself, 2008Olympian and Jheald arguing that the existance of these images met the requirements and J Milburn, myself, Stifle, Hammersoft, IllaZilla taking a variety of other positions. The discussion died after a couple of weeks - I think when the participants realised that the other side's argument was entrenched. That is not consensus just people stepping away from the dead horse - Peripitus (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I thought you accepted defeat. You kept saying the same thing over and over again so I stopped replying to it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment. The "same thing" was said over and over again because no satisfactory answer was given, only vague assertions about reader understanding backed up by nothing. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only say so many times that one album cover simply cannot convey the subject when there are more than one that one would recognize. We seemed to agree that similar covers should not be included, but ones that are completely different should be saved. Every cover that was different was not deleted if you look at that deletion page while all that were the same were. Its ludicrous to think that just because I don't want to sit and write keep for all different covers for the rest of my life that they should be deleted. Nothing has changed and the closing admin agreed that the different covers should not be deleted so stop trying to sneak them out! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying it over and over again does not make it true. (Also, I don't care about IfDs and whatnot, I'm talking about the issue in principle.) What on Earth are you basing that assertion on? As was said, we don't feel the need to show all alternative book covers, and where do we draw the line? There are going to be a lot of international versions, plus repressings, special editions, remasterings... J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just focus on covers that affect me then. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the actual mid-stream of opinion here was that, being significant identifying images, alternate album covers were considered to "significantly enhance reader understanding" about the topic, if the releases were significant and if the covers were substantially different.

That seems to me to be the traditional evaluation in this area; also the basis the IfDs were closed on; also the position of IllaZilla, Freekee, and Knight Who Says Ni; and also the practice of Peripitus in nominations he has subsequently made since those IfDs were closed. Jheald (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The deletion debate (Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_10#My_Mum_Is_Wrong.JPG) is currently running at 2 deletes and 2 keeps, so now would be a time for anyone with a view on this particular instance to have their say there. Jheald (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Very poor form Jheald, that really is a bit of blatant canvassing. As for the other comment - your calling of a stalled debate as falling on your side is unsupportable, it simply stalled through what I see as intransigence - Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Improper canvassing? Not really. I'm calling for all people, with all views, to come forward at that IfD before it closes, because it would be better if more than just 4 voices were heard. Jheald (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Although this discussion has not closed, neither has it "petered out". And even if it had, "petering out" without reaching a decision is the same as no decision for change. I have been watching this discussion and have not added more comment, because there is nothing new to comment on, and my previous statement in favour of alternate covers stands. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that the "include album covers" side is not willing to make any concessions or compromises on the discussion — most of you seem to have the opinion that all versions of all covers of all albums and singles are automatically valid for inclusion, and you're entitled to that opinion. However, the "remove some album covers" side has already made several concessions. Most notably, we do not rely on the provision of WP:F which states that a file can be deleted after 48 hours once the uploader has been notified that it may not meet the fair use policy — no tagging, no discussion. Instead, we either tag the image and the page where it's used, and notify the uploader, and wait a week for objections, or alternatively send the image to FFD. This has to be a two-way process; you can't expect us to concede ground when you refuse to do so yourself.

Incidentally, Jheald, your message was canvassing, but because of the location, not the content. It's unlikely that people who don't support the inclusion of album covers will show up here. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When I looked at the current example we were asked to comment on, the opposite seemed to be true: here is an example where the cover clearly should be retained, and arguments against it seem to be applicable to any alternate cover. It is very clear the pro-delete respondants at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_10#My_Mum_Is_Wrong.JPG) want to remove all alternate covers. When this issue was originally brought to this board, it was out of concern about this plan, and it was immediately denied. But here is evidence of it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I was under the impression that we reached an unofficial consensus that album covers that are sufficiently different should be retained. We have made a compromise in that very similar covers should not be included. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, why? J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why what? Why should very similar covers not be shown? Because they're so similar that the alternate cover can be identified by the standard one. -Freekee (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should different covers automatically be accepted as valid? I'm sure we could find plenty of albums that have been released with many covers- it can hardly be good practice to show them all, even though they are all "suitably" different. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument just goes around and around. As a record collector, I consider significantly different cover art worth illustrating. Contrary to what you say, I doubt there are many albums with more than one cover, and the existence of a widely distributed alternate cover is generally notable, as is a special "limited edition" alternate cover. I'm really surprised there is not agreement on this. I guess you're not a record collector. Most people who edit album articles, are. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's all well and good, but this is not a cover art illustration site, nor a record collector collaboration, it is a free encyclopedia. That means that use of non-free images must be as limited as possible. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If non-free images were to be as limited as possible, we wouldn't have any. In fact, we don't need images at all, do we? The whole site could be all text. You are trying to second-guess the WP Foundation's intentions. As I've said before, I don't think there is any clear intention for alternate covers to be disallowed, this is just an overzealous interpretation. We have had alternate art fields in album and single templates for years, and they have been widely used. The Foundation has never come down with a decision that says, "you can't do that". What we have here is a group of editors trying to speak for them. There seems to be a fluctuation between reasons for deleting these images, "we have concensus" (not true) and "we MUST do this because of the rules" (not true). But it really comes down to whether information about record editions is considered encyclopedic, or beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. I really believe most editors and viewers of album articles hold the former viewpoint. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, if the alternative cover art is as significant as you claim, then you will have no problem including sourced commentary on it. If reliable sources have never even mentioned it, then the argument that it is somehow significant is pretty much dead in the water. Yes, maybe you're a record collector, and so yes, maybe that means that cover art is significant to you. However, by that same token, I'm a roleplayer, and so I would consider in-game statistics a useful addition to articles about monsters and characters- however, that is not encyclopedic information. Perhaps if third party reliable sources had discussed the ingame statistics (for instance, perhaps a mention that the creatures are particularly tough, or they are particularly powerful against a certain player character class would be appropriate). By the same token, if the album covers are worthy of discussion in reliable sources (VK, anyone?) then they are significant, and should be included in the article, along with said commentary. Another valid point- no one is proposing that all non-free images should be removed- we are merely appealing to common sense and policy to try to demonstrate that the automatic inclusion of alternative covers is extremely problematic. Further, the fact that no one has complained so far is not really the point- just because something has happened for a long time doesn't mean it is OK. Also, personally, I am not appealing to Foundation mandate- I don't think that's particulary useful, as the Foundation, for the most part, leaves us to decide how we interpret what they say anywya. I am instead appealing to local policy. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then follow local policy. What local policy requires is that an image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, not that it has been discussed in an external source.

Furthermore, we explicitly make clear in the guidelines in WP:NFC that the identifying images of albums are considered part of the understanding that an article should convey.

Frankly it makes no sense to argue that a European cover "significantly increases readers' understanding", without any commentary simply through its very existence, and then to pretend that the U.S. cover does not do so by exactly the same reason. Jheald (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood the argument was more based on criteria 1 and 3a, i.e. that the image, if similar, is replaceable by text like "the album was also released in Europe, where the cover was pink instead of orange", and that multiple non-free images are being used when one would be sufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So do you withdraw your nomination from Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_10#My_Mum_Is_Wrong.JPG then, where the cover is quite different to the original version, in a way that cannot be conveyed by saying "was pink instead of orange" ? Jheald (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My primary argument is that we should use a non-free image only if the appearance of whatever it shows is integral to the subject matter. If the appearance has never been discussed by reliable sources, how on Earth can we argue that it's all that significant? J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Most album covers (even when there is only one album cover) aren't discussed by reliable sources, other than maybe noting that they exist. But we recognise that they are significant in terms of the album, simply because of being its identifing image - to the extent that this consensus is explicitly noted in the guidelines. Jheald (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that a single identifying image of the first edition cover is useful in articles about albums, but there's no way that that should extend to multiple covers. For instance, we allow a single non-free image of dead people- that doesn't mean we have free reign to add any and all images of that person we can find. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the issue of two camps here with what I see as complete intransigence on one side. One side is asserting that any and all releases—regardless of the number, commentary on them, reliable sources talking about them or (in some cases) the closeness of the images visual appears—meet the NFC requirements by simple result of their existance and that album/single covers are somehow special and should not be judged by the same standards as books, TV shows, Video games or other subjects. This sort of carte blanche to have as many images as you want is what the NFC rules were designed, and are enforced, to prevent. Per J Milburn, it is often allowed to have a single free image as it is seen that identifying the subject. Multiple images, regardless of the subject, require justification and "simply because of being its identifying image" does not show how it significantly increases reader's understanding or meet any of the other NFC objections raised. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me one case where a large number of alternate images for one album exists, and is part of this debate? There was a statement earlier that there must be many albums with dozens of alternate covers, which I found doubtful. In every case that I've seen, these mass deletions are taking place in articles with 1 alternate image. It seems you are suggesting this deletion proposal based on anticipation of a potential big problem that doesn't exist. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen an article with dozens - In a random trawl most that have an alternate cover have two, some three, two have four and out of 30 I just looked at the worst was seven. You are correct that most of the deletion debates were for articles with one alternate image. I am not proposing anything new - this is an issue that has been discussed a lot at WT:NFC (use the search box and look for albums) and the general consensus is that the alternate cover needs a good reason to stay - simple existence of the release is seen by few as meeting the NFCC terms - Peripitus (Talk) 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Peripitus, I'm not sure why you see one side as being completely intransigent. One side wants no more than one non-free image, unless it is very significant and has text in the article about it. I may have missed it, but I don't see anyone suggesting any and all covers should be included. I myself have said that no alt covers should be included unless they are very different, and have some significance, and that significance should be explained. -Freekee (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was characterizing your opinion that way. If the significance of the cover(s) was explained in the article(s) this debate would not be happening. At least some of the participants in this debate have fairly consistently opposed (here, on deletion debates and on WT:NFC and its various archives) the removal or deletion of any alternate covers regardless of the existence of any commentary. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking your comment personally. It's just that I don't see either side as being immovable on this issue. Though I must say it's my opinion that the "anti" non-free side is more so than the "pro" side. But maybethat's just my bias. -Freekee (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a break...

...Boogie Nights (song): Had to create the page just to show the sleeve - good for a laugh anyway--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job, even if you did it for your stated odd reason. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

sales figures

Is there an album sales databasing site akin to Box Office Mojo to source as to how well an album sold? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Punknews.org reviews

What do you think of adding punknews.org to the list of reviews sites? They have both staff-written reviews and user-written reviews. Obviously we would only allow the ones by staffers, as the others aren't "professional". This is the same standard currently described for reviews from sputnikmusic.org. On punknews.org the ones by staffers are maked with a yellow "staff" tag underneath the score & username (I believe they're working on some sort of search filter to make this distinction clearer). For example, this one is by a site staffer, while this one is not. Thus the former would be allowed while the latter would not. I ask because I just noticed another editor adding links to punknews reviews in a number of infoboxes, and I had to jump in and point out to him which ones were "professional" and which weren't. I've used staff reviews from them as sources before (such as in Disconnected (song)), and I've used their news posts as sources as well. They're considered reliable in that regard because they have a volunteer staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They have a selection process for choosing their staff. The news items are user-submitted, but they ask you to give a source and then they hold it in a queue while they confirm it with the band/label. They also have a selection process for choosing their staff reviewers, and they are even selective when it comes to the user-submitted ones. They have a pretty solid reputation in the music community as well: one of their staffers, Scott Heisel, went on to become the current Music Editor at Alternative Press. In short, I think the site meets all the criteria for professional reviews, so long as we only use the staff ones and exclude the user-submitted ones. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week, so if there are no objections I'll add them to the list later today. Comments? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I waited several more weeks & no objections, so I'm adding it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, no! (Just kidding) -Freekee (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)