Talk:Vexillology (album)

"Only album without a mau5head"?
At Play isn't even a studio album by most standards, it's a compilation. And if you're going to include things that aren't Deadmau5 LPs then you might as well include "Remixes" and "Meowingtons Hax Tour Trax", both of which lack mau5heads.

Either remove the accolade entirely, or specify that it's the "only" LP that doesn't have a head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.27.248 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Album Artwork
Conflict of Interest Declaration: I work for Play Records, the record label that released this album.

There seems to be some confusion among some Wiki users about what constitutes a legitimate reference on Wikipedia, or - apparently - that you need to cite your sources. Saying you own proof of a thing is not the same as actually proving that thing. And implying that I'm trying to rewrite history is both delusional and laughable. I'm trying to correct what seems to be an error on this platform after it was brought to my attention, nothing more.

There has been no proof presented in this article that the album artwork currently designated as the original artwork has anything at all to do with this release, let alone it being the original artwork of this release. This questionable artwork's earliest existence seems to be this file on Wikipedia, which was uploaded years after the album's release. All releases by Play Digital at the time of this album's release included the Play Digital logo. The questionable artwork does not include that logo. Therefore, it was not released by Play Digital, the label that originally released this album.

Here is the link to this album's original release on its original release platform, Beatport. At the time of its release, the album was exclusively available on Beatport. As is obvious on that original release page, the artwork is of the blue mouse head and that artwork carries the Play Digital logo that was on every release by this label at that time. It is the original artwork.

Unless the user who reinstated the questionable artwork and the user who accused me of rewriting history (LOL) can provide legitimate evidence that the questionable artwork was the original artwork, the questionable artwork should be removed from this article and the file deleted from Wikipedia. A JPG of the questionable artwork does not constitute legitimate evidence - the original uploader of that artwork did not provide a source for that JPG. It could be fan art. In 2006, anyone could fake artwork in a CD jewel case, rip and burn an album to a CD-R, and claim that package to be legitimate - those are called bootlegs. Perhaps the Wiki users claiming the questionable artwork is the original artwork don't realize they're confusing a bootleg of the album for the official release of the album.

Legitimate evidence that the questionable artwork is the original artwork would need to prove that that artwork was in use on the above linked Beatport page in 2006.

I humbly request the assistance of any admins in this area of Wikipedia to consider the facts above and remove the questionable artwork. I didn't think it would be a big deal to correct the article the first time. But since I am connected to the record label that released the album and my correction has since been challenged, my efforts to correct the article can go no further than this talk item. Thanks.

sifr4 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Simon. I don't appreciate the remarks you made against me. Anyway, this article does not meet WP:NALBUM so it's going through the deletion process, you and the rest of the gang at Play will not need to waste your time worrying about what cover it has on Wikipedia. Have a nice day.  Lazz _R  12:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)