![]() |
Template:Non-free use rationale album cover is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-free use rationale album cover template. |
|
Man, this thing is farkin brilliant. I've been reading through this whole image free/non-free imbroglio the last few days with a growing sense of distaste and despair. This will help a lot, thanks for the good work. Tarc 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc above!! + now I see why people get documents written by real lawyers. :-)
It might be good to add an explicit "Use = Infobox", possibly with a tweaked rationale specifically tuned for that case, as that is going to be one of the most common types of use, and doesn't quite match any of the existing options. Jheald 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Because of an ongoing debate over the use of this template, this template is very unstable. Until it stabilizes, I would suggest that editors who wish put fair-use rationales on album-cover image files continue on with their own hand-crafted fair-use rationales, using the language from this template as a basis. — Wise Kwai 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've been adding this template for the past few days and now the images I was hoping to save from deletion are going to be deleted anyway? Please revert it to the last stable revision. Jogers ( talk) 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely bogus, I just spent several minutes clearing out browser caches and such trying to figure out why this kept coming up even though I couldn't see "di-no fair use rationale" temple on the page itself, and came here to see what the hell was going on. So, yea great move guys; you just marked hundreds of acceptable and valid fair use images used in album infoboxes to be deleted 7 days from now. Tarc 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not really what "editprotected" is intended for. Anyway, I've unprotected. [1] I hope you manage to work this out. Haukur 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Images with no sources are being marked as "No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source." No, we don't need to wait, any image that doesn't have a source can be speedy deleted within 48 hours, and thus I will tag any image as such if I see anymore nonsense like this. — Moe ε 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The ERROR message display is intentional and does NOT show up on pages when the template is properly used. The purpose of the message is to warn users if they did not use the Article
parameter in the template's code. If the parameter is used, then the ERROR message will not display. Click "what links here" on the template's page to see the template being used, and you'll see what I mean. In the future, please comply with the guidelines at
Help:Reverting do not revert such edits before posting comments on the talk page. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal that would create a templated use rationale for album covers. That proposal would, presumably, make this template obsolete by authorizing a replacement. Comments about that proposal would be very welcome; please put them on the talk page of the proposal, not here. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does an extra heading need to be added when using this template? See this diff for example. Is it necessary to add ==Fair use rationale for [album]== when it's already in the template? Thanks. Spellcast ( talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of a slightly reworded template for singles? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Although i didn't insert it (but moved it to correct place as listed on Template:Album cover fur, i can't seem to find the error thats causing it to misbehave on the page, i'm think its to do with the article having !! in its name. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can the template be enhanced to display the name of the album cover artist? According to the template page, that's already a parameter -- "Graphic Artist". (Can parameter names have an embedded blank?) — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The comma that occurs after the word "label" in the description field is not needed and incorrect in standard written English as it stands currently. It is not a serial list of label, label name, and graphic artist. Label is a descriptor of the label name that occurs directly after the word "label." Please fix this. Peace. — MuzikJunky ( talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}When the "Commentary" variable is used, there is no spacing between it and the next sentence starting "Use for this purpose does not compete..." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
A piece of text that shows up for album covers categorized as "Section"—e.g.
Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack.jpg—should be changed to "Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work." --
an
odd
name
20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The "portion used" section should be adjusted for use = Artist
, right now it does not make sense when used for an artist article, as it's not the product (album) or branding being identified but the artwork itself.
Also, right now when Graphic Artist =
is specified (different from above), the template gives this language: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, ___________, or the graphic artist, ___________." I think the record label is a safe bet in the vast majority of cases, isn't it? —Gendralman (
Talk)
03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
There are whitespaces missing around the "purpose" parameter, in two places. I noticed this during my edits to File:Angel Dust meat photo.jpg, as recorded in the history. Please change
|#default= {{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}||<font color="red">'''Purpose must be stated here. '''</font>}} }}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}|{{{Purpose}}}. }}<!--
to
|#default= {{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}||<font color="red">''' Purpose must be stated here. '''</font>}} }}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}| {{{Purpose}}}. }}<!--
(Copy from edit screen, otherwise you will miss the special characters!) Debresser ( talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I already did the same for the non-editportected Template:Film cover fur. Debresser ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please add the line {{#if:{{{other_information|}}}{{{other_info|}}}{{{other_inf|}}}|[[Category:Other information]]}}
to an appropriate place in the template. For the purpose of this detection, see
Category:Other information.
Note: A similar edit has been made to another 7 unprotected templates, and 2 more edit requests can be found at Template:Logo fur and Template:Non-free use rationale. Debresser ( talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{other_information|}}}|[[Category:Other information2]]}}
{{#if:{{{other_info|}}}|[[Category:Other info]]}}
{{#if:{{{other_inf|}}}|[[Category:Other inf]]}}
, which is more or less the same as with the pipes, just dividing into subcategories for the different variations. It resorted the templates nicely, but the problem is that it doesn't catch the templates with empty parameters.
Debresser (
talk)
21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)After discussion at
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Other_information the easier solution was preferred. I also asked advise at
User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Advise. Please revert the last edit by
Rich_Farmbrough and then change -->{{#if:{{{other_information|}}}|{{{other_information}}}|Use etc.
to -->{{#if:{{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}}|{{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}}|Use etc.
and -->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|}}}|{{{Low_resolution}}}|The etc.
to -->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}|The etc.
. I'll update the documentation later (is after all not essential).
Debresser (
talk)
00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The current description for Type is:
This is confusing because a CD is also an album, just like an LP is also an album. And what should we allow for "Etc."? Based on earlier discussions "single" is also a valid choice for Type. I suggest that the Type is typically "album" or "single", and can optionally be "CD" or "LP" for albums where the CD and LP covers differ. It would also be helpful to show the examples for Type as lowercase since it appears mid-sentence, and is not a proper noun. I suggest the description be changed to:
Curious Eric 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
At " Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)" I am unable to override the purpose fields in the FURS at File:Ray Charles Norah Jones Here We Go Again.jpg and File:NSinatra Herewegoagain.jpg. Please advise.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Use=Other
for this field to work, I think the documentation is pretty clear about this. Note, however, that in this case this isn't required as the image is used in the main infobox for the relevant section. --
Muhandes (
talk)
08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have noticed that many rationales credit more than one graphic artist, so I would like to change "the graphic artist" to "the graphic artist(s)". – Dream out loud ( talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is an "Additional Info" field. There currently is no way to override the description, which means that special wording requires substing the entire template, despite the documentation claiming otherwise. Please fix these issues. — trlkly 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could an admin change the line:
|{{{Label}}}
to
|{{{Label}}}.
I've just added a period. The period currently shows up when the {{{label}}}
is unspecified, but not when it's specified.
TDL (
talk)
22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|Owner=
was filled in; so I've
moved the existing period so that it is added in all three cases: |Owner=
filled in; |Owner=
blank but |Label=
filled in; and both blank. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can someone look over the version in the sandbox which uses {{ Non-free use rationale 2}} and comment? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To avoid an extra space before the period when the artist is not specified (e.g. for a soundtrack album), please change this:
}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}} |by the artist {{{Artist}}}
To this:
}}{{#if:{{{Artist|}}} | by the artist {{{Artist}}}
nyuszika7h ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently the last link text reads "us copyright law" and yet the link takes you to fair use. Since the phrase fair use is mentioned just a few words earlier, wouldn't it be better to link that instead? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:FF2B ( talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:Album cover tag and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#Wikipedia:Album cover tag until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice,thing! 2A00:A041:3240:4300:AC8E:2E21:2A86:80E5 ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace Example with [[WP:Example|Example]] Mach61 ( talk) 01:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:Non-free use rationale album cover is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Non-free use rationale album cover template. |
|
Man, this thing is farkin brilliant. I've been reading through this whole image free/non-free imbroglio the last few days with a growing sense of distaste and despair. This will help a lot, thanks for the good work. Tarc 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc above!! + now I see why people get documents written by real lawyers. :-)
It might be good to add an explicit "Use = Infobox", possibly with a tweaked rationale specifically tuned for that case, as that is going to be one of the most common types of use, and doesn't quite match any of the existing options. Jheald 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Because of an ongoing debate over the use of this template, this template is very unstable. Until it stabilizes, I would suggest that editors who wish put fair-use rationales on album-cover image files continue on with their own hand-crafted fair-use rationales, using the language from this template as a basis. — Wise Kwai 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've been adding this template for the past few days and now the images I was hoping to save from deletion are going to be deleted anyway? Please revert it to the last stable revision. Jogers ( talk) 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely bogus, I just spent several minutes clearing out browser caches and such trying to figure out why this kept coming up even though I couldn't see "di-no fair use rationale" temple on the page itself, and came here to see what the hell was going on. So, yea great move guys; you just marked hundreds of acceptable and valid fair use images used in album infoboxes to be deleted 7 days from now. Tarc 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not really what "editprotected" is intended for. Anyway, I've unprotected. [1] I hope you manage to work this out. Haukur 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Images with no sources are being marked as "No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source." No, we don't need to wait, any image that doesn't have a source can be speedy deleted within 48 hours, and thus I will tag any image as such if I see anymore nonsense like this. — Moe ε 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The ERROR message display is intentional and does NOT show up on pages when the template is properly used. The purpose of the message is to warn users if they did not use the Article
parameter in the template's code. If the parameter is used, then the ERROR message will not display. Click "what links here" on the template's page to see the template being used, and you'll see what I mean. In the future, please comply with the guidelines at
Help:Reverting do not revert such edits before posting comments on the talk page. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal that would create a templated use rationale for album covers. That proposal would, presumably, make this template obsolete by authorizing a replacement. Comments about that proposal would be very welcome; please put them on the talk page of the proposal, not here. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does an extra heading need to be added when using this template? See this diff for example. Is it necessary to add ==Fair use rationale for [album]== when it's already in the template? Thanks. Spellcast ( talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of a slightly reworded template for singles? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Although i didn't insert it (but moved it to correct place as listed on Template:Album cover fur, i can't seem to find the error thats causing it to misbehave on the page, i'm think its to do with the article having !! in its name. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can the template be enhanced to display the name of the album cover artist? According to the template page, that's already a parameter -- "Graphic Artist". (Can parameter names have an embedded blank?) — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The comma that occurs after the word "label" in the description field is not needed and incorrect in standard written English as it stands currently. It is not a serial list of label, label name, and graphic artist. Label is a descriptor of the label name that occurs directly after the word "label." Please fix this. Peace. — MuzikJunky ( talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}When the "Commentary" variable is used, there is no spacing between it and the next sentence starting "Use for this purpose does not compete..." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
A piece of text that shows up for album covers categorized as "Section"—e.g.
Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack.jpg—should be changed to "Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work." --
an
odd
name
20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The "portion used" section should be adjusted for use = Artist
, right now it does not make sense when used for an artist article, as it's not the product (album) or branding being identified but the artwork itself.
Also, right now when Graphic Artist =
is specified (different from above), the template gives this language: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, ___________, or the graphic artist, ___________." I think the record label is a safe bet in the vast majority of cases, isn't it? —Gendralman (
Talk)
03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
There are whitespaces missing around the "purpose" parameter, in two places. I noticed this during my edits to File:Angel Dust meat photo.jpg, as recorded in the history. Please change
|#default= {{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}||<font color="red">'''Purpose must be stated here. '''</font>}} }}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}|{{{Purpose}}}. }}<!--
to
|#default= {{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}||<font color="red">''' Purpose must be stated here. '''</font>}} }}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{Purpose|}}}| {{{Purpose}}}. }}<!--
(Copy from edit screen, otherwise you will miss the special characters!) Debresser ( talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I already did the same for the non-editportected Template:Film cover fur. Debresser ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please add the line {{#if:{{{other_information|}}}{{{other_info|}}}{{{other_inf|}}}|[[Category:Other information]]}}
to an appropriate place in the template. For the purpose of this detection, see
Category:Other information.
Note: A similar edit has been made to another 7 unprotected templates, and 2 more edit requests can be found at Template:Logo fur and Template:Non-free use rationale. Debresser ( talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{other_information|}}}|[[Category:Other information2]]}}
{{#if:{{{other_info|}}}|[[Category:Other info]]}}
{{#if:{{{other_inf|}}}|[[Category:Other inf]]}}
, which is more or less the same as with the pipes, just dividing into subcategories for the different variations. It resorted the templates nicely, but the problem is that it doesn't catch the templates with empty parameters.
Debresser (
talk)
21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)After discussion at
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Other_information the easier solution was preferred. I also asked advise at
User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Advise. Please revert the last edit by
Rich_Farmbrough and then change -->{{#if:{{{other_information|}}}|{{{other_information}}}|Use etc.
to -->{{#if:{{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}}|{{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}}|Use etc.
and -->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|}}}|{{{Low_resolution}}}|The etc.
to -->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}|The etc.
. I'll update the documentation later (is after all not essential).
Debresser (
talk)
00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The current description for Type is:
This is confusing because a CD is also an album, just like an LP is also an album. And what should we allow for "Etc."? Based on earlier discussions "single" is also a valid choice for Type. I suggest that the Type is typically "album" or "single", and can optionally be "CD" or "LP" for albums where the CD and LP covers differ. It would also be helpful to show the examples for Type as lowercase since it appears mid-sentence, and is not a proper noun. I suggest the description be changed to:
Curious Eric 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
At " Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)" I am unable to override the purpose fields in the FURS at File:Ray Charles Norah Jones Here We Go Again.jpg and File:NSinatra Herewegoagain.jpg. Please advise.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Use=Other
for this field to work, I think the documentation is pretty clear about this. Note, however, that in this case this isn't required as the image is used in the main infobox for the relevant section. --
Muhandes (
talk)
08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have noticed that many rationales credit more than one graphic artist, so I would like to change "the graphic artist" to "the graphic artist(s)". – Dream out loud ( talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It is an "Additional Info" field. There currently is no way to override the description, which means that special wording requires substing the entire template, despite the documentation claiming otherwise. Please fix these issues. — trlkly 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could an admin change the line:
|{{{Label}}}
to
|{{{Label}}}.
I've just added a period. The period currently shows up when the {{{label}}}
is unspecified, but not when it's specified.
TDL (
talk)
22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
|Owner=
was filled in; so I've
moved the existing period so that it is added in all three cases: |Owner=
filled in; |Owner=
blank but |Label=
filled in; and both blank. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can someone look over the version in the sandbox which uses {{ Non-free use rationale 2}} and comment? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To avoid an extra space before the period when the artist is not specified (e.g. for a soundtrack album), please change this:
}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}} |by the artist {{{Artist}}}
To this:
}}{{#if:{{{Artist|}}} | by the artist {{{Artist}}}
nyuszika7h ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently the last link text reads "us copyright law" and yet the link takes you to fair use. Since the phrase fair use is mentioned just a few words earlier, wouldn't it be better to link that instead? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:FF2B ( talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:Album cover tag and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#Wikipedia:Album cover tag until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice,thing! 2A00:A041:3240:4300:AC8E:2E21:2A86:80E5 ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace Example with [[WP:Example|Example]] Mach61 ( talk) 01:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)