The result of the discussion was delete as the template is dependent on a non-existent page. PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
MOVE The Film does not have a Wikipedia article, and I'm not sure merits one as yet according to our guidelines. While it looks like a promising project, right now the film appears to have no coverage outside of the official Web site and Facebook page. Premature, and a possible violation of WP:SOAP and WP:COAT, I believe. This template has already been applied to some articles of notable dancers, choreographers and the like who have only a tangential connection, at best, to this non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than delete the template, I suggest removing the hyperlink to the film's website in the template's title bar so it's doesn't appear promotional and removing the categories since templates don't normally appear in categories anyway. Gbern3 ( talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3 requires that multiple non-free images not be used where one would suffice. Looking through the articles that transclude this template, all of them that I can see violate this policy, and having this template encourages a violation. In album articles, the album art is included in the infobox to identify the album, and one image can do that. If a second album cover is notable in itself, discussed in critical commentary (e.g. Ritual de lo Habitual or Yesterday and Today), then the image should be included in the section that discusses this. But having it a part of the infobox just encourages the unnecessary use of copyrighted material. – Quadell ( talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep because this album was released internationally. The 2nd cover depicts the deluxe edtion of the album and the other cover depicts the international version of the album. I think that this is sufficient enought justification for having more than one album cover present. a rational is provided where needed. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
Keep because many albums have distinct covers in different markets (Europe vs US), and because the vinyl and cd covers often vary. Add to the list that older albums often get rereleased with updated artwork and you've got a list of reasons to keep this. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: it displays the original cover artwork before it was changed, this is also mentioned in the main article, so this image is important. JWAD talk 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: I feel the problem is with articles, not the template. "3a" states minimal usage. If two covers look similar, we can get rid of one. But if they're significantly different, like in here, we should keep them. Lots of singles/albums are released under significantly different covers, I fell there should be a little leeway, allowing a max of 2. In big articles, 3 (maybe?). "8" states sifnificance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you happen to find an album in a store, with the other cover? Albums/singles are also released in different regions under different covers. Though having multiple images on articles would not "significantly" improve understanding, but it will, to an extent. Again, NOT having them COULD prove detrimental. Just an opinion. Suede67 ( talk) 21:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. I don't think a maximum is useful, No Way Out But Forward Go!, for example, has 4 completely different covers (of which atm 3 are in the article). Brambo ( talk) 22:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. This is helpful in talking about album in describing subject such as "deluxe edition", "limited edition", "imported cover", and "advanced cd". Lovejonesfly ( talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Floydian above is right. If you have a problem with a certain image's fair use status, list that image for deletion. This template doesn't violate any policy. It's almost always better to deal with things case-by-case than to remove an entire feature because of a hypothesis that it might be misused by someone-somewhere-maybe. — Gendralman ( talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Removing the template doesn't solve this supposed 'problem' with the non-free images. They should be deleted on a case by case basis, not by mass removal of the template. This would be as rediculous as removing genres (*cough cough*). k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I'm seeing a lot of people !voting keep because it is helpful to illustrate other similar albums e.g. deluxe etc. The thing is these arguments don't meet WP:NFCC Cr.3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." or Cr.8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I definitely think there is a problem here, and the majority of articles (if not all) that use this, shouldn't be having second images at all because it doesn't meet NFCC. The reason I'm not !voting delete is because I see some problems in deleting this template. This will automatically orphan many fair use images and they'll be deleted within days. This is actually largely a good thing, however it doesn't leave much time to sift through the thousands of transclusions to non-orphan the useful ones that meet NFCC. Generally this a good idea, and I agree this template seems to encourage using multiple album arts, but I think more time is needed because this will have a knock-on impact on a lot of articles/images. Now if someone's willing to sift through all the transclusions I may reconsider, but I think that is unlikely in the duration of this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Rambo's Revenge raises a valid point but as he also points out that it will not solve any problem. Instead we will land up in a huge mess of orphaned images. There are many cases where the alternate artwork is as important as the original cover. Aerosmith (Nine Lives), Beatles (Y,T and T), Jane's Addiction (Ritual de lo Habitual), Tool (Undertow), etc. have the original artwork banned in stores / regions, etc due to various reasons of censorship. Also there are numerous examples where two cover arts in two territories are entirely different. Appreciate and support Floydian's POV. 54UV1K ( talk) 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
Extra album cover}}
in this nomination, as it is a deprecated template to this one, doing the same job, and has
over 1500 transclusions. I do think these two templates are encouraging misuse of non-free images and I'm just being cautious as I don't want
BJBot to go placing lots of {{
Di-orphaned fair use}} if someone does delete this template. I don't know if there is precedent for holding closed TfDs or if there is a time limit on it, but if we can gather volunteers to trawl through thousands of transclusions in a reasonable time period then I'm willing to !vote delete.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk) 12:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think this is a sensible position, and is a good encapsulation of when showing an alternate cover can add significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article. I think it is a good statement, in tune with the careful assessment of the community, and I commend it. I therefore think there is a place for (some) alternate covers, and therefore this template should be retained, for those covers that meet the criterion above. I would also add, that when we have alternate covers in infoboxes that have been considered at IfD, and which the community has decided to keep, it seems vexatious to propose to delete the template they are put in. Jheald ( talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)...use [must] comply with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
The result of the discussion was replace with {{ refimprove-section}} and delete Magioladitis ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I see this template as being used to hide article issues, rather than bring them to the attention of editors. We already have {{ refimprove}}, a second version will just cause edit wars over preferred versions. After having a quick look through , this appears to be the only small template of this type we have. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, as it appears this template will have further utility in only a few months. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to the main article where this show has only one cycle aired. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as the template is dependent on a non-existent page. PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
MOVE The Film does not have a Wikipedia article, and I'm not sure merits one as yet according to our guidelines. While it looks like a promising project, right now the film appears to have no coverage outside of the official Web site and Facebook page. Premature, and a possible violation of WP:SOAP and WP:COAT, I believe. This template has already been applied to some articles of notable dancers, choreographers and the like who have only a tangential connection, at best, to this non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than delete the template, I suggest removing the hyperlink to the film's website in the template's title bar so it's doesn't appear promotional and removing the categories since templates don't normally appear in categories anyway. Gbern3 ( talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#3 requires that multiple non-free images not be used where one would suffice. Looking through the articles that transclude this template, all of them that I can see violate this policy, and having this template encourages a violation. In album articles, the album art is included in the infobox to identify the album, and one image can do that. If a second album cover is notable in itself, discussed in critical commentary (e.g. Ritual de lo Habitual or Yesterday and Today), then the image should be included in the section that discusses this. But having it a part of the infobox just encourages the unnecessary use of copyrighted material. – Quadell ( talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep because this album was released internationally. The 2nd cover depicts the deluxe edtion of the album and the other cover depicts the international version of the album. I think that this is sufficient enought justification for having more than one album cover present. a rational is provided where needed. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
Keep because many albums have distinct covers in different markets (Europe vs US), and because the vinyl and cd covers often vary. Add to the list that older albums often get rereleased with updated artwork and you've got a list of reasons to keep this. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: it displays the original cover artwork before it was changed, this is also mentioned in the main article, so this image is important. JWAD talk 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: I feel the problem is with articles, not the template. "3a" states minimal usage. If two covers look similar, we can get rid of one. But if they're significantly different, like in here, we should keep them. Lots of singles/albums are released under significantly different covers, I fell there should be a little leeway, allowing a max of 2. In big articles, 3 (maybe?). "8" states sifnificance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you happen to find an album in a store, with the other cover? Albums/singles are also released in different regions under different covers. Though having multiple images on articles would not "significantly" improve understanding, but it will, to an extent. Again, NOT having them COULD prove detrimental. Just an opinion. Suede67 ( talk) 21:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep: when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. I don't think a maximum is useful, No Way Out But Forward Go!, for example, has 4 completely different covers (of which atm 3 are in the article). Brambo ( talk) 22:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. This is helpful in talking about album in describing subject such as "deluxe edition", "limited edition", "imported cover", and "advanced cd". Lovejonesfly ( talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Floydian above is right. If you have a problem with a certain image's fair use status, list that image for deletion. This template doesn't violate any policy. It's almost always better to deal with things case-by-case than to remove an entire feature because of a hypothesis that it might be misused by someone-somewhere-maybe. — Gendralman ( talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Removing the template doesn't solve this supposed 'problem' with the non-free images. They should be deleted on a case by case basis, not by mass removal of the template. This would be as rediculous as removing genres (*cough cough*). k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I'm seeing a lot of people !voting keep because it is helpful to illustrate other similar albums e.g. deluxe etc. The thing is these arguments don't meet WP:NFCC Cr.3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." or Cr.8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I definitely think there is a problem here, and the majority of articles (if not all) that use this, shouldn't be having second images at all because it doesn't meet NFCC. The reason I'm not !voting delete is because I see some problems in deleting this template. This will automatically orphan many fair use images and they'll be deleted within days. This is actually largely a good thing, however it doesn't leave much time to sift through the thousands of transclusions to non-orphan the useful ones that meet NFCC. Generally this a good idea, and I agree this template seems to encourage using multiple album arts, but I think more time is needed because this will have a knock-on impact on a lot of articles/images. Now if someone's willing to sift through all the transclusions I may reconsider, but I think that is unlikely in the duration of this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Rambo's Revenge raises a valid point but as he also points out that it will not solve any problem. Instead we will land up in a huge mess of orphaned images. There are many cases where the alternate artwork is as important as the original cover. Aerosmith (Nine Lives), Beatles (Y,T and T), Jane's Addiction (Ritual de lo Habitual), Tool (Undertow), etc. have the original artwork banned in stores / regions, etc due to various reasons of censorship. Also there are numerous examples where two cover arts in two territories are entirely different. Appreciate and support Floydian's POV. 54UV1K ( talk) 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
Extra album cover}}
in this nomination, as it is a deprecated template to this one, doing the same job, and has
over 1500 transclusions. I do think these two templates are encouraging misuse of non-free images and I'm just being cautious as I don't want
BJBot to go placing lots of {{
Di-orphaned fair use}} if someone does delete this template. I don't know if there is precedent for holding closed TfDs or if there is a time limit on it, but if we can gather volunteers to trawl through thousands of transclusions in a reasonable time period then I'm willing to !vote delete.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk) 12:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think this is a sensible position, and is a good encapsulation of when showing an alternate cover can add significantly to the understanding conveyed by the article. I think it is a good statement, in tune with the careful assessment of the community, and I commend it. I therefore think there is a place for (some) alternate covers, and therefore this template should be retained, for those covers that meet the criterion above. I would also add, that when we have alternate covers in infoboxes that have been considered at IfD, and which the community has decided to keep, it seems vexatious to propose to delete the template they are put in. Jheald ( talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)...use [must] comply with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
The result of the discussion was replace with {{ refimprove-section}} and delete Magioladitis ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I see this template as being used to hide article issues, rather than bring them to the attention of editors. We already have {{ refimprove}}, a second version will just cause edit wars over preferred versions. After having a quick look through , this appears to be the only small template of this type we have. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, as it appears this template will have further utility in only a few months. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to the main article where this show has only one cycle aired. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)