![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Opinions on the inclusion and presentation of international versions of the HSM3 soundtrack would greatly be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Searching for "popular songs" or "Popular songs" currently redirects to popular music, but there is now a page on Popular Songs (with both words capitalised), the new Yo La Tengo album. Either the redirect needs to be cancelled or the Popular Songs page has to be renamed. Lfh ( talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There could be light at the end of the tunnel: I've just received an email from the BPI to say that the certification database should be back online in the next couple of weeks. The delay has been due to extra testing they're doing for some additional search options that there will be. -- JD554 ( talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to do this. Should they be italicized or put inside quotes? 陣 内 Jinnai 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion here regarding whether they are professional/reliable – I think the consensus was that they are not – but I was involved so if someone uninvolved can check that and confirm, it may stop the changes in that area of the project page becoming a problem. Thanks. – B.hotep • talk• 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion looks fairly inconclusive to me. The simple question arises: why blacklist the site? It appears to have a pretty big scope, and the reviews aren't user-submitted, so for something that's inherently quite underground and not well covered in mainstream media, it would seem appropriate to make use of it for what it is. Catglobal ( talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the project page fully for a month. IPs continue to edit-war, and as was shown before, semi-protection was not enough, then an account is taking over ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This AFD has been listed and then re-listed twice and not one person has contributed. Therefore, I doubt I'm not breaking WP:CANVAS by posting the link here. (The AFD is for a few Girls Aloud Music DVDs) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style (DVD). DJ 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
After looking over this project a bit further, I found a few things that I think should be changed, but felt to bring it up on the talk page first. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Should be easier to comment now. —
Σ
xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My first issue is WP:ALBUMS#Charts: the table under this section is absolutely wrong in so many ways. The current format on this project is as follows:
{| class="wikitable" |align="left"|''Country'' |align="left"|''Peak position'' |- |align="left"|U.S. |align="center"|1 |- |align="left"|U.K. |align="center"|8 |}
I think we can all agree that this is incorrect. I propose changing it to:
{| class="wikitable" !Chart (year) !Peak<br />position |- |[[UK Albums Chart]] |align="center"|8 |- |U.S. [[Billboard 200|''Billboard'' 200]] |align="center"|1 |}
Of course, not forgetting the rest of the charts in the table and their respective articles. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
← I seem to have missed half of it. Pretty sure I got them all now though. — Σ xplicit 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The second issue I'd like to bring up is WP:ALBUMS#Release history; specifically, I'm speaking of the 'catalog' column. I can't see how this helpful to any reader or encyclopedic in any way. I propose removing this part of the table. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The "release history" section as a whole is pretty useless in most instances. Many FA and GA album articles don't use such sections. Most of the information can be quite adequately stated in the prose, and certain information present in the table format is impossible to reference in most cases (like releases and dates in certain foreign countries, for instance). WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:ALBUMS#External links. Not specifically any issue here, but I'd like to created a shortcut (like WP:ELALBUMS or WP:ALBUMSEL or something similar) for easier typing when I have to use it in an edit summary. This section is articles about albums are often misused to included links to MySpace, YouTube and other type of social networking sites. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed the summary under WP:ALBUMS#Work to be done hasn't been updated for over a year? If this isn't going to be updated, I don't see the point of having it in the project at all. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My final issue for tonight is WP:ALBUMS#Review sites. I noticed that Slant Magazine, Stylus Magazine and Sputnikmusic are italicized, despite the fact that they are websites and not actual publications, making the italics incorrect on all counts (these even are italicized in articles). Considering they aren't publications, these really shouldn't be italicized. I'd like input from editors of these changes before following through. — Σ xplicit 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Slant and Stylus are online publications, webzines. Sputnikmusic is a music website with criticism.
Dan56 ( talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that many users on Wikipedia consider Piero Scaruffi to not be qualified for the review section. I propose the following arguments on behalf of Mr. Scaruffi's assessments. This discussion will cite The Beatles Sgt. Pepper page, which as of of 5:47 PM 8/5/09 has reviews from the following sites. 1)Allmusic (note, not a publication-a website with funds from ads) 2) Blender, Q, & Crawdaddy, & Rolling Stone (publication) 3)Christgau & Starosin (independent critic site, thus not allotting to publication)
Note: Christgau's work has been published, but not that particular review on Sgt. Pepper.
Point taken, this assessment would need to eliminate those reviews to be consistent with Wikipedia's standard.
Scaruffi is as qualified as Christgau. He has several books on Rock History that have been put in publication. Scaruffi's site is a one man show, but it is NOT a blog, or unprofessional source-it is a database with rock history, alongside reviews. His opinion is not of bias, but of OPINION. That is his review, his opinion. If you argue that he is bias towards popular music, then every critic would have to be reconsidered for that logic.
It seems that many Beatlesfans are upset with Scaruffi. I am upset that his reviews are not considered even when Starosin sits below Christgau on the professional review tab. Wikipedia users are shifting knowledge into a bias history in favor of themselves.
Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read those archival discussions, and they do not resolve to a general stance: the problem is split between those who do and do not think he is "professional." Professional is a subjective merit, but according to Wikipedia one must have a source of publication to be "professional." According to this logic, Scaruffi is qualified. Provided is the Amazon page of Scaruffi's publications (and they are NOT self-made); [ [1]] I also believe that the general reader should have an available review info box that is not one-sided. That being said, The Beatles and the other "popular" music Scaruffi reviews should be included. Also provided is Scaruffi's resume: [ Resume]
Those supposed "resolved" discussions were still split: the reason Scaruffi was removed from the professional review list was because someone took the initiative to take him off. If anyone disagrees with that action, that person is directed to these loophole "resolved" discussions where they're told that everything was resolved. Point is, nothing was settled. And I think its time we resurrect this argument considering its importance to the neutrality standpoint. "k.i.a.c", your logic is faulty and is quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Obviously you haven't read into this, as your following argument is weak: you think that a wider opinion negates the qualified statements of the minority. Example: according to your logic, Wikipedia should avoid creating any atheist criticism on the Christianity page because in the world, there are more Christians than Atheists (majority 95% versus minority 5%, these numbers are a reference to your scenario). Then why do their criticisms of religion (particularly Christianity in this example) matter? Because they provide a different view that contributes to the neutrality of the article. This is important for an encyclopedia. To be frank, Scaruffi isn't the only negative critic of The Beatles, but he is well-known. [ See Article] I did not state his credibility is questionable; that is the concern of many people here who argue he is not qualified, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Scaruffi's "History of Rock Music" is published by Omniware and iUniverse. [ Link of Publications] I am skeptical of Christgau's critiques, because as linked to his site [ Beatles Reviews] the reviews are bare-bone and do not link to a publication (except for editorials on The Beatles), thus I am concerned that they were written for his website. In this context, he is at the same level as Scaruffi (however, Scaruffi has A LOT more text in BOTH English and Italian as far as anyone is concerned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought we had already settled this. Scaruffi should not be cited as a reviewer. There are far mroe notable reviewers than him. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a well-trafficked/read area. I was wondering if others interested in album and music articles would wish to take part in a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 19#File:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg, or if there's somewhere more centralized that'd be better. This gist is that a slew of articles with alternate album covers in the infobox have the 2nd image up for deletion, on the rationale of Wikipedia:NFCC#3, part a, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Tarc ( talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I can agree with this. Yes, a second cover that is worth discussing in the article is worth including, but if a second cover "replaces the original" it should surely be shown instead of the original. In fact, this applies with discussion as well- if the second cover is discussed but the first is not, it should probably be included instead of the original. How can we justify using multiple non-free images if we are not even willing to discuss them? J Milburn ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
← Freekee, perhaps you should restrain yourself from attacking those, including myself, who enforce our non-free content criteria policy. The rationale clearly states it's more restrictive than law, which is why a lot of alternate covers get deleted. If a cover, be it from a single or album, does not convey equivalent significant information nor significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic while its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Obviously, there is consensus to delete these covers. — Σ xplicit 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad this is being discussed here. I noticed the deletion of the alternate album covers on The Dark Side of the Moon, and found that, as a reader, the deletions weakened the article. Inclusion of alternate covers, particularly where there are historical (such as an anniversary edition) or cultural (such as the alternate covers for Golden Earring's Moontan) issues, illustrates aspects of the subject that a single image cannot. The three album covers for DSOTM, for example, help to bring across the enduring popularity and timeless nature of the album as well as illustrating the evolution of graphic art and album cover styles over several decades. Not being a lawyer, I won't comment on the fair-use issues, except to say that it seems to me that any argument used against including alternate covers would apply equally to the primary cover image; that is, if you don't believe that alternate covers help enlighten the reader about some aspect of the subject album, then what benefit is a cover image at all (other than to add visual interest to the page, a goal that I would contend does not justify fair use). On the other hand if you believe there is an article-enhancing value to a primary image that justifies fair use, then that justification applies equally well to the alternate images. Jgm ( talk) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Comments amended: re-reading the discussion above I found the link to the extensive prior discussion on this topic. I will say that my view on this matches closely with the near-consensus then that "sufficiently different" album covers are fair game for inclusion. The only aspect of where that seemed to land that I would disagree with is the idea that alternative covers must somehow be mentioned in the text. In many cases where a particular reason the alternate cover exists (cf. Yesterday and Today) such text makes sense but in many (most) cases the existence and differences of the covers is self-illustrative, that's why they are pictures rather than words Jgm ( talk) 01:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty simple point here that hasn't been mentioned. If the alternative covers are really as important as you make out, why on Earth are they not worth discussing? I realised the slightly ridiculous nature of this double standard (important enough to justify a non-free image, but not important enough to justify discussion) with regards to one of my own articles- now a FA. Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) (don't judge me- I love reality TV, and there just aren't the sources for the kind of bands I love myself...) featured the original cover and two alternative covers- one for the UK rerelease, and one for the US release. It occurred to me that I had a substantial article (I'd taken material from just about every reliable source I'd managed to find) but I didn't actually mention the covers once- how on Earth could I argue that they were important when they weren't even worth mentioning? And is anyone going to disagree with me, and come and add those covers back? Somehow, I think not. If a cover is worth discussing, then yes, it's probably worth including- our NFCC are there for this sort of thing. However, this strange belief that covers can be freely added (because they're not ordinary non-free images, they're covers) is damaging. J Milburn ( talk) 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
While we are having our little discussion here, someone nominated our template {{ Extra album cover 2}} for deletion! See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_2#Template:Extra_album_cover_2. Needless to say, if it gets deleted we can forget about this discussion as we won't have any need to provide guidelines for its use. – IbLeo ( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe even stronger than before that it reflects perfectly the reality, whether we like it or not, and I have the impression that the majority of you are supportive to this amendment. In the light of the recent events (i.e. the template deletion debate), would those of you who expressed concerns be willing to revise your position and go along with this change? – IbLeo ( talk) 07:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 1: "...that the use complies 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."
I still believe we need the "widely distributed" clause in order to avoid the odd Yugoslavian cover. Regarding your example, it would not permit you to include the replacement covers unless you found them worth discussing in the article. How does this sound to you? – IbLeo ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 2: "...that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original, is widely distributed, and is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
That would open up for the notable Yugoslavian cover to be included. Also, it has the merit of being clear and concise: Alternate covers are only acceptable if they are significantly different from the original and explained in the article with a verifiable sourced comment. On the other hand, I wonder if this might be too strict. I am especially thinking about the case where the same album was released with two very distinct covers in Europe and the States, like the above mentioned Moontan. As far as I can see, the U.S. cover would not pass proposal 3, while it would pass the rule in proposal 1. – IbLeo ( talk) 17:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 3: "...that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is the subject of specific sourced critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
← I can accept Proposal 3. It clearly express the most strict interpretation of WP:NFCC and consequently, if we give it as guideline to our members, those who respect it can not go wrong. On the other hand, we should remember that this project only issue guidelines so editors are not obliged to stick to them. Then, if they get their alternate covers deleted, at least they won't be able to come here and complain afterwards. So, yes, awaiting a potential clarification of the WP:NFCC for album covers (this discussion, the template deletion discussion, as well as this recent discussion on the policy talk page clearly shows that it is far from the case today), I think that is an acceptable solution for us. Maybe someone else would like to come in at this point (or have I bored everyone to death by now? :-). – IbLeo ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There are three criteria being kicked around. "Significantly different", "widely distributed", and "critical commentary". Significantly different is an absolute requirement, but not sufficient in itself. Many of us feel that wide distribution would allow a cover to be shown (as long as it meets the other agreed-upon criteria), but we either can't agree on where to draw the line, or can't explain where. And we don't really agree on whether to require critical commentary.
I really do think we need a guideline in place, so let's try to find a solution. I'd like to start by looking at the possible wide distribution criterion, and get back to the others afterwards. Can we come to an agreement on what is or isn't allowable, and write it? Something like, ..."just as widely distributed or as well-known as the original cover"? Other thoughts or suggestions? - Freekee ( talk) 04:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
While turning over several times in bed last night, I came up with a fourth proposal. It may be a little different than what some are used to (I know it is for me), but I think we should consider it. I wouldn't know how to word it into policy, so I'll just lay out my concept. Generally, alternate album covers should only be used under two circumstances: when the cover identifies a different packaging (assuming the cover is significantly different from the original) and when there is a significant sourced reason behind the alternate image. For example, let's take I Am… Sasha Fierce as my first example. We have the main cover, great. There's also an alternate cover—this cover is used to identify the deluxe edition of the album, therefore meeting the criteria for inclusion. If the alternate image is substantially the same and holds little difference (for example, a simple change in color or if the image was rotated), then this type of cover should be omitted as it can easily be described in words alone. If there are multiple covers used for different regions (for example, one cover for the United States, one for the United Kingdom and one for Canada), the cover of where the recording artist or band is from should take dominance over the others. For example, if there are the three aforementioned alternate covers in an album article about Leona Lewis, the cover used in the United Kingdom should be the main image and the two others should be omitted from the article, unless there is a specific sourced reason as to why the United States or Canada features alternate album covers. Of course, there will be the casual exception which should be discussed on that article's talk page, on this talk page or WP:FfD as a last resort. Just thought I'd throw this idea out there. — Σ xplicit 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This thread is now approaching its 7 weeks anniversary, and the previous week has passed in silence. As the person who originally suggested enhancing our guidelines, I would hate to see it end like all the previous discussions on this subject, i.e. petering out without achieving any tangible result. Consequently, I have been reading the whole thing over and over again, and obviously we haven’t reached unanimity and probably never will even if we carry out discussing until Christmas (not that I wish this to happen). However, I do feel that we have established a rough consensus that Proposal 1 is the one amongst the four put forward who best reflects how WP:NFCC is currently interpreted with respect to alternate album covers. Indeed, several editors have explicitly expressed that this reflects how things are done. I therefore strongly recommend that we update our guidelines accordingly. At least, that would give a sense of achievement. I remind everyone that nothing is final here on Wikipedia, and that anyone can seek to improve the wording in the future. Would anyone disagree with this specific course of action? – IbLeo ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe we have reached consensus and should go for the update. Dear admin, please amend this section to Proposal 1 above (no italics), please. – IbLeo ( talk) 11:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with the article The Hell E.P.: all the article text is showing up inside the infobox. I futzed around with trying to edit it for a few minutes but I wasn't able to come up with a solution. Would anybody who knows what they're doing care to have a look? Thanks. 12.75.116.98 ( talk) 18:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Misc
field for the extra chronology. —
Σ
xplicit 18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In the description for the Infobox Album field " Released" it states "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." This implies that if someone wants to document the initial release dates for the UK and the US, they cannot use the "Released" field. Instead they must add a release history section, which would complicate the article. Some notable album articles currently list UK and US release dates in the "Released" field violating this rule, such as Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, Smash Hits (album), and Yellow Submarine (album). These "violations" don't seem to overly clutter the Infobox. Personally I like seeing that information in the Infobox.
Should there be an exception to allow separate UK and US release dates to be shown (or UK and "US and Canada" if appropriate)? I realize that listing many release dates would be undesirable in the Infobox. To keep a reasonable limit, it could be stipulated that a second and third release date can be specified in the "Released" field for countries whose language matches that of the article. CuriousEric ( talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review this so that I know what needs to be improved.-- Launchballer ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a several issues I need some help with this article on. First off the songs are based off both a visual novel and an anime and in addition there is a radio drama which also contains a lot of song tacks so its not just one source. Second, while there are no single releases there has been at least EP and maxi single (i think there may be more) as well as some of the soundtracks being released with the game itself so I'm not sure how source list these, especially with the maxi single which is a 1st print run item with the visual novel. In addition to that Several of the songs were later re-released by Under17 in compilation albums that charted, but not sure if and how that info should be listed, ie noting just the songs or listing the albums and ifso, where as the songs were on multiple releases themselves. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Being There (album)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone could offer some clarity on an issue in the FAC of this article. It concerns the inclusion of the alternative album covers, a topic I see has been discussed here at length.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Side of the Moon/archive2
I'd be grateful if anyone could say definitively what the situation is, because at present it seems that a relatively minor issue is stopping this article from moving forward, and it will of course effect other album articles I have waiting for FAC if the same issues are raised. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble locating a source for total album length, short of adding up the length of the tracks myself. Any tips for a newbie? Cottonchipper ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we add Exclaim! to the list of acceptable reviews? It's a Canadian monthly music magazine that has been in production since 1992 and has several archived album reviews on their site from many genres of music. Should it be included? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought that this might be of interest - nobody wants a poor article at the top of a project's most viewed articles list! Parrot of Doom ( talk) 10:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I like to use breakline code to format information in the infobox, particularly the genre. I believe is is much easier to read and looks neater. The format designed by the project states "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." Is this really set in stone or can we bend the guidelines. This is mostly trivial, but I don't want to go to war on articles I maintain. What say you? -- Noj r ( talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are cover albums now being labeled as studio albums? -- -Shadow ( talk) 02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Aspects (
talk ·
contribs) has been making a large number of
these edits recently, in which he adds <small>(see [[#Release history|Release history)</small>
next to the release date in album infoboxes, creating an link to the article's release history section. His edit summary is always "Added Release history per
WP:ALBUM". I've asked him on his talk page to hold off on this and bring the discussion here, because I don't see where on this project page he's getting the idea that every release date should have a link to the release history subsection next to it. Am I wrong on this? Does anyone see anything that indicates we should have "see release history" next to the date in the infobox? I've reverted a number of these changes but I want to make sure he's not misinterpreting something from the project page. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Only list the earliest release date -->
, or B) by linking "Release" to the release history section (though this would cause a problem for articles that do not have such sections).Thanks. Rafablu88 13:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are several albums called Live on Stage But, should the word "on" be capitalized in the album titles? Some would say that it should not, because "on" is a preposition. But, I think it should be, because it's the first word of the prepositional phrase "on stage". That is, the band is live, and it's also on stage. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album and song titles and band names. So, which is preferable -- Live on Stage, or Live On Stage? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I really, really, need someone's help here. Two issues.
1. My understanding is that it is permissible to use in an article -- under the album cover free use exception -- not only an image of the front cover of the album, but also images of the photos on the back cover and inside cover of an album for the purpose of conveying information about the appearance of the album. I believe that this is consistent with guideline language, the language of your WP template, and many existing album back and inside cover photos on Wikipedia.
Am I correct? If so, what do I do about the two editors who have just deleted the images from articles; how can I have them restored to the articles?
This is especially troubling to me as one of the editors (ever since I had a difference of opinion on a separate issue with him) has been wikistalking me and deleting every entry he can (dozens) of entries I made. These are just two examples. (To explain just the level of disturbing behavior on the part of one of the editors, he twice deleted information from my rationale for free use, and then tagged it as not having a free use rationale.)
2. A second question. My understanding as well is that I can use an image of the album cover (for the purpose of reflecting the appearance of the album) not only in an article about the album, but also in the article about the band (which has a section on the album -- that is just as complete as the album article), and in the article about the record label (as far as I can tell, this is the only record of the record label).
The same two editors are saying no -- that I can't use any album cover photos in the articles about the band and the record label -- both of which discuss the album.
That makes no sense to me, as the rationale for inclusion is the same. The album is discussed. I wish to reflect the appearance of the album cover. Again, the editors have deleted every album cover photo (including that of the front cover) from the band article and the record label article.
Am I correct? If so, what can I do to have the images put back?
3. One last question. Can someone point me to how I make a photo even smaller than it is (to ensure that it is small enough for free use purposes)?
Thanks.-- VMAsNYC ( talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. I think I'm starting to get somewhere.
Need for Critical Commentary. I had very carefully read the policy, and thought (and still do think) that if one just reads the policy the use of the back cover and inside cover images is warranted to best reflect the appearance of the album. What confused me was that the other editors with whom I was discussing this issue kept on saying that the reason they were deleting the images was because the images were of the band and could easily be replaced by a just-as-good free use pic of the band (ignoring that they were of the album covers, and could not be replaced by a just-as-good pic of the album covers).
But reading further, the examples which you point me to refer to the acceptability of cover art "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In this case, the images were presented in the context of commentary on the images -- both in the text of the article, and in the captions of the images.
But what is meant by "critical commentary"? I had thought that mention of the art in the article would suffice. But now I expect that you are reading the requirement to mean "sourced commentary".
If I were a stickler, I would point out that a basic rule of construction demands that since "sourced commentary" is required for four specific items -- certain music clips, sound clips, short videos and press photos, and only critical commentary here, they mean different things (and there is no need for the commentary here to be "sourced" -- if the draftsman wanted it to be sourced, he would have said it, and clearly knew how as he required it in 4 other instances.
Be that as it may, I'm willing to go with the consensus here, and if what you are telling me is that the guidance means "critical commentary from a reliable third party source" -- which I gather is the case -- I'm happy to abide by it.
I would just suggest that to avoid confusion, the language in the guidance be cleaned up. As on its face it comes up a bit short from saying that now. In fact, it uses 5 distinct constructs: "appropriate sourced commentary," "critical commentary," "critical commentary and construction," "commentary," and "sourced commentary". It is a basic rule of construction that when there are differences in the way that words are used, the person construing the writing should presume differences in meaning. But I'm guessing from your reaction that this is not the intent here. If not, I would suggest that you have a sentence that says something like "When the phrase "commentary" is used below, what is meant is "appropriate sourced critical commentary from a reliable third party source." Or something like that. And then reduce all 14 or 15 subsequent references to "commentary." Just a suggestion.
Front Cover Exception -- and only for Album Pages. As to the front cover exception (those being ok), where is that written in the policy? I didn't see any distinction that suggested that there was a higher bar for back and inside covers.
Also, is it written somewhere in the policy that the front cover exception applies only to the album article, but not to the band article (where it is their only album, and is discussed in the same depth), and the record label article (where again it may be their only album)?
I would suggest that if these are in fact policies, that they be reflected in writing in the policy. Otherwise, how are newbies to know what's "generally accepted"? I'm happy to live with whatever the rule is, but how can I be expected to hue to rules of general acceptance that aren't reflected? My best efforts to learn what is generally accepted led to the following discovery ...
1,000 or so Back and Inside Covers -- Most of which Lack any Commentary. As to other back and inside cover images -- in these articles -- [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26] I noticed that back and inside covers were used (sometimes on band/singer pages, at that) without any third party commentary at all. I think that the vast majority of the thousand or so images at [27] and [28] also are of back and inside album covers and lack third-party commentary. Indeed, it was in part because of the widespread use of such images that I thought that my use must certainly be fine -- it was in accordance with what was already on Wikipedia. Are they ok because of some other exception I'm unaware of? Or is simply that since I have a wikistalker, mine got singled out, and while the others should be deleted as well since they don't have a wikistalker they will remain?
Permission. As to seeking permission from the record label, maybe they'll be fine as long as it is low resolution (which presumably lowers the risk of someone selling posters of it). Dunno, though.
Thanks so much for all of your input.-- VMAsNYC ( talk) 06:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Opinions on the inclusion and presentation of international versions of the HSM3 soundtrack would greatly be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Searching for "popular songs" or "Popular songs" currently redirects to popular music, but there is now a page on Popular Songs (with both words capitalised), the new Yo La Tengo album. Either the redirect needs to be cancelled or the Popular Songs page has to be renamed. Lfh ( talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There could be light at the end of the tunnel: I've just received an email from the BPI to say that the certification database should be back online in the next couple of weeks. The delay has been due to extra testing they're doing for some additional search options that there will be. -- JD554 ( talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to do this. Should they be italicized or put inside quotes? 陣 内 Jinnai 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion here regarding whether they are professional/reliable – I think the consensus was that they are not – but I was involved so if someone uninvolved can check that and confirm, it may stop the changes in that area of the project page becoming a problem. Thanks. – B.hotep • talk• 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion looks fairly inconclusive to me. The simple question arises: why blacklist the site? It appears to have a pretty big scope, and the reviews aren't user-submitted, so for something that's inherently quite underground and not well covered in mainstream media, it would seem appropriate to make use of it for what it is. Catglobal ( talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have protected the project page fully for a month. IPs continue to edit-war, and as was shown before, semi-protection was not enough, then an account is taking over ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This AFD has been listed and then re-listed twice and not one person has contributed. Therefore, I doubt I'm not breaking WP:CANVAS by posting the link here. (The AFD is for a few Girls Aloud Music DVDs) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style (DVD). DJ 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
After looking over this project a bit further, I found a few things that I think should be changed, but felt to bring it up on the talk page first. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Should be easier to comment now. —
Σ
xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My first issue is WP:ALBUMS#Charts: the table under this section is absolutely wrong in so many ways. The current format on this project is as follows:
{| class="wikitable" |align="left"|''Country'' |align="left"|''Peak position'' |- |align="left"|U.S. |align="center"|1 |- |align="left"|U.K. |align="center"|8 |}
I think we can all agree that this is incorrect. I propose changing it to:
{| class="wikitable" !Chart (year) !Peak<br />position |- |[[UK Albums Chart]] |align="center"|8 |- |U.S. [[Billboard 200|''Billboard'' 200]] |align="center"|1 |}
Of course, not forgetting the rest of the charts in the table and their respective articles. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
← I seem to have missed half of it. Pretty sure I got them all now though. — Σ xplicit 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The second issue I'd like to bring up is WP:ALBUMS#Release history; specifically, I'm speaking of the 'catalog' column. I can't see how this helpful to any reader or encyclopedic in any way. I propose removing this part of the table. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The "release history" section as a whole is pretty useless in most instances. Many FA and GA album articles don't use such sections. Most of the information can be quite adequately stated in the prose, and certain information present in the table format is impossible to reference in most cases (like releases and dates in certain foreign countries, for instance). WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:ALBUMS#External links. Not specifically any issue here, but I'd like to created a shortcut (like WP:ELALBUMS or WP:ALBUMSEL or something similar) for easier typing when I have to use it in an edit summary. This section is articles about albums are often misused to included links to MySpace, YouTube and other type of social networking sites. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed the summary under WP:ALBUMS#Work to be done hasn't been updated for over a year? If this isn't going to be updated, I don't see the point of having it in the project at all. — Σ xplicit 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My final issue for tonight is WP:ALBUMS#Review sites. I noticed that Slant Magazine, Stylus Magazine and Sputnikmusic are italicized, despite the fact that they are websites and not actual publications, making the italics incorrect on all counts (these even are italicized in articles). Considering they aren't publications, these really shouldn't be italicized. I'd like input from editors of these changes before following through. — Σ xplicit 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Slant and Stylus are online publications, webzines. Sputnikmusic is a music website with criticism.
Dan56 ( talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that many users on Wikipedia consider Piero Scaruffi to not be qualified for the review section. I propose the following arguments on behalf of Mr. Scaruffi's assessments. This discussion will cite The Beatles Sgt. Pepper page, which as of of 5:47 PM 8/5/09 has reviews from the following sites. 1)Allmusic (note, not a publication-a website with funds from ads) 2) Blender, Q, & Crawdaddy, & Rolling Stone (publication) 3)Christgau & Starosin (independent critic site, thus not allotting to publication)
Note: Christgau's work has been published, but not that particular review on Sgt. Pepper.
Point taken, this assessment would need to eliminate those reviews to be consistent with Wikipedia's standard.
Scaruffi is as qualified as Christgau. He has several books on Rock History that have been put in publication. Scaruffi's site is a one man show, but it is NOT a blog, or unprofessional source-it is a database with rock history, alongside reviews. His opinion is not of bias, but of OPINION. That is his review, his opinion. If you argue that he is bias towards popular music, then every critic would have to be reconsidered for that logic.
It seems that many Beatlesfans are upset with Scaruffi. I am upset that his reviews are not considered even when Starosin sits below Christgau on the professional review tab. Wikipedia users are shifting knowledge into a bias history in favor of themselves.
Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read those archival discussions, and they do not resolve to a general stance: the problem is split between those who do and do not think he is "professional." Professional is a subjective merit, but according to Wikipedia one must have a source of publication to be "professional." According to this logic, Scaruffi is qualified. Provided is the Amazon page of Scaruffi's publications (and they are NOT self-made); [ [1]] I also believe that the general reader should have an available review info box that is not one-sided. That being said, The Beatles and the other "popular" music Scaruffi reviews should be included. Also provided is Scaruffi's resume: [ Resume]
Those supposed "resolved" discussions were still split: the reason Scaruffi was removed from the professional review list was because someone took the initiative to take him off. If anyone disagrees with that action, that person is directed to these loophole "resolved" discussions where they're told that everything was resolved. Point is, nothing was settled. And I think its time we resurrect this argument considering its importance to the neutrality standpoint. "k.i.a.c", your logic is faulty and is quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Obviously you haven't read into this, as your following argument is weak: you think that a wider opinion negates the qualified statements of the minority. Example: according to your logic, Wikipedia should avoid creating any atheist criticism on the Christianity page because in the world, there are more Christians than Atheists (majority 95% versus minority 5%, these numbers are a reference to your scenario). Then why do their criticisms of religion (particularly Christianity in this example) matter? Because they provide a different view that contributes to the neutrality of the article. This is important for an encyclopedia. To be frank, Scaruffi isn't the only negative critic of The Beatles, but he is well-known. [ See Article] I did not state his credibility is questionable; that is the concern of many people here who argue he is not qualified, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Scaruffi's "History of Rock Music" is published by Omniware and iUniverse. [ Link of Publications] I am skeptical of Christgau's critiques, because as linked to his site [ Beatles Reviews] the reviews are bare-bone and do not link to a publication (except for editorials on The Beatles), thus I am concerned that they were written for his website. In this context, he is at the same level as Scaruffi (however, Scaruffi has A LOT more text in BOTH English and Italian as far as anyone is concerned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.34.13 ( talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought we had already settled this. Scaruffi should not be cited as a reviewer. There are far mroe notable reviewers than him. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a well-trafficked/read area. I was wondering if others interested in album and music articles would wish to take part in a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 19#File:TyrannyForYouSilver.jpg, or if there's somewhere more centralized that'd be better. This gist is that a slew of articles with alternate album covers in the infobox have the 2nd image up for deletion, on the rationale of Wikipedia:NFCC#3, part a, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Tarc ( talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I can agree with this. Yes, a second cover that is worth discussing in the article is worth including, but if a second cover "replaces the original" it should surely be shown instead of the original. In fact, this applies with discussion as well- if the second cover is discussed but the first is not, it should probably be included instead of the original. How can we justify using multiple non-free images if we are not even willing to discuss them? J Milburn ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
← Freekee, perhaps you should restrain yourself from attacking those, including myself, who enforce our non-free content criteria policy. The rationale clearly states it's more restrictive than law, which is why a lot of alternate covers get deleted. If a cover, be it from a single or album, does not convey equivalent significant information nor significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic while its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Obviously, there is consensus to delete these covers. — Σ xplicit 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad this is being discussed here. I noticed the deletion of the alternate album covers on The Dark Side of the Moon, and found that, as a reader, the deletions weakened the article. Inclusion of alternate covers, particularly where there are historical (such as an anniversary edition) or cultural (such as the alternate covers for Golden Earring's Moontan) issues, illustrates aspects of the subject that a single image cannot. The three album covers for DSOTM, for example, help to bring across the enduring popularity and timeless nature of the album as well as illustrating the evolution of graphic art and album cover styles over several decades. Not being a lawyer, I won't comment on the fair-use issues, except to say that it seems to me that any argument used against including alternate covers would apply equally to the primary cover image; that is, if you don't believe that alternate covers help enlighten the reader about some aspect of the subject album, then what benefit is a cover image at all (other than to add visual interest to the page, a goal that I would contend does not justify fair use). On the other hand if you believe there is an article-enhancing value to a primary image that justifies fair use, then that justification applies equally well to the alternate images. Jgm ( talk) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Comments amended: re-reading the discussion above I found the link to the extensive prior discussion on this topic. I will say that my view on this matches closely with the near-consensus then that "sufficiently different" album covers are fair game for inclusion. The only aspect of where that seemed to land that I would disagree with is the idea that alternative covers must somehow be mentioned in the text. In many cases where a particular reason the alternate cover exists (cf. Yesterday and Today) such text makes sense but in many (most) cases the existence and differences of the covers is self-illustrative, that's why they are pictures rather than words Jgm ( talk) 01:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty simple point here that hasn't been mentioned. If the alternative covers are really as important as you make out, why on Earth are they not worth discussing? I realised the slightly ridiculous nature of this double standard (important enough to justify a non-free image, but not important enough to justify discussion) with regards to one of my own articles- now a FA. Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) (don't judge me- I love reality TV, and there just aren't the sources for the kind of bands I love myself...) featured the original cover and two alternative covers- one for the UK rerelease, and one for the US release. It occurred to me that I had a substantial article (I'd taken material from just about every reliable source I'd managed to find) but I didn't actually mention the covers once- how on Earth could I argue that they were important when they weren't even worth mentioning? And is anyone going to disagree with me, and come and add those covers back? Somehow, I think not. If a cover is worth discussing, then yes, it's probably worth including- our NFCC are there for this sort of thing. However, this strange belief that covers can be freely added (because they're not ordinary non-free images, they're covers) is damaging. J Milburn ( talk) 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
While we are having our little discussion here, someone nominated our template {{ Extra album cover 2}} for deletion! See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_2#Template:Extra_album_cover_2. Needless to say, if it gets deleted we can forget about this discussion as we won't have any need to provide guidelines for its use. – IbLeo ( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe even stronger than before that it reflects perfectly the reality, whether we like it or not, and I have the impression that the majority of you are supportive to this amendment. In the light of the recent events (i.e. the template deletion debate), would those of you who expressed concerns be willing to revise your position and go along with this change? – IbLeo ( talk) 07:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 1: "...that the use complies 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."
I still believe we need the "widely distributed" clause in order to avoid the odd Yugoslavian cover. Regarding your example, it would not permit you to include the replacement covers unless you found them worth discussing in the article. How does this sound to you? – IbLeo ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 2: "...that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original, is widely distributed, and is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
That would open up for the notable Yugoslavian cover to be included. Also, it has the merit of being clear and concise: Alternate covers are only acceptable if they are significantly different from the original and explained in the article with a verifiable sourced comment. On the other hand, I wonder if this might be too strict. I am especially thinking about the case where the same album was released with two very distinct covers in Europe and the States, like the above mentioned Moontan. As far as I can see, the U.S. cover would not pass proposal 3, while it would pass the rule in proposal 1. – IbLeo ( talk) 17:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Proposal 3: "...that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is the subject of specific sourced critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
← I can accept Proposal 3. It clearly express the most strict interpretation of WP:NFCC and consequently, if we give it as guideline to our members, those who respect it can not go wrong. On the other hand, we should remember that this project only issue guidelines so editors are not obliged to stick to them. Then, if they get their alternate covers deleted, at least they won't be able to come here and complain afterwards. So, yes, awaiting a potential clarification of the WP:NFCC for album covers (this discussion, the template deletion discussion, as well as this recent discussion on the policy talk page clearly shows that it is far from the case today), I think that is an acceptable solution for us. Maybe someone else would like to come in at this point (or have I bored everyone to death by now? :-). – IbLeo ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There are three criteria being kicked around. "Significantly different", "widely distributed", and "critical commentary". Significantly different is an absolute requirement, but not sufficient in itself. Many of us feel that wide distribution would allow a cover to be shown (as long as it meets the other agreed-upon criteria), but we either can't agree on where to draw the line, or can't explain where. And we don't really agree on whether to require critical commentary.
I really do think we need a guideline in place, so let's try to find a solution. I'd like to start by looking at the possible wide distribution criterion, and get back to the others afterwards. Can we come to an agreement on what is or isn't allowable, and write it? Something like, ..."just as widely distributed or as well-known as the original cover"? Other thoughts or suggestions? - Freekee ( talk) 04:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
While turning over several times in bed last night, I came up with a fourth proposal. It may be a little different than what some are used to (I know it is for me), but I think we should consider it. I wouldn't know how to word it into policy, so I'll just lay out my concept. Generally, alternate album covers should only be used under two circumstances: when the cover identifies a different packaging (assuming the cover is significantly different from the original) and when there is a significant sourced reason behind the alternate image. For example, let's take I Am… Sasha Fierce as my first example. We have the main cover, great. There's also an alternate cover—this cover is used to identify the deluxe edition of the album, therefore meeting the criteria for inclusion. If the alternate image is substantially the same and holds little difference (for example, a simple change in color or if the image was rotated), then this type of cover should be omitted as it can easily be described in words alone. If there are multiple covers used for different regions (for example, one cover for the United States, one for the United Kingdom and one for Canada), the cover of where the recording artist or band is from should take dominance over the others. For example, if there are the three aforementioned alternate covers in an album article about Leona Lewis, the cover used in the United Kingdom should be the main image and the two others should be omitted from the article, unless there is a specific sourced reason as to why the United States or Canada features alternate album covers. Of course, there will be the casual exception which should be discussed on that article's talk page, on this talk page or WP:FfD as a last resort. Just thought I'd throw this idea out there. — Σ xplicit 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This thread is now approaching its 7 weeks anniversary, and the previous week has passed in silence. As the person who originally suggested enhancing our guidelines, I would hate to see it end like all the previous discussions on this subject, i.e. petering out without achieving any tangible result. Consequently, I have been reading the whole thing over and over again, and obviously we haven’t reached unanimity and probably never will even if we carry out discussing until Christmas (not that I wish this to happen). However, I do feel that we have established a rough consensus that Proposal 1 is the one amongst the four put forward who best reflects how WP:NFCC is currently interpreted with respect to alternate album covers. Indeed, several editors have explicitly expressed that this reflects how things are done. I therefore strongly recommend that we update our guidelines accordingly. At least, that would give a sense of achievement. I remind everyone that nothing is final here on Wikipedia, and that anyone can seek to improve the wording in the future. Would anyone disagree with this specific course of action? – IbLeo ( talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe we have reached consensus and should go for the update. Dear admin, please amend this section to Proposal 1 above (no italics), please. – IbLeo ( talk) 11:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with the article The Hell E.P.: all the article text is showing up inside the infobox. I futzed around with trying to edit it for a few minutes but I wasn't able to come up with a solution. Would anybody who knows what they're doing care to have a look? Thanks. 12.75.116.98 ( talk) 18:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Misc
field for the extra chronology. —
Σ
xplicit 18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In the description for the Infobox Album field " Released" it states "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." This implies that if someone wants to document the initial release dates for the UK and the US, they cannot use the "Released" field. Instead they must add a release history section, which would complicate the article. Some notable album articles currently list UK and US release dates in the "Released" field violating this rule, such as Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, Smash Hits (album), and Yellow Submarine (album). These "violations" don't seem to overly clutter the Infobox. Personally I like seeing that information in the Infobox.
Should there be an exception to allow separate UK and US release dates to be shown (or UK and "US and Canada" if appropriate)? I realize that listing many release dates would be undesirable in the Infobox. To keep a reasonable limit, it could be stipulated that a second and third release date can be specified in the "Released" field for countries whose language matches that of the article. CuriousEric ( talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review this so that I know what needs to be improved.-- Launchballer ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a several issues I need some help with this article on. First off the songs are based off both a visual novel and an anime and in addition there is a radio drama which also contains a lot of song tacks so its not just one source. Second, while there are no single releases there has been at least EP and maxi single (i think there may be more) as well as some of the soundtracks being released with the game itself so I'm not sure how source list these, especially with the maxi single which is a 1st print run item with the visual novel. In addition to that Several of the songs were later re-released by Under17 in compilation albums that charted, but not sure if and how that info should be listed, ie noting just the songs or listing the albums and ifso, where as the songs were on multiple releases themselves. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Being There (album)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone could offer some clarity on an issue in the FAC of this article. It concerns the inclusion of the alternative album covers, a topic I see has been discussed here at length.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Side of the Moon/archive2
I'd be grateful if anyone could say definitively what the situation is, because at present it seems that a relatively minor issue is stopping this article from moving forward, and it will of course effect other album articles I have waiting for FAC if the same issues are raised. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble locating a source for total album length, short of adding up the length of the tracks myself. Any tips for a newbie? Cottonchipper ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we add Exclaim! to the list of acceptable reviews? It's a Canadian monthly music magazine that has been in production since 1992 and has several archived album reviews on their site from many genres of music. Should it be included? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 02:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought that this might be of interest - nobody wants a poor article at the top of a project's most viewed articles list! Parrot of Doom ( talk) 10:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I like to use breakline code to format information in the infobox, particularly the genre. I believe is is much easier to read and looks neater. The format designed by the project states "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." Is this really set in stone or can we bend the guidelines. This is mostly trivial, but I don't want to go to war on articles I maintain. What say you? -- Noj r ( talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are cover albums now being labeled as studio albums? -- -Shadow ( talk) 02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Aspects (
talk ·
contribs) has been making a large number of
these edits recently, in which he adds <small>(see [[#Release history|Release history)</small>
next to the release date in album infoboxes, creating an link to the article's release history section. His edit summary is always "Added Release history per
WP:ALBUM". I've asked him on his talk page to hold off on this and bring the discussion here, because I don't see where on this project page he's getting the idea that every release date should have a link to the release history subsection next to it. Am I wrong on this? Does anyone see anything that indicates we should have "see release history" next to the date in the infobox? I've reverted a number of these changes but I want to make sure he's not misinterpreting something from the project page. --
IllaZilla (
talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Only list the earliest release date -->
, or B) by linking "Release" to the release history section (though this would cause a problem for articles that do not have such sections).Thanks. Rafablu88 13:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are several albums called Live on Stage But, should the word "on" be capitalized in the album titles? Some would say that it should not, because "on" is a preposition. But, I think it should be, because it's the first word of the prepositional phrase "on stage". That is, the band is live, and it's also on stage. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album and song titles and band names. So, which is preferable -- Live on Stage, or Live On Stage? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I really, really, need someone's help here. Two issues.
1. My understanding is that it is permissible to use in an article -- under the album cover free use exception -- not only an image of the front cover of the album, but also images of the photos on the back cover and inside cover of an album for the purpose of conveying information about the appearance of the album. I believe that this is consistent with guideline language, the language of your WP template, and many existing album back and inside cover photos on Wikipedia.
Am I correct? If so, what do I do about the two editors who have just deleted the images from articles; how can I have them restored to the articles?
This is especially troubling to me as one of the editors (ever since I had a difference of opinion on a separate issue with him) has been wikistalking me and deleting every entry he can (dozens) of entries I made. These are just two examples. (To explain just the level of disturbing behavior on the part of one of the editors, he twice deleted information from my rationale for free use, and then tagged it as not having a free use rationale.)
2. A second question. My understanding as well is that I can use an image of the album cover (for the purpose of reflecting the appearance of the album) not only in an article about the album, but also in the article about the band (which has a section on the album -- that is just as complete as the album article), and in the article about the record label (as far as I can tell, this is the only record of the record label).
The same two editors are saying no -- that I can't use any album cover photos in the articles about the band and the record label -- both of which discuss the album.
That makes no sense to me, as the rationale for inclusion is the same. The album is discussed. I wish to reflect the appearance of the album cover. Again, the editors have deleted every album cover photo (including that of the front cover) from the band article and the record label article.
Am I correct? If so, what can I do to have the images put back?
3. One last question. Can someone point me to how I make a photo even smaller than it is (to ensure that it is small enough for free use purposes)?
Thanks.-- VMAsNYC ( talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. I think I'm starting to get somewhere.
Need for Critical Commentary. I had very carefully read the policy, and thought (and still do think) that if one just reads the policy the use of the back cover and inside cover images is warranted to best reflect the appearance of the album. What confused me was that the other editors with whom I was discussing this issue kept on saying that the reason they were deleting the images was because the images were of the band and could easily be replaced by a just-as-good free use pic of the band (ignoring that they were of the album covers, and could not be replaced by a just-as-good pic of the album covers).
But reading further, the examples which you point me to refer to the acceptability of cover art "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In this case, the images were presented in the context of commentary on the images -- both in the text of the article, and in the captions of the images.
But what is meant by "critical commentary"? I had thought that mention of the art in the article would suffice. But now I expect that you are reading the requirement to mean "sourced commentary".
If I were a stickler, I would point out that a basic rule of construction demands that since "sourced commentary" is required for four specific items -- certain music clips, sound clips, short videos and press photos, and only critical commentary here, they mean different things (and there is no need for the commentary here to be "sourced" -- if the draftsman wanted it to be sourced, he would have said it, and clearly knew how as he required it in 4 other instances.
Be that as it may, I'm willing to go with the consensus here, and if what you are telling me is that the guidance means "critical commentary from a reliable third party source" -- which I gather is the case -- I'm happy to abide by it.
I would just suggest that to avoid confusion, the language in the guidance be cleaned up. As on its face it comes up a bit short from saying that now. In fact, it uses 5 distinct constructs: "appropriate sourced commentary," "critical commentary," "critical commentary and construction," "commentary," and "sourced commentary". It is a basic rule of construction that when there are differences in the way that words are used, the person construing the writing should presume differences in meaning. But I'm guessing from your reaction that this is not the intent here. If not, I would suggest that you have a sentence that says something like "When the phrase "commentary" is used below, what is meant is "appropriate sourced critical commentary from a reliable third party source." Or something like that. And then reduce all 14 or 15 subsequent references to "commentary." Just a suggestion.
Front Cover Exception -- and only for Album Pages. As to the front cover exception (those being ok), where is that written in the policy? I didn't see any distinction that suggested that there was a higher bar for back and inside covers.
Also, is it written somewhere in the policy that the front cover exception applies only to the album article, but not to the band article (where it is their only album, and is discussed in the same depth), and the record label article (where again it may be their only album)?
I would suggest that if these are in fact policies, that they be reflected in writing in the policy. Otherwise, how are newbies to know what's "generally accepted"? I'm happy to live with whatever the rule is, but how can I be expected to hue to rules of general acceptance that aren't reflected? My best efforts to learn what is generally accepted led to the following discovery ...
1,000 or so Back and Inside Covers -- Most of which Lack any Commentary. As to other back and inside cover images -- in these articles -- [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26] I noticed that back and inside covers were used (sometimes on band/singer pages, at that) without any third party commentary at all. I think that the vast majority of the thousand or so images at [27] and [28] also are of back and inside album covers and lack third-party commentary. Indeed, it was in part because of the widespread use of such images that I thought that my use must certainly be fine -- it was in accordance with what was already on Wikipedia. Are they ok because of some other exception I'm unaware of? Or is simply that since I have a wikistalker, mine got singled out, and while the others should be deleted as well since they don't have a wikistalker they will remain?
Permission. As to seeking permission from the record label, maybe they'll be fine as long as it is low resolution (which presumably lowers the risk of someone selling posters of it). Dunno, though.
Thanks so much for all of your input.-- VMAsNYC ( talk) 06:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)