This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Recorded: 1982 → missing source, also mention it in te body of the article and add the source there
I've removed it for now; I don't currently have access to the book used for most of the sourcing in order to verify which page it would be on. I can add it in when this lockdown is over.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
So to use a backover is not usual, quite on the oposite side. I have seen deluxe editions uploaded, but that's on album. According to the wiki
template for songs, "Add an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song." On the other hand, the wiki
guidelines for albums say "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at cover." If any of us take a look at other GA's or FA's articles from songs there are no backcovers uploaded. So unless you can justify the use of these one, it has to go...
I would have stuck with just one cover ordinarily, but these are public domain images, so guidelines on appropriate application of fair use don't really apply--if the image was copyrighted then absolutely it would need a strong justification but this is free.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not even going down that root, but "For photographs taken before June 1, 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the creation of the image. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain. For photographs taken after that date and published before August 1, 1989, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the first publication." → it is a photograph, not sure how you are calling it public domain? It has only been 37 years.
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
23:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I uploaded both the front and back covers, both appearing greyscale by manufacturing(?), of the US single release at Commons because I figure that the front cover is not original enough for US copyright protection per
c:COM:TOO US. Some kind of cross(ing) isn't original enough, and all text around the back cover is too factual, including the song titles and the copyright notice. The font is too common for copyright, and the background is too plain. Furthermore, the record label, also the copyright claimant of the product, was located in San Francisco, according to one of the photos at discogs. Crown copyright (intended for the UK and the active
Commonwealth states) doesn't apply to works first published in the US when it comes to uploading those works at Commons. If my analysis isn't enough,
copyright basics or
Ch. 1 of Title 17 of US Code from copyright.gov would help more. --
George Ho (
talk)
10:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
favourably reviewed → should be mentined on the recepetion as well
Add producer as well.
Should be mentioned thet Worthington left the band and was replaced by Roddy Bottum
Add "The artwork features amongst other things an edited picture of Adolf Hitler wearing a tutu on the A-side of the disc". → it is interesting an grabs the reader attetion.
The All Music review was retrospective, correct? Should mention it, it gets confusing with the release of Faith No More debut album as the first is a "contemporary review".
The others are also in retrospective, correct?
Addressed most of these; have left
zine intact but added a link to the article as it's an established term but perhaps not an everyday one.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you mean just to source the single to itself? That's generally considered unnecessary, it's taken as granted that an article subject is its own primary source (like a film used for its own plot or an album/single for its own track list).
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ08:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Recorded: 1982 → missing source, also mention it in te body of the article and add the source there
I've removed it for now; I don't currently have access to the book used for most of the sourcing in order to verify which page it would be on. I can add it in when this lockdown is over.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
So to use a backover is not usual, quite on the oposite side. I have seen deluxe editions uploaded, but that's on album. According to the wiki
template for songs, "Add an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song." On the other hand, the wiki
guidelines for albums say "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at cover." If any of us take a look at other GA's or FA's articles from songs there are no backcovers uploaded. So unless you can justify the use of these one, it has to go...
I would have stuck with just one cover ordinarily, but these are public domain images, so guidelines on appropriate application of fair use don't really apply--if the image was copyrighted then absolutely it would need a strong justification but this is free.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not even going down that root, but "For photographs taken before June 1, 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the creation of the image. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain. For photographs taken after that date and published before August 1, 1989, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the first publication." → it is a photograph, not sure how you are calling it public domain? It has only been 37 years.
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
23:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I uploaded both the front and back covers, both appearing greyscale by manufacturing(?), of the US single release at Commons because I figure that the front cover is not original enough for US copyright protection per
c:COM:TOO US. Some kind of cross(ing) isn't original enough, and all text around the back cover is too factual, including the song titles and the copyright notice. The font is too common for copyright, and the background is too plain. Furthermore, the record label, also the copyright claimant of the product, was located in San Francisco, according to one of the photos at discogs. Crown copyright (intended for the UK and the active
Commonwealth states) doesn't apply to works first published in the US when it comes to uploading those works at Commons. If my analysis isn't enough,
copyright basics or
Ch. 1 of Title 17 of US Code from copyright.gov would help more. --
George Ho (
talk)
10:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
favourably reviewed → should be mentined on the recepetion as well
Add producer as well.
Should be mentioned thet Worthington left the band and was replaced by Roddy Bottum
Add "The artwork features amongst other things an edited picture of Adolf Hitler wearing a tutu on the A-side of the disc". → it is interesting an grabs the reader attetion.
The All Music review was retrospective, correct? Should mention it, it gets confusing with the release of Faith No More debut album as the first is a "contemporary review".
The others are also in retrospective, correct?
Addressed most of these; have left
zine intact but added a link to the article as it's an established term but perhaps not an everyday one.
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ21:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you mean just to source the single to itself? That's generally considered unnecessary, it's taken as granted that an article subject is its own primary source (like a film used for its own plot or an album/single for its own track list).
Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇˣ08:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply