Template talk:Non-free use rationale album cover

Brilliant
Man, this thing is farkin brilliant. I've been reading through this whole image free/non-free imbroglio the last few days with a growing sense of distaste and despair. This will help a lot, thanks for the good work. Tarc 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Use: Infobox
I agree with Tarc above!! + now I see why people get documents written by real lawyers. :-)

It might be good to add an explicit "Use = Infobox", possibly with a tweaked rationale specifically tuned for that case, as that is going to be one of the most common types of use, and doesn't quite match any of the existing options. Jheald 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. Hope it's acceptable.  Jheald 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad rationale and use
No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What needs to be made not-generic for this template to be used?  Λυδ α cιτγ  03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the generic-part isn't really my concern. My concern is with the rationale that being used to identify an album is enough. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, how would you change it for, let's say, Image:RedHotChiliPeppersCalifornication.jpg?  Λυδ α cιτγ  06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand the source being different for each transclusion, but won't the purpose be the same for each infobox use, header use, etc?  Λυδ α cιτγ  06:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning: This template is unstable
Because of an ongoing debate over the use of this template, this template is very unstable. Until it stabilizes, I would suggest that editors who wish put fair-use rationales on album-cover image files continue on with their own hand-crafted fair-use rationales, using the language from this template as a basis. — WiseKwai 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, to help those discussions, can we leave this template in the form it was in when it was applied (which was believed at that time to be stable), and in which form it was specifically instanced in the discussions at WP:AN and WT:FAIR. That version is the version by Jogers, 15:48, 14 July 2007.


 * Please do not change this template while those discussions are current, or it will enormously confuse the meaning of comments that have been made there. Jheald 09:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, as this template already has over 400 live usages, if people want to demonstrate ways they think it could/should be altered, can I suggest they edit up a separate version of the template on another page, for prototyping/scratch purposes, to show off their point; rather than unilaterally changing this one, which is in live use. Jheald 10:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Please do not engage in WP:vandalism.  If you blank or gut this template you are replacing bona fide fair use rationales on several hundred images with an instruction to delete those images, a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy.Wikidemo 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been pointed out to you on other talk pages, but it's very inappropriate for you to call these edits vandalism. Ironically, this template, and the potential for it's abuse, would harm Wikipedia more than your average vandalism anyways. Good intentions or not, it misses the point, and just enables Wikipedians to be lazy about non-free images, and to not give the situation it's due attention. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed the "use" parameter in now mandatory. Is there anything else that can be done to address this concern? Jogers (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still just letting the user choose from generic messages, not giving the situation the due attention it needs, and is still to easy to abuse. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's abuse, then deal with the abuse itself, not by removing a template from the hands of those who are able and willing to use it properly. The new "(undo)" link at the end of every edit certainly makes it easier for revert-warriors to wage their battles by simplifying the click process, but that would be a weak reason to call for its removal. Tarc 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We've got a template that can and will be abused. Those who don't abuse it (as in, those who use the override fields to list a proper FUR) can use existing templates that won't be abused. Images with this tag, even with the selectable options, do not pass WP:NFCC. The fact that it isn't as easy as slapping a tag on an image to make a FUR is intentional, to get the uploader to think and evaluate the situation, and to come up with an honest claim for our non-free content policy. -- Ned Scott 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ned, out of interest, can you give a concrete example of where you think it has been abused? That would make your objection easier to assess. Jheald 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're all better off with a sometimes abused template that at least causes people to think about fair use issues than hundreds of album covers with no fair use rationales whatsoever. -- But | seriously | folks   03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is my concern, that they won't consider fair use or our policies, that they will just slap a tag on there, with a selectable option, and not give any real though to it. That is the abuse. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is easier to copy and paste some generic rationale than to fill this template IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why have a template? -- Ned Scott 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it generates good rationale? What's your point now? What I was pointing out is that hand-written rationales are more likely to be abused by copy and pasting by somebody else. Jogers (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, there isn't that much to consider in regards to the narrow scope of this template, which is to provide a rationale for album cover use. There is zero variance in the reason/rationale to use of cover art in a Burt Bacharach album article as thee it use use cover art in a Cannibal Corpse album article.  It will always be used in whole, always be irreplaceable with a free alternative, etc...  The only real variance really is where cover art would be used.  If in an infobox for the album itself, there's no question that that is acceptable use.  If there is something else, such as wanting to use the iconic cover of Sgt. Pepper in an article about the 60's, then the template provides the means to justify it.  Templates are simply just  for ease of use.  WHy make everyone reinvent the wheel everytime? Tarc 12:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected

I've been adding this template for the past few days and now the images I was hoping to save from deletion are going to be deleted anyway? Please revert it to the last stable revision. Jogers (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely bogus, I just spent several minutes clearing out browser caches and such trying to figure out why this kept coming up even though I couldn't see "di-no fair use rationale" temple on the page itself, and came here to see what the hell was going on. So, yea great move guys; you just marked hundreds of acceptable and valid fair use images used in album infoboxes to be deleted 7 days from now. Tarc 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not really what "editprotected" is intended for. Anyway, I've unprotected. I hope you manage to work this out. Haukur 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No sources
Images with no sources are being marked as "No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source." No, we don't need to wait, any image that doesn't have a source can be speedy deleted within 48 hours, and thus I will tag any image as such if I see anymore nonsense like this. — M o e   ε  04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But it's always better to find a source - one may be in the edit history, or may be easily identified - and add it it than to delete.  Λυδ α cιτγ  04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is this template should not advocate the lack of sources as something that can be fixed later if anyone bothers to come across it. — M o e   ε  05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The source of the cover image is always the album itself. Sure, it's nice to state the website where the image can be found but it shouldn't be absolutely necessary. Was it discussed any further than here? Jogers (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys are forgetting a key point, in that source should also tell us who holds the copyright. Even with a detailed FUR, these images can all still be deleted for simply not having the copyright information on them. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the template say that "the cover art copyright is believed to belong to the record label or the graphic artist"? Jogers (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you must say who holds the copyright. For example, ©2007 Sony Records, or whatever. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But how would I know that? And what difference does it make if it's still fair use? Jogers (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, I always use the "label" parameter if it's specified in the infobox. Isn't it good enough? Jogers (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a part of WP:NFCC #10a, but if you are using the label parameter then you should be fine. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How would I document an album cover that I got through iTunes, as there is no direct link to the cover? --TwoToad (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ERROR message display
The ERROR message display is intentional and does NOT show up on pages when the template is properly used. The purpose of the message is to warn users if they did not use the  parameter in the template's code. If the parameter is used, then the ERROR message will not display. Click "what links here" on the template's page to see the template being used, and you'll see what I mean. In the future, please comply with the guidelines at Help:Reverting do not revert such edits before posting comments on the talk page. – Dream out loud (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not need help with reverting; don't be a dick, please. And it already worked that way before...that red error msg comes up with a user fails to enter something in the article field.  All your change accomplishes is making the error message appear on the template page, which is pointless. Tarc 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It used to work just fine without displaying the message on the template page as it does now.  Something was changes in the mass of edits a month or so ago.  I will still stand by the point that your "if you need help reverting" crap was needlessly biting though. Tarc 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't call me a dick as I find that very inappropriate and uncalled for. You obviously did not take complete note of my changes, as adding the error message was not the only change I had made.  Much more importantly, I removed the heading from the top of the template, because on every page which had the template, the heading's edit button would edit the actual template, rather than the section on the page itself.  I was not accusing you of needing help reverting, but I was instead trying to inform you of the correct usage for page reverts, as it is not to be used to remove an edit you find "pointless," especially since that does not assume good faith. – Dream out loud  (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice: proposal that will make this template obsolete.
There is a proposal at Non-free content criteria/Proposal that would create a templated use rationale for album covers. That proposal would, presumably, make this template obsolete by authorizing a replacement. Comments about that proposal would be very welcome; please put them on the talk page of the proposal, not here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming the proposal is accepted we'll probably deprecate it at some point and ask people not to use it anymore. Existing uses might be left alone or converted automatically to the new format, which will probably be simpler and easier to use.  Wikidemo 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heading
Does an extra heading need to be added when using this template? See this diff for example. Is it necessary to add ==Fair use rationale for [album]== when it's already in the template? Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should not be necessary but it does not hurt. A human reader will see the template and know that there's a rationale.  A bot that reads the markup source but not the page output looking for a rationale will only see that there's a template called "Album cover fur."  That means the bot has to be trained to spot this template and realize it is a rationale.  At first the bots that were tagging images for lack of rationale did not recognize this template.  However, the major bots are now trained to look for it, and any bot that doesn't see it is probably an unauthorized one....So there is a very slim chance that without the haeding the image could be tagged by an errant bot.  But a live administrator is required to delete any image, so chances are the mistake would be caught.  Personally, I just add the tag and don't bother with a heading.Wikidemo (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the more up-to-date bots recognise it, the heading wouldn't be necessary then. Thanks for your quick reply. Spellcast (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Singles
Any chance of a slightly reworded template for singles? Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This works for singles too. If you want to specify it's a single, just put "single" in the type field. In fact, I think Template:Single rationale is redundant to this. Spellcast (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue with template on Image:Outtathaway_singlecover.jpg
Although i didn't insert it (but moved it to correct place as listed on Template:Album cover fur, i can't seem to find the error thats causing it to misbehave on the page, i'm think its to do with the article having !! in its name. Peachey88 (Talk Page 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the exclamation points yea. From the looks of the article, the singles infobox chokes on em as well. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphic artist
Can the template be enhanced to display the name of the album cover artist? According to the template page, that's already a parameter -- "Graphic Artist". (Can parameter names have an embedded blank?) — Mudwater (Talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation
The comma that occurs after the word "label" in the description field is not needed and incorrect in standard written English as it stands currently. It is not a serial list of label, label name, and graphic artist. Label is a descriptor of the label name that occurs directly after the word "label." Please fix this. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

spacing
When the "Commentary" variable is used, there is no spacing between it and the next sentence starting "Use for this purpose does not compete..." —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added additional space at beginning of "use for this..."  SkierRMH  ( talk ) 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How long should it take for me to see it applied across images? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammar fix for "Replaceable?" text
A piece of text that shows up for album covers categorized as "Section"—e.g. Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack.jpg—should be changed to "Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work." --an odd name 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅-Andrew c [talk] 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things
The "portion used" section should be adjusted for, right now it does not make sense when used for an artist article, as it's not the product (album) or branding being identified but the artwork itself.

Also, right now when  is specified (different from above), the template gives this language: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, ___________, or the graphic artist, ___________." I think the record label is a safe bet in the vast majority of cases, isn't it? —Gendralman (Talk) 03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
There are whitespaces missing around the "purpose" parameter, in two places. I noticed this during my edits to File:Angel Dust meat photo.jpg, as recorded in the history. Please change |#default= }}<!--

(Copy from edit screen, otherwise you will miss the special characters!) Debresser (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I already did the same for the non-editportected Template:Film cover fur. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing now. There are lots of problems like this in this template. — RockMFR 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Debresser (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for detection
Please add the line  to an appropriate place in the template. For the purpose of this detection, see Category:Other information.

Note: A similar edit has been made to another 7 unprotected templates, and 2 more edit requests can be found at Template:Logo fur and Template:Non-free use rationale. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This code isn't right. Can you please test it? — RockMFR 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically - you need pipes in the parameter names. Otherwise, it will pretty much always add the page to the category. If you just want to check for non-empty parameters, just add the pipes. If you want to detect whether they exist at all, you'll need to do something like . — RockMFR 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll test it first. Thank you. It is however likely that indeed almost all transclusions of these templates will have to be fixed, because they are either substituted, or they urge editors to copy&paste the full template from the documentation pages (which include all parameters). Debresser (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tested it, and the code was right. Adding the pipes didn't make any difference; changing the parameter inside a file (deliberately introducing a typo) did. But I have added the pipes anyway for good measure. I trust I need not restore the editprotected template here and at the other two templates? Debresser (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you were right. The reason the files didn't disappear from Category:Other information is because they need to be null-edited. Now how do we do that, null-edit 11,000+ files? I've got an idea. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried, which is more or less the same as with the pipes, just dividing into subcategories for the different variations. It resorted the templates nicely, but the problem is that it doesn't catch the templates with empty parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After discussion at Bot_requests the easier solution was preferred. I also asked advise at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough. Please revert the last edit by Rich_Farmbrough and then change  to   and   to. I'll update the documentation later (is after all not essential). Debresser (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put this in the sandbox. And perhaps consider moving the protection template to the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * [/index.php?title=Template:Album_cover_fur&oldid=317200018&diff=319913059 This change] looks trivial of course, but why revert the change Rich made? Not that I disagree, but have you talked to him about it? Has he only changed by your request? I get confused when discussion is spread over 6 pages. Amalthea  11:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked him about a technicality (I'm not a pro after all). He walsed in and did whatever he did.
 * He was at the time working on Template:Infobox French commune, where he changed all parameters to uncapitalised. Here we are doing precisely the opposite: all parameters here and in all the related templates (~31) are capitalised, apart from this "other_information" one.
 * The reason he made this edit was because he wanted to redirect another template to this one, and that other one used uncapitalised parameters. He wasn't aware I was already in the process of changing the 200 or so transclusions of that template to capitals (which I finished doing the next day). So his whole edit was unneeded and quite uncalled for. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, . The removal of the period at the end of the low-resolution parameter was intentional, I presume? Amalthea  14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually, that was an ommission. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thought it was on purpose since none of the other parameters have it built-in. I'd say we leave it out. Amalthea  14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I, frankly, also don't see why it needs to be there. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Type description is confusing
The current description for Type is:


 * Type - What kind of music format? CD? Album? Etc.

This is confusing because a CD is also an album, just like an LP is also an album. And what should we allow for "Etc."? Based on earlier discussions "single" is also a valid choice for Type. I suggest that the Type is typically "album" or "single", and can optionally be "CD" or "LP" for albums where the CD and LP covers differ. It would also be helpful to show the examples for Type as lowercase since it appears mid-sentence, and is not a proper noun. I suggest the description be changed to:


 * Type - Enter the music format, typically "album" (entered without quotes). Enter "single" if the cover is for a single.  "CD" or "LP" can be used instead of "album" when the CD and LP covers differ.  The type will appear in the resulting description just before the Article name (the album title).

Curious Eric  02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) alternate cover art
At "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)" I am unable to override the purpose fields in the FURS at File:Ray Charles Norah Jones Here We Go Again.jpg and File:NSinatra Herewegoagain.jpg. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to specify  for this field to work, I think the documentation is pretty clear about this. Note, however, that in this case this isn't required as the image is used in the main infobox for the relevant section. --Muhandes (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Consideration for multiple graphic artists
I have noticed that many rationales credit more than one graphic artist, so I would like to change "the graphic artist" to "the graphic artist(s)". – Dream out loud (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ by MSGJ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, was just coming to say that :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Description is not an override field
It is an "Additional Info" field. There currently is no way to override the description, which means that special wording requires substing the entire template, despite the documentation claiming otherwise. Please fix these issues. — trlkly 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing period
Could an admin change the line:

to

I've just added a period. The period currently shows up when the  is unspecified, but not when it's specified. TDL (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have left a situation where a period was still not added, i.e. when Owner was filled in; so I've so that it is added in all three cases: Owner filled in; Owner blank but Label filled in; and both blank. -- Red rose64 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, good point. Thanks for taking care of it!  TDL (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxed version
Hi, can someone look over the version in the sandbox which uses Non-free use rationale 2 and comment? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 May 2016
To avoid an extra space before the period when the artist is not specified (e.g. for a soundtrack album), please change this:

}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}} |&amp;#32;by the artist {{{Artist}}}

nyuszika7h (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor detail
Currently the last link text reads "us copyright law" and yet the link takes you to fair use. Since the phrase fair use is mentioned just a few words earlier, wouldn't it be better to link that instead? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:FF2B (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Album cover tag" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Album cover tag and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice,thing! 2A00:A041:3240:4300:AC8E:2E21:2A86:80E5 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
Replace Example with Example Mach61 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 17:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)