Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 31

Talk:High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year_(soundtrack)
Opinions on the inclusion and presentation of international versions of the HSM3 soundtrack would greatly be appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Popular Songs" by Yo La Tengo
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)


 * Why? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, because anyone searching for the Popular Songs page will be sent in the wrong direction should they fail to capitalise either word, even though the page does exist. It makes little sense to treat "Popular songs" and "Popular Songs" as different searches.  I don't know if you're meant to prioritise the redirect or the album page, so I'm leaving it to the experts.  Lfh (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put hat notes at both pages. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BPI Website
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)

formating for maxi singles and eps
Not sure how to do this. Should they be italicized or put inside quotes? 陣 内 Jinnai 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * EP titles should be in italics. Maxi singles...if they're named after the lead (featured) song, then quotes. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-professional reviews, re: Metal Observer
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)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I agree, the consensus of the previous discussion is that Metal Observer is not a reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 11:55, 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)
 * Because it is an amateur website it fails as a source for reviews. Discussion on its merits as a reliable source resulted in a clear consensus that it wasn't. So its gone. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:54, 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)


 * It's too bad when this happens. In response to the person who said (in his edit summary) that he isn't trying to gain consensus because discussion is futile at Wikipedia, all I can say is I see proposals discussed and accepted all the time, even reviews of requests previously rejected, if a new good case is presented for it.  In one of my edit summaries, I stated there has been no attempt at discussion, but now I see there was discussion (in this section, by one of the editor's several identities), though it happened almost a week and many edits ago, so I missed it; my apologies.  But even so, making the change before achieving agreement was not right, and I don't see much real effort to present a new case.  Even though the article is protected, we can still discuss it, if you think you have a case. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD help requested
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) - Articles for deletion/Style (DVD). DJ 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A few issues
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)


 * Explicit, I find your points very relevant and I would like to comment. But first I would suggest we split this section up into 4 different sections as the four issues are independent and could be addressed separately. I believe it would make the discussions more streamlined. --IbLeo (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

✅. Should be easier to comment now. —  Σ xplicit  20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) You will find my feedback below. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Charts
My first issue is WP:ALBUMS: the table under this section is absolutely wrong in so many ways. The current format on this project is as follows: I think we can all agree that this is incorrect. I propose changing it to: Of course, not forgetting the rest of the charts in the table and their respective articles. —  Σ xplicit  20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Go for it. -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This table has also been a thorn in my eye since it was introduced recently. But rather than including the table layout in our project guidelines, I believe that we should simply link to WP:CHARTS which is a part of WP:MOS and therefore the ruling body for this matter. The table layout over there is the the same as the one you propose. – IbLeo (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that does make more sense; summarize here and have the more detailed information at WP:CHARTS. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarise here and link to WP:CHARTS. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note here: I noticed that the beginning paragraph beings with "If an album has successfully charted…", but goes on to talk about song charts as opposed album charts. I doubt anyone would be against me fixing that as well? Tongue.png —  Σ  xplicit 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Implemented. —  Σ  xplicit 18:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. But didn't you forget to fix the mistake you pointed out yourself in your edit of 18:27, 13 July 2009? – IbLeo (talk) 18:45, 19 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)
 * Agree. Thanks. – IbLeo (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Release history
The second issue I'd like to bring up is WP:ALBUMS; 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)
 * You'd be surprised how many people think the catalog number is important enough to be added to the infobox. -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Freekee; I have even seen catalogue numbers in the infobox! Personally, I don't have any strong opinion on this. Let's see what other people has to say. – IbLeo (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't find it helpful and I don't think it'll detrimental to the understanding of the reader if it were removed. I would like to see the counterargument to this, though. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the catalog's are mainly used so a release is easily identifiable. Searching for a release by cat number is much more specific, copy one into Google and you'll find a release much faster. As for the reasoning of removing it, I think you'll need overwhelming consensus, because it just doesn't seem necessary to remove it. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's verifiable then I don't see a good reason for excluding catalog #s from articles. As Kiac says, they're useful information for readers who may want to go on and find a copy of that album, and certainly the place for them is in a "release history". It's the equivalent of listing ISBN numbers for books. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Guess this one goes out the window. —  Σ  xplicit 18:27, 13 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
WP:ALBUMS. 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)
 * Sounds fine. ALBUMSEL or ALBUMS-EL? -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Could also be ALBUMS#EL (but I have no strong opinion on the choice). – IbLeo (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, didn't think of ALBUMS#EL. It can go either way, really. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Created as WP:ALBUMSEL. I kept getting redirected to WP:ALBUMS with WP:ALBUMS and couldn't get around it. —  Σ  xplicit 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Work to be done
Has anyone else noticed the summary under WP:ALBUMS 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)
 * Did someone update it since you brought it up, or is your cache out of date? -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Freekee, Explicit is referring to this table that wasn't updated since 28 March 2008. I have also noticed it, and I think it is a valid point. I remember someone mentioning that it used to be updated by a bot, but this bot hasn't been working for more than a year. Maybe someone else knows more about it? – IbLeo (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, the table has gone without an update for over a year and the bot is no longer running. On the bot's userpage, the owner does say he will supply the code for the bot to get it running again if asked. Might be useful if someone has the knowledge and would be willing to work it out. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one. I think it would be useful. It's an easy way for people to get involved. But the included categories should be tweaked. A couple of them are pretty useless, like the infobox conversions. -Freekee (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think it could be useful as well, but it's not updated on a regular basis as it was before, it's stale. —  Σ  xplicit 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a short term workaround I replaced the numbers in the table by "?" and added that it is due to Jogersbot not working. I guess the "job offer" to take it over is still open... – IbLeo (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to update this manually today, how strange! :) I created the table over 2 years ago, and for the first few months that's exactly what I did. Reduce the fields, and I may consider doing it manually again for now. – B.hotep •talk• 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What a strange coincidence indeed! If it is your intention to update it manually, I have no problem with this. I would also support to reduce the table with at least those categories that doesn't exist anymore. – IbLeo (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated it manually for the first time since April 2007! It didn't take long. And I get to make some zero along the way by doing the actual work needed to get it out of the category! Everyone's a winner. ;) I removed the maintenance lists section for now: they were (one still is) text dump pages which are a pain to count, and some are obsolete by some years now in any case. If there are any new categories that need adding, please feel free. – B.hotep •talk• 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS#Review sites
My final issue for tonight is WP:ALBUMS. 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)


 * Since they are online publications, that means they're just websites, which aren't italicized. These should be no different, honestly. —  Σ  xplicit 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the basis that I belive 'webzine' is just a fancy word for a website, you're right. They shouldn't be in italics. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely agreed. —  Σ  xplicit 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi
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 no strong opinion either way, but for what it's worth the previous discussions from this project regarding Scaruffi can be read here and here. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:59, 6 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); [] 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]


 * By "one sided" you are talking about WP:NPOV, yes? Neutrality, yes? A view accurately encompassing wide opinion and fairly illustrating the views of the expansive critical opinion? Now I haven't read into this, I'm just going by what you're saying here; I am assuming that most Beatles albums have many positive reviews attached to them (Yep) - and you want to add a questionable reviewer to the infobox to illustrate a negative opinion which did happen to exist? I don't believe this does anything for the 'neutrality' of an article. For example, if 95 reviewers loved an album, multiple referring to them as some of the "the Greatest albums of all time" (just an example), and 5 reviewers hate them, is there any worth in stating the 5%? Whilst still trying to make it seem as if it is neutral? I think if the wider opinion is showing us positive response, that is what should be shown. If his credibility is questionable, he should not be used in a Beatles article, full stop, they're one of the biggest acts of all time, they will have better sources. I think you are the one who is pushing the one-sided view here. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 06:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A one-sided view would be one that failed to see the stance resolved in those two archived discussions. Presumably because it didn't coincide with your desired outcome. The stance was, in case you missed it, not to include and his entry was duly removed from the professional review tab. That's what happened and I'm not seeing anything new to add to the case. – B.hotep •talk• 08:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't caught up with any of this - and probably won't - so I'm just going to talk and if what I say has no relevance, please ignore it :) ... One thing wiki needs to do is accurately reflect the data - i.e., if 95% of people love the album, it cannot say "the album was universally loved"... This may seem obvious. But then, if 100% of the references show that an album was loved, how can you NOT say that? You need at least one reference showing the contrasting viewpoint in order to justify the (accurate) text, no? (Never mind that maybe a better source could be found). Luminifer (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: quality of sources, throughout history there have been correlations between class and opinions - so it is not unreasonable for one to argue that all published pieces regarding a work (especially one that was far in the past) would have opinions different from the masses, or different from self-published or 'zine opinions. This is obviously a difficult issue but I don't feel comfortable completely ignoring the possibility of correlated opinions like these. Does that make any sense? Luminifer (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Are you sure his music criticism books are not self-published? The Amazon links gives four music books (at least on top)., and  are published by "Omniware", who also owns his domain scaruffi.com and for whom the contact person is " scaruffi, piero". The other is published by iUniverse, whose website says it all. I supported the use of Scaruffi in article bodies but was convinced that he was technically not "professional." By contrast, Christgau was for some time the official music review for Village Voice, and his books are published by people like Da Capo Press  and St. Martin's Griffin  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd mention that Piero Scaruffi states Since 2003 all his books are self-published. ... Luminifer (talk) 22:00, 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 think it was already revealed in the above two comments that they are his own publishing companies, or names used for his own self-publications.
 * As for the earlier remarks, I think you are definitely better off not attacking the editor and actually creating a better argument for yourself. You're not convincing anyone here. I can tell you right now, there is more than the 5 people that have posted in this section watching this page, and if they thought there was any worth in your argument, they would have supported. As as of now, you're still the only person that's arguing the issue that is not resolved.
 * I think Religion should not be used as an example in a discussion as trivial as this. If you assume Christians and Atheists is a valid comparison, then you must also assume that Christians have a valid, notable, reliable and overwhelming majority point of view - and all 5% o those Atheists do not. This is where your case is sitting right now. As flawed as my comment may have been, nevertheless, this Piero Scaruffi bloke is as far as this discussion is concerned - a lone wolf. His opinion alone should not be worked into an article about The Beatles - he hasn't created uproar with his comments or made any dent into their career or critical credibility, his opinion means nothing. As compared to the dozens, if not hundreds, of other opinions out there, he is no where near the top 10 - which is all that should be included. A negative opinion is definitely notable for inclusion, if the source is reliable - and if the article is avoiding any issues with undue weight, which is my issue here. The article should establish the same overwhelming positivity that The Beatles did receive - if you refute this then you're just ignorant.
 * Christgau has written for Blender, Rolling Stone, Newsday and Spin - stop trying to claim something that is just not there. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 08:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As User:Kiac notes, in my comment above I disclosed that both Omniware and iUniverse are self-publishing for Scaruffi. By contrast, even Christgau's self-published materials are usable because Christgau is a professional music critic. His credentials are established. (Compare WP:SPS.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 8 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)
 * Ditto here. I would favor not using Scaruffi, who is basically self-published, but continuing to use Christgau.
 * While Xgau's site is not pretty by the standards of kids today&mdash;which in some editors' eyes makes him clearly not credible&mdash;his reviews have been a published in multiple periodicals since the late 60s, when rock criticism was still a new thing, and he has reviewed a wide range of music in many styles. The only reasonable (tho not policy-based) downside I can see is that his sometimes unorthodox tastes tiff many editors off, which is a standard that would also exclude Scaruffi. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping Christgau. Even if his reviews are minimal, there are several allmusic reviews that have a star rating with no text as well, but those are also included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be. A rating without any text isn't a review, it's just a rating. And we're interested in "professional reviews", not just ratings. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Christgau is a professional reviewer, and a pretty notable one. Also the lengths of his reviews vary; it's very rearley just a rating. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of alternate album covers
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, 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 NFCC, 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)


 * If you look into the project archives you will find that this is a recurring debate, and that more than one of us have been upset about this in the past. Last "round" was about 5 months ago, here and a few weeks later here. The only consensus I can see is that if an alternate cover is significantly different from the original one, and properly discussed in the article, then most people find it reasonable to keep it. And then again, that might only be my personal interpretation (and is that only because I am biased because I find it quite reasonable?). Anyway, I am not personally inclined to get involved in this discussion as I don't see how it will lead anywhere else than 5 months ago. However, I do wish you good luck! – IbLeo (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I Agree w/ IbLeo. I don't really have anything new to say beyond my comment here in January. 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 (referenced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that have only minor differences (ie. merely saying "deluxe" or "special edition") probably don't, and it's something that has to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose to spell this explicitly out in our guidelines in order to help our members understand what is required for an alternate cover to pass the WP:NFCC. More precisely, I propose to add IllaZilla's phrase above to Template:Infobox_Album, so it will read "...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." Opposition, remarks, support? – IbLeo (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I think it would help to have an explanation like that in the template documentation. Hopefully editors will see it and take the time to check WP:NFCC before adding more covers. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed much in this area for many moons, spending 99% of my time on MILHIST work now, but I did take a lot of time on Bowie albums and singles of the 70s a while back, including sourcing and commenting on alternate covers. Recently some of those have gone up for deletion on the above basis, i.e. that they differed very little from the original, and therefore I did not oppose their deletion. IbLeo, your additional wording above seems to codify that philosophy, so I'm happy to support it as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support so far. A few months ago when I saw what way the winds were blowing I did some work myself to improve the comments on some of the alternate Bowie covers. I think it's a shame that we lost the original US cover for Space Oddity (album)—despite my efforts—but it's a small price to pay. Anyway, I will wait a few days in order to give some time for other members to comment before I take any action on the guidelines. – IbLeo (talk) 10:59, 29 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)
 * All album articles should have an image of the original album art, I really don't see that as negotiable at all. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Tarc, I don't consider the "main" album cover to be within the scope of this discussion. Our guidelines for the Cover field clearly states: "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album...". So if this cover is subsequently replaced, the replacement cover(s) clearly can only be shown as alternate covers in the "Misc" field. What we are trying to address here are the conditions to be satisfied for this to be acceptable. – IbLeo (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the original cover should necessarily be the one in the infobox. An indie label debut that sold 1000 copies, that was picked up by a major and went platinum? The major should be the one in the infobox. I think the most important cover (the one everybody knows it by) should be the one featured. If two covers were equally important, for some reason (US vs. UK?), pick one to be displayed as the alternate cover. I notice there is some discussion here about "critical commentary" being required to display an alternate cover, and how much effort we sometimes put into discussing the cover. That's a worthy goal, but it's not required for this purpose. All that's absolutely necessary is that you describe what it is, and why you're showing it. For example, you say that it's the UK release. Or the 20th anniversary special limited edition. Of course, you've got to follow the other rules, like the image can't easily be described by text, in context of the other image. -Freekee (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The original cover should always come first. Encyclopedia articles are essentially histories; the original cover is the identifying image of the original album. Subsequent re-releases/reissues are merely re-presenting that album with new packaging, even if the re-release sells more or brings the album to greater notability. The infobox isn't about which cover is most notable, it's about "this is the object this article is about". --IllaZilla (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, somewhat. One of the main uses of album covers is for identification. Why would you include a cover that 98% of readers do not recognize? I want the cover there so a reader knows he's looking at the right one. Besides, I don't see how including the more well-known cover violates, "this is the object this article is about". I was going to suggest that this is an important idea, and maybe it should be up for discussion, but I see the the project page already says "the original cover." However, I'm not sure it was meant to be taken in such a strict manner. I assumed it was just advising not to use a reissue, or something. -Freekee (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Freekee, I have often seen alternate covers substantially different from the first one being deleted on the grounds that it is not commented in the article, despite motions to keep them from several editors. For example here. So simple saying it's the "U.K. release" or "20th anniversary special limited edition" in my experience won't work unless the cover is also discussed (and sourced) in the article. – IbLeo (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They're assholes. Pardon my bluntness, but I get so sick of that crap. There's no consensus for it. You know what consensus there is? NFC crusaders believing that their opinion matters more than the opinions of those who they see as rank-and-file I Like It editors. Well I've been around here for years, have studied those criteria, and been involved in many discussions about it, and just like you said, it gets deleted. What the fuck?! -Freekee (talk) 04:30, 2 July 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)


 * First of all, I want to make it clear namecalling is not attacking. It's just crude. Please do not accuse me of violating policy. Second, I do not compare Wikipedia policy to national law, at any point.
 * But here's the problem... everything you mentioned just now, is not consensus. I disagree with what you said, and I often bring that up. And usually, in these discussions, the number of people on each side is somewhat balanced, or leans slightly in favor of inclusion. Yet the images continue to get deleted, and people like me, with well-reasoned arguments, to counter the well-reasoned arguments of people like you, are ignored. Why? I think it's a systemic bias. As I said, the deletionists think they have a sound position, by comparison with the inclusionsits. They see the rank-and-file editors, very often newcomers, who think they're helping by uploading every image they can get their hands on. The NFC crusaders see their position as superior (and they're probably right), but they lump us all in with that group. And it becomes an us-versus-them situation. But what cements their view, is this: I think we can all agree that including more information would seem to further the goals of an encyclopedia, at least on the surface. So anyone who would oppose that specific trend, must be doing so for a very good reason, right? There's an amount of certainty that is granted by such a position. In other words, someone's making the hard choice, and he therefore feels that his views take precedence.
 * I take back the asshole comment. I was not assuming good faith. I realize you're doing what you think is right. But you must understand how I see things. What I see are overly strict interpretations of policy, and claims of consensus where I don't find any. -Freekee (talk) 00:46, 3 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)


 * (Edit conflict) Freekee, name-calling actually breaches WP:CIV; but I'll put that issue aside. Back to the topic, I have to disagree that with the claim that there is no consensus. All policies, including WP:NFCC, were discussed and, at the end, agreed upon. I'd call that consensus. If most alternate album covers are deleted, could you give a few well-reasoned arguments in favor of keeping an alternate cover while complying with said policy? If the arguments were truly well-reasoned, I'd expect them to comply with the policy, which would have lead to the covers being kept; if not, the covers were rightly deleted, assuming the keep and delete arguments were weighted correctly (remember, it's the weight of the arguments, not just the number of votes). If you feel policy is too strict and should be changed, that should appropriately be discussed on the policy's talk page. —  Σ xplicit  01:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that there is no consensus for the policy, I'm saying there's no consensus for its interpretation. I'm arguing that policy supports the keeping of many of these images, and saying that people with my views keep getting ignored because the people who have what I feel is an overly strict view of the policy, are the ones doing the deletions. People like me keep explaining a more liberal interpretation of the policy, yet people like you continue to feel that you have the Foundation on your side, or something. It doesn't matter how many times I state my opinions in these discussions, as soon as I turn my back, things get deleted due to some imaginary consensus. It's frustrating, because I have my own projects to work on (and at the moment, they're mostly offline), and I don't want to spend all my time at NFC and deletion review arguing to keep images. And it makes me wonder why you want to spend all your time there arguing to delete them. -Freekee (talk) 04:30, 5 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)


 * I feel that album covers are part of the release. They are part of the artistic product. They enhance or illuminate the musical product. They are not incidental packaging. As such, showing a cover is never decoration. In addition to helping the reader to understand the subject, they provide identification. They allow the reader to say, with greater certainty, "this is the album I'm wondering about." WP:NFC specifically allows various types of images to be used for purposes of identification. In some cases, albums were released with different covers, where more than one sold a significant number. If half the world has the "alternate" cover, shouldn't they be allowed to identify theirs? I think they should. And as long as the article mentions the source of this significance (as proof, as well as understanding of that image), that should be good enough. But I keep seeing this argument for critical commentary in relation to these alternate album covers. According to NFCC criterion #1 for Images, discussion of the image in the text of the article is not necessary. In my opinion, it's difficult to justify an image's inclusion without some sort of explanation (see a few lines up), but a discussion of the cover art itself is not required. I think that some people have that strange belief you mention, but I think that an overly strict interpretation of NFC policy is not helpful. I've seen a lot of alternate album covers up for deletion, and supported quite a few of those deletions, myself. But as I said, I don't think that the deletionists' interpretation is quite by consensus, even though those deletionists are the ones doing the deletions. -Freekee (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While we are having our little discussion here, someone nominated our template Extra album cover 2 for deletion! See Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_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)

Deletion of alternate album covers: Proposals 1–3

 * The deletion debate on Extra album cover 2 has now been closed and the template survived (phew). So where does this leave us? Personally, I feel that more than ever there is a strong need for providing specific guidelines on when alternate covers are tolerated with respect to WP:NFCC, rather than a mere link to it. At the beginning of this discussion I suggested to improve the text over at Template:Infobox_Album, so it will read "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 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)


 * Silence for a week now. If no-one speaks up against the proposal in the next few days, I will assume that we have reached consensus and update our guidelines according to the above. – IbLeo (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with that. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is this proprosal we're all agreeing to? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. The proposal to update the guidelines explained in my edit of 07:12, 11 July 2009. – IbLeo (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merely being widely distributed is not a solid reason to use a cover. If it's significant, it should be discussed. Again, we can't justify using non-free images if we can't justify discussing them. To again use my own example, this would allow the use of the album covers in this version of Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album). For non-admins, those images are here and here; both are very different from the original, and both are far more widely distributed than the original. Do you feel they should be used? J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My own, personal opinion is not relevant to this discussion. What I am aiming at is to establish some guidelines for our members on how WP:NFCC "translates" to alternate covers in album articles, so (a) people don't upload alternate covers only to see them deleted by administrators a few days/weeks/months after, (b) we don't have a discussion about it here every 6 months or so. If I understand you correctly, alternate covers are only permitted if they are discussed in the article, which is slightly different from the text proposed above. It could be reformulated to encompass your remark: "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.'" 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)
 * Sounds reasonable, but I'm still seeing exceptions- if the Yugoslavian cover was widely discussed (maybe it was the first one that showed the face of X musician, maybe it was highly controversial, whatever) it would be worth showing even if not widely distributed. As a guideline (IE- help to new users not awfully familiar with our NFCC), your latest proposal seems perfect, but we must be ready to throw it aside if necessary (as I say, the odd Yugoslavian cover may be very significant, and it's possible that a very small difference between covers is of extreme importance). Bolding the needed for sourced commentary would be useful, as that is clearly the most important part. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we are getting at something like this: "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.'" 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)
 * I support proposal three. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

← 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)


 * I can get behind proposal 3. It's the most in-line with current policies regarding non-free images, and covers the project against most complaints. Pending wider community consensus on the subject, I think it works. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have concerns with the requirement for sourced commentary. JMilburn has a point that an image can't necessarily be determined to be significant, without explaining what's so significant about it. But in some cases, significance doesn't need much of an explanation. Are we okay with a caption reading "US version"? And how do you source that? -Freekee (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No we are not. If that's all there is to say about the cover, it really can't be that significant. J Milburn (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of Proposal 1. If any cover is widely distributed and thus recognizable to a certain population, I don't see why it should not be included so that population can identify it easily. IMO the sourced commentary would only be necessary if the cover were to be included as an image on the artist's page for example. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And how is that view consistent with our non-free content criteria? "If a lot of people know it, it should be included"? J Milburn (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also in favour of proposal 1. It seems to me that this is much the most in line with the run of past decisions at WP:FFD, (eg the largest single set of discussions, on 10 Jan), and seems to be the de-facto line subsequently taken by eg .  The answer to J. Milburn's question is given in those deletion debates, on 10 Jan and subsequently, repeatedly and at length.  It is that the criteria identified in proposal 1 -- that the cover is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification -- makes the cover significant in itself, just as showing a cover is normally significant in itself, and for this reason showing the alternate cover in itself adds significantly to the understanding the reader gets from the article, the requirement set out by NFCC #8.  Jheald (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right, you may be wrong. However, if you are right, and the covers are significant, they will have been discussed in reliable sources, meaning they can be discussed in the article prose. If they've never been discussed in reliable sources, it's difficult for me to believe you when you say that they must be significant. This seems like a standard example of the lots of people = notable fallacy. We don't judge whether something is important based on how many people know it/like it/use it; we judge based on reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is to confuse two very different things: statements made in the article, to which the policies like WP:RS and WP:NOR apply; as distinct from, on the other hand, text not in article space, viz. "arguments in talk space, image space, policy discussions, etc.", to which WP:NOR does not apply.
 * The question of "significance" in NFCC #8 is an editorial judgment by the community, and falls into the latter category. Jheald (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to If that's all there is to say about the cover, it really can't be that significant. I disagree. One of the main uses for cover art in articles is to identify the subject. I believe this is the reason critical commentary is not required for such images. If half the world has a different cover, why should we deny half the world from identify the subject of the article. In NFCC, minimal does not equal one. -Freekee (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still strongly disagree. For instance, in proposal one, where do we draw the line? At least proposal three has fairly clear requirements, proposal one could quite easily "open the floodgates", as it were. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "opening the floodgates". Proposal 1 merely reflects the current status quo, and the current application of policy.  It is proposals 2 or 3 which would represent a radical change to current practice.  Jheald (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late arrival! Have just read through the above and I have to sat I'm not overly comfortable with the proposals. I personally think that the infobox should only include the most easily recognisable cover i.e. the most widely distributed one. If the article comments on alternative covers they should be included as images within the text. See, for instance Ten. An image of the unfolded CD booklet is used to illustrate the text on packaging and adds to the article but I'm not sure what the vinyl album cover and particularly the reissue cover add to the article. Yesterday and Today has a section that discusses the artwork and clearly both covers are important but wouldn't it be better if the alternative cover was part of the section where it's being discussed? Cavie78 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm the one that kicked this current thing off, and I have to say that I too disagree with the "there must be commentary to justify the image" talk here; any album art is significant. I do not see how "critical commentary" can be deemed not needed for a primary album cover, but suddenly crucial to justify an alternate cover.  It seems arbitrary and capricious, and I pointed out as much on the IfD page, where it fell on deaf ears. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 23 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)
 * Cavie's point is very valid- alternative covers may well be more useful inline than in the article infobox. Tarc, if there's commentary on an "alternative" cover but not on the "main" one, it may be worth considering removing the main one. The lead image is generally justified by the need for "identification" and the fact it is probably the only way to illustrate an album- obviously, the album is already identified and the article already illustrated by the first one. Freekee, "just as widely distributed or as well-known as the original cover" could be problematic if the original cover was not widely distributed itself. Further, if we had that kind of data to hand, I'm assuming there would be sources for some critical commentary anyway... However, regardless of what guidelines are agreed upon here, they will obviously not come above the non-free content criteria- album covers are going to be continued to be removed if they do not meet them. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both images are significant for identification. That's the point, and one which has been repeatedly upheld at WP:IFD.  Jheald (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is never a justification to remove the main one. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If both are significant, would three be? Four be? J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, but they get harder to justify, and in any case a third series of cover art "significantly different" and "widely distributed or replaces the original" is pretty unusual. To take your Connie Talbot example above for instance, one or other of the alternative covers would qualify (and would indeed significantly add to reader understanding); but not both.  Jheald (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Current guidelines state that the original cover is to go in the infobox. I think it's obvious that our guidelines must conform to NFC policy, but it might bear repeating that what we're doing is writing guidelines on how to interpret broader policy, with regard to our project. -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear that the third proposal is closest to the current non-free content guidelines. There's no blanket allowance for book covers if they're widely distributed, for instance. Again, if the covers genuinely are important, they will be discussed in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Closest of the three proposals, yes. But still not close enough, IMO. That's why I'm asking for more input. -Freekee (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal 3 would be a radical change to current practice, and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. The presence or non-presence of alternative covers actually in the encyclopedia at the moment basically tracks Proposal 1.  Adopting Proposal 3 would be a considerable change.
 * As to "Proposal 3 being closest to the current non-free content guidelines", I accept that is your personal opinion, because you personally don't see any independent significance in cover images. But I don't think that is the mainstream view, because IMO most people do see the cover art as a significant piece of information about the album -- including, famously, Jimbo himself.
 * Finally, the comparison with books doesn't stand up, because (for whatever reasons) book covers simply don't have the same intensity of identification with their product -- demonstrated empirically by publisher's willingness to 'update' book covers every 5 to 7 years as standard operating procedure; in complete contrast to albums, where cover art changes for successful albums are very very much the exception, not the rule. Jheald (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet people still obsessively collect books with different covers and obsessively search for books with the same "style" of cover as others they own in the series- I should know, I work in a bookshop. Of course adopting this would be a change of practise- I don't think any one is doubting that the majority of users do not much know of/care for our non-free content criteria. However, we aren't looking for a change of practise- that would be impossible. We're looking for a less abstract explanation of the non-free content criteria with regards to album covers to which we can point new users. It would not be a change to current policy, nor to current deletion trends- uneeded alternative album covers are being deleted as, no matter how long this bantering goes on, the images are still be against policy. Further, your claim that I don't see any independent significance in album covers is an odd one- of course I don't. Non-free images don't have a right to be used just because they exist. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4
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)
 * My problem with having the 'explain' the differences/changes is the issue of whether we have to source it. I doubt there's a single source which is going to note 'the second release had a golden cover instead of blue' (for example). They would just use an image to show the difference, so what do we do, use the image as a direct reference? Would that be a reliable source? Or would people start claiming original research, as we're taking what we want from the image and describing it ourselves? k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, it's not often that a published source indicates a change in color of a cover, so I do see your point. If the difference in covers like in this situation is minimal, perhaps it should be omitted all together. —  Σ  xplicit 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be muddling "discussion of the image" with "need to show the image". There's a subtle difference. Let's compare to music- if someone says on an article "John Smith recorded new music for the rerealease", there's no need for a sample. Yes, the music is mentioned, but what it sounds like is not of great importance. If, however, we have a paragraph describing the change in musical direction, as well as the improvement with recording and criticism of instrument choice, then we have a need for a music sample. I find it interesting that we have such rampant overuse of album covers in some places, but, despite the fact we're a WikiProject focussing on music, we have next to no issues with overuse of music samples. I think this is related to what Jheald mentions above- there is a culture of abusing album covers, and, as no one has taken it upon themselves to clean it up on a massive scale (or have faced opposition when they've tried) the abuse stays, and the fact there is abuse becomes a reaon to support more abuse. It's a horrible vicious circle, and I hope it's one we can get out of. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Explicit, I basically agree with what you're saying. The only thing I have trouble with is when the cover identifies a different packaging. I think that's too liberal. It needs to be the artwork from a significant release, with widespread distribution. A deluxe limited edition probably wouldn't pass. For example, the album was in print with one cover from 1972 to 1981. Then a new label released it with a different cover, for the next fifteen years.
 * As for sourcing different covers, it's not generally required to provide sources for noncontroversial information. -Freekee (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of sourcing for different covers is not to verify that they exist, but that they are important in some way. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need a citation from Rolling Stone that says a particular cover was released in the US, while the original was found in the rest of the world. We don't need mainstream press to tell us that the cover was used extensively, in that case. In some cases, significance will need to be proven with citations from reliable sources, but in other cases you don't. Like, if you say that a cover has been in use since 1983. That would be a significant use of the artwork, and it's a non-controversial fact. We don't require citations for the original cover artwork. All you need to say is what makes the alternate cover significant. Then, if that statement is one that people may have cause to doubt, you need a source. -Freekee (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 revisited
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)


 * 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 will support this. Since this approximates current practice, I think we should put it into print. Then, if anyone has serious objections, and wants to change practice, it can be discussed. I think the "widely distributed" criterion is a little vague, but it's more specific than the current guidelines. And the vagueness still leaves some room to take images to IfD. -Freekee (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still behind this one. It most closely reflects the provisions of NFCC as well as my thoughts on the matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks good to me. But just a thought: would it be a good idea to get input from someone at WikiProject Images and Media? --JD554 (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't even know about the existence of that project... Honestly, at this point in the discussion I think it is a little late, and it seems like we are close to a resolution (fingers crossed). Next time around, why not? – IbLeo (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with proposal J04n(talk page) 20:16, 13 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)
 * Support proposal one for now. If we're still up to it, we can discuss it further after its implementation. —  Σ  xplicit 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate, hate, hate proposal one. It is not going to stop me enforcing the NFCC as appropriate. A single identifying cover is fine, but any more than that are going to need to be well justified- probably with sourced commentary. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you have made your position perfectly clear to everyone: You prefer proposal 3. With all respect, I feel that Proposal 3 has been properly discussed and the discussion revealed that it does not represent common practice, as best stated by JHeald in his edit of 11:31, 28 July 2009: "Proposal 3 would be a radical change to current practice, and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. The presence or non-presence of alternative covers actually in the encyclopedia at the moment basically tracks Proposal 1. Adopting Proposal 3 would be a considerable change." Also, it is important to repeat that our guidelines can not overrule WP:NFCC so if an alternate cover is deleted due to NFCC, then so be it. And if someone comes back to this project with a strong case stating that our guidelines are in direct conflict with NFCC, then let us deal with it when that happens. – IbLeo (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support proposal one. Jheald (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. All this will achieve is confusing newcomers about policy. This is not the place to discuss a change in policy, and writing this on the infobox page will not change that. No admin worth their salt will make this edit, as it is clearly a novel interpretation of policy being placed somewhere it doesn't belong. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit, as an uninvolved editor (and ultimately as an admin), I wouldn't make that change. It needs to sit for a bit longer (yes, I know it has been a while now). But it does seem a bit controversial and does need input from others outside the scope of this project as it involves other policies. I say this without prejudice and with no opinion on album covers in general (if you want to know why, ask me on my talk page – not only is it another story, it's a long one :)). – B.hotep •talk• 13:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming from NFC here, I understand J Milburn's concerns - there is some concern that a wikiproject is trying to overrule Foundation-mandated policy here. However, I honestly believe that proposal 1's strong statement of when an alternate cover can be used is sufficiently restrictive and yet important to include to be a good-faith interpretation of NFC policy as it applies to album infoboxes. My only suggestion is that the project consider a review of this change in 3 months to see if users are abidding by the strong requirements, and if not, consider more explicit language or other alterations to nail down the exceptional times an alternate cover should be used. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I underline and repeat, this is not an attempt to overrule NFCC, it is an attempt to help our members understand how NFCC is interpreted for alternate covers in album infoboxes. We have a section on our project page explaining how MOS:CAPS applies to album titles - why shouldn't we have one for alternate covers? Currently, this is explained nowhere, and anyone who looks often at album articles knows that there are many alternate covers out there who obviously does not meet NFCC (I even stumbled upon one recently in a FA that would clearly fail proposal 1: Love. Angel. Music. Baby.). So I really believe that this change can only improve the situation and help reducing the number of illegal alternate covers out there. It can hardly get worse than it is already! Now, I would have absolutely no problem in tightening up the language in 3 months, provided we can agree on a text. – IbLeo (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I've commented on this issue, but I do agree with J Milburn's concern that this proposal is being presented as more than just a guideline, and is an attempt to reinterpret both fair-use laws and the Wikipedia Foundation's interpretation of those laws, which is especially problematic since there have been objections to all interpretations from this talk page. I realize it's a bit late to say this, but I also think that this proposed wording: "...an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion" (bolded portions) is trying too hard to exclude brief but legitimate references to the alternate cover, even when we do find them.  It sounds like there almost has to be a book written about an alternate cover before we can use it as a citation.  Maybe we could remove the word "specific" as it's not, er, specific about what it means.  (Or, alternately, "critical"; why does it have to be a critic-styled article?  And why are there brackets around rhe word "sourced"?  Is this part of the rule, or not?)  Finally, regarding IbLeo's use of the word "illegal" to characterize alternate covers, I do think that any real-life legal criteria on the use of these images would not hinge upon the charactaristics of cited sources, as such charactarizations are just opinion.  If the images are truly illegal, then they are illegal regardless of the "quality" of citations used (and therefore I'm sure "illegal" is not an appropriate label).  I mention this as a reminder that we often seem to be overstating the alleged dire need to control the alternate covers situation.  (Not that I'm objecting to controlling it to a lesser degree as we have been doing up to now.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kinght, are you referring specifically to this passage: Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.? How about something like, "Also, an alternate cover may pass NFC criteria for inclusion if it is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary."? -Freekee (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ❌ - This is a fairly major change, so please get some more input on this, and a stronger consensus in support of the change. I'd actually recommend getting some wider input on this through an RFC or similar medium. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've often thought that if this effort is intended to support the Foundation's requirements, the Foundation itself should be involved, and they can also offer an opinion as to whether this is necessary. (And if they feel it is, they might actually take over the whole decision making process, and unilaterally declare an amendment to fair use rules, which could be viewed as more legitimate than a WikiProject determining legal issues).  I know this has been brought up before, and it has been said that the Foundation would likely not get involved, but I don't know if they have actually been asked. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I have lost faith that we will ever be able to reach a "stronger consensus" on any proposal, and in consequence I am going to step back from this discussion. In hindsight I should have listened better to myself ("I am not personally inclined to get involved in this discussion as I don't see how it will lead anywhere else than 5 months ago" as I wrote in my very first entry). No, honestly, it has been an interesting voyage, quite a learning experience for me and I am quite impressed that it has stayed completely civil all along the way. By the way, I apologize if my use of the word "illegal" lead to confusion; in the context it was simply supposed to mean "non-compliant with NFCC". I will now step out in my garden and enjoy a glass of red wine. I wish you all the best of luck and I will see you around, hopefully in other less-controversial discussions. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox malfunction
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)
 * All fixed. It was missing the  field for the extra chronology. —  Σ  xplicit  18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. 12.75.116.98 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Released" field exception for a second date?
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)


 * One is enough. If the extra information is really notable then a stand alone table is justifiable. Encouraging more than one of these just gives cause for people to include flags and more and more dates ("Oh what about my country?!").  k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is clear; only the original release date. Those articles and many, many others should be edited to reflect this. J04n(talk page) 09:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The field gives me an idea of when the music was finished. It gives you a good feel for the records place in time. You don't really have to have a formal release section. If you just want to mention the US vs. UK difference, that can easily be added to a paragraph someplace - very often in the lead. And Yellow Submarine? That's only a week apart! -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Girls (album)
Please review this so that I know what needs to be improved.--Launchballer (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Popotan soundtracks
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)

GA reassessment for Being There (album)
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)
 * There has been very little improvement to this article so far. The required changes are not major, but a couple are sufficient to bring it down from GA standards. There are a couple of days left in the hold period. If editors begin working toward resolving the concerns during this time, the hold can be extended. If nothing is done, however, it will be delisted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
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.

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)


 * Hi, PoD. I was waiting for someone to come along with a definitive answer too, but the truth is: it is still very much disputed, if not outright controversial, area. We have had input from image specialists above with conflicting views, but still there is no common interpretation of policy – not unlike many other areas of Wikipedia. :) I don't foresee this causing any problems at the moment at FAC because of this (objections can always be countered with the fact that this debate is still ongoing). That's my take anyway. By the way, great article. – B.hotep •talk• 10:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Postscript: Although, whether or not you actually want the alternative covers in the article is very much down to consensus, which I see you are trying to thresh out at the moment. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Personally I think they should stay, people seem to think they're almost identical - while that may be true of the original and 20th anniversary covers, there's no way the 30th anniversary cover is 'similar'.  For one, its a stained glass window.  Album covers IMO are similar when they're cropped, or coloured copies of the original, however the 30th is a completely new cover that draws heavy inspiration from the original.  The fact that it does so is surely significant, considering the longevity of the album.


 * I don't know, its just frustrating to put hours into an article and for a few users to oppose simply on what is a minor, and subjective, problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean . We had (and to a certain extent are still having) problems with the whole Motörhead thing – getting it to FA status (all those years ago now) and now it looks like some of the album articles there with alternate covers may have to be reviewed for the same reason. Good luck with a compromise – I may pop along later to give my (uninvolved) opinion, fwiw. :) – B.hotep •talk• 11:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for Total Album Length?
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)


 * Allmusic generally lists the length (on the left, under "time"). That's a good source to look at. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed allmusic has a lot of incorrent information - so you might want to confirm that what it says is at least close to what the added up track lengths might be. Luminifer (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always presumed the total length mainly comes from someone sticking a CD in a player and reading the total time, which displays immediately on many players. IMO this is usually a useless piece of information, and exists only because some editors like sticking the CD in the player and reporting what shows up. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with that? Too OR for you? There are tons of sources for track length. Since they vary so much, it's good to add a after the time, in the infobox, just so the next editor has an idea of whether or not to contest your addition. -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I notice IPs making tweaks to track lengths & album lengths (I notice this a lot for runtimes in film articles too)...in those situations it's nice to be able to go to a source like Allmusic, since individual track lengths can appear slightly different depending on what format you're listening to (CD, MP3, vinyl) and what player you're using. A lot of my albums display a second shorter or longer in my CD player vs. in my computer, or even depending on what media playing software I'm using (Winamp vs. iTunes, for example). Or to put it another way: "Your mileage may vary". --IllaZilla (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at 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)


 * They are on the way out, so any of you that excerised a keep vote here I recommend you get over there. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested review site
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)
 * Since no one has commented, I'll assume silence = consensus. I'll add it to the list now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems I have a bit of a problem here. Can someone unprotect the page so that Exclaim! can be accepted as review source? Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this what you're looking to add?
 * Exclaim! (no formal scale)  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! That would be it. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Thank you!Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ all done! Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most popular project pages
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)
 * Good idea. I have requested they analyse the album project articles. :) – B.hotep •talk• 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Breakline in Infobox?
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)
 * I agree - but last time I suggested a change in genre (regarding capitalization rules, to bring wikipedia in line with the rest of the world) it was loud disagreed with, and then I was told to look into having a "list" style guide change instead... but I think line breaks are fine. Luminifer (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No one else has responded so I guess it's ok to change it... Go for it! Luminifer (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a comma delimited list. No codes are to be used. THis has been discussed extensively and needs no more time wasted bringing up the subject again. Fair Deal (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show where it's been discussed please? Luminifer (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Put "comma break infobox" in the searchbox in the archive section at the top of this page, or alternatively click here. – B.hotep •talk• 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of mentions, but nothing detailed. It all goes about as detailed as this, then whoever brought it up seems to give up when no one responds. I'm not needing someone to point me to it exactly, but is there actually a detailed discussion somewhere if I keep looking? Luminifer (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several discussions in the past, spread out in different locations (you might also try checking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Essentially there are a lot of people who prefer commas, and a lot of other people who prefer line breaks (this applies to the genre field but also others, such as label in this case or associated acts in the musical artist box case). As I recall the result was basically "no consensus" and an agreement not to edit-war over it, since it's really a trivial matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the argument being that if both were allowed, it could get ugly? That makes a certain amount of sense. Thanks for clearing that up (I've seen people bring it up on here time and time again and never saw anyone really explain the reasons before). Luminifer (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I'd like to add that "it was discussed before" is not always a valid argument for not discussing it again - sometimes, things change (although what would change in this case, I can't imagine :) Luminifer (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cover albums
Why are cover albums now being labeled as studio albums? ---Shadow (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I forget the actual consensus, but we've basically agreed that they do not differ enough from a studio album to distinguished. They are generally band studio albums and in most discographies, are not listed separately. Plus, it leads to the problem when an covers album is both a live album and a covers album, which do you use then? It gets to confusing and it seems to be not really needed. The fact an album is a covers album can be stated easily in the lead and in the categories. It doesn't need it's own infobox colour. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was here, then here back in February 2009. – B.hotep •talk• 07:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"(see Release history)"
has been making a large number of these edits recently, in which he adds  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)


 * No, I'm seeing Section 5.2.5 which says "Original album release date...later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section", but nothing which says it should be linked in the infobox. In fact it says "Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label", but the fact that it doesn't say "and nothing else" is perhaps a bit remiss of us. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 23:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, you could see it two ways. (1) infobox clutter (bad); (2) a way of forestalling drive-by edits by people who wish to correct the date of issue in their particular country (good). Either way, it shouldn't be made into a crusade, I don't think. – B.hotep •talk• 23:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I used the wrong edit summary, I should have used "Added link to Release history" since I did not add the Release history section to the article. If you looked at my contributions almost all of the ones were I have added the "see release history section" were where I removed multiple release dates from the infobox, added a release history section and as a result added a link from the infobox to the section, not just to add the link to the infobox.  I have seen this used on numerous songs/albums on Wikipedia and have been adding it to articles for a long time now and this is the first time anyone has complained about it.  Before I started adding this link I would sometimes get editors adding back in random release dates, since then I have not encountered this.  I will continue to add Release history sections to article that need it, but I will not link to them until there is a consensus formed here.
 * IllaZilla, I do have a problem with you making some link deletions, then started a discussion here to get other people's opinions and then making even more deletions. After starting the discussion here, it would make more sense to wait to see what other people think before continuing to go through my contributions to make these deletions. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I take it you were more inclined towards my scenario #2 then? Glad I added that. :) – B.hotep •talk• 23:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I was more inclined to scenario #2, but I could see how it would be considered infobox clutter. If I recall correctly, it was not until recently that I was adding the link to articles that already had the release history section because I thought I was being helpful.  I would be fine if consensus were found to be against using the link since it is not the main point of these edits. Aspects (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for keeping the infoboxes clean but this is pretty unobtrusive and as B.hotep mentioned it may prevent bad edits. Widespread use of it is worth a discussion.  But to answer the original question; no, I see nothing to support the edits. J04n(talk page) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's really just unnecessary clutter. If the article has a release history section, then it's linked in the table of contents. Sticking it in the infobox to prevent edit wars isn't really appropriate. That's the same reason we asked editors to stop putting "see Genre section" or "see Style section" next to the genres on pages where there were edit wars. If we really want to do something like this to avoid editors changing it from the first release date, we could do it with the template itself, either A) by adding a hidden text to the template that says, or B) by linking "Release" to the release history section (though this would cause a problem for articles that do not have such sections).
 * Aspects, I have no issue with cases where you trimmed down to just the first release date and/or added release history tables. In fact, I think that's awesome and most of your work is fantastic. It's just this whole "see release history" thing that's unnecessary and causes infobox clutter. By all means, keep adding release history sections, but please hold off on these infobox links. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that providing a link to the release history section in the infobox is unneeded clutter, since the release history section is already linked in the table of contents. What I don't agree with is the need to create a release history section which lists only two dates and regions, and to remove one of two dates that were previously listed in the release date of the infobox.  This unnecessarily complicates the article as a whole.  I realize the current recommendation is to list only the earliest release date in the infobox.  Perhaps we could reconsider my suggestion (here) that we allow a second release date in the infobox.  This would simplify the article as a whole, by avoiding a two-line release history section, or avoiding textual descriptions, which only contribute a second date.  If more than two dates are to be listed, or more information than date and region are needed, then a release history section makes sense. CuriousEric (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think 1 in the infobox is plenty. If there are only 2, then it's easy to explain that in the text (probably right in the lead), and not necessary to create a release history section. There only needs to be a dedicated section if there are several different release dates and/or versions. Let's not overcomplicate things. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you determine the second date? I would be okay with it for a special or deluxe edition perhaps, but I am certain it would just encourage the usual UK & US only additions. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are not the problem, all you have to do is link to the project page and it will usually be settled. The problem lies with the misinformed casual editors that come along and add it, then it sits there against guidelines for a period of time. This is what needs to be prevented. If we're going to request a page have a Release history section, then I can't see a problem with encouraging it in the infobox (otherwise the easy thing to do is leave a couple of dates in the infobox). Saying it makes it cluttered is a tad harsh, I think you ought to check out the Recording or Genres sections for actual clutter. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Review Sites
Thanks. Rafablu88 13:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone please add Drowned in Sound? It's our Pitchfork Media over this side of the pond.
 * 1) Named Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards:
 * 2) Nominated at the 2007 PLUG Awards for Music Website of the Year:
 * 3) Cited by Reuters:
 * 4) The Guardian review:  "The acclaimed British music website is six years old."
 * 5) The Independent expose/feature:
 * 6) Metacritic used (especially for all UK releases): ;
 * I shall support this, DiS provide professional reviews for a lot of independent music, and from this evidence - they have received sufficient coverage to be considered a reliable source for reviews. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DiS should definitely be on the list.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There seems to be consensus. What's the procedure now for adding it? Because I obviously can't edit the project page. RB88 (T) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the formatting btw: "Drowned in Sound (10-point scale, at bottom of review)" RB88 (T) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, you would put on the page to indicate that you wanted an admin to come along and make the edit. Seeing as I'm already here and agree with the addition, ✅ – B.hotep •talk• 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. (And you learn something everyday. :)) RB88 (T) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Live On Stage
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: WikiProject Music/MUSTARD and Naming conventions. So, which is preferable -- Live on Stage, or Live On Stage? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say lower case, it is neither a phrasal verb nor compound preposition. First words of prepositional phrases are lowercase unless they are also the first word of the title. J04n(talk page) 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lower case. Clearly our MoS (both main and project) indicate this. No different than Live on Two Legs, Live at the House of Blues, Live at the Metro, etc. Of course all of these are "live", but also "on two legs", "at the HoB", "at the Metro", etc. They're all expressing the idea that "this was recorded live under this circumstance (be it on stage, at a particular venue, etc.)". The expression of relationship between being live and where doesn't make "on" or "at" any less of a prepositional phrase; in fact that's what makes it a preposition. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't "On Stage" one of those compound prepositions that WikiProject Music/MUSTARD talks about, as in "Time Out of Mind", "Get Off of My Cloud"?  If yes, then "Live On Stage" would seem to be correct. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so but I must admit that I'm reading Compound (linguistics) over and over again and I still don't understand it. The way I see it in "Time Out of Mind" both "out" and "of" are prepositions so it is a compound preposition.  In "Live on Stage", on is the only preposition, so it isn't compound or capitalized.  Am I off base? Wish I paid closer attention in high school english!  J04n(talk page) 02:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * J04n, thanks for the explanation, I believe you are correct. IllaZilla, thanks for the feedback.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of album cover images
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)


 * Can you please provide a link to the article in question? Often the context in which images are used is important in determining whether or not the guidelines are being followed. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The Shells and Written Roads are the main two articles.  Thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to familiarize yourself with our non-free content criteria, specifically criterion 3 ("minimal use") and criterion 8 ("contextual significance"). WP:NFC explains that we may use cover art "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." For album covers, it's generally accepted that having a single cover image in the infobox of an article about that album passes these criteria, because there is no free equivalent and an article should provide critical commentary about the album. Anywhere else (e.g. an article about the artist or the record label), you're going to have to have specific critical commentary about the album, and you're going to have to show that not having the image would be significantly detrimental to readers' understanding.


 * As for the multiple images (back cover, inside cover, etc.), you're not going to be able to use these unless you can show that "[their] presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Really the only way this is going to be acceptable is if there is sourced critical commentary that specifically discusses the back/inside cover art, which most of the time there probably isn't going to be. Looking at your contributions, I'm assuming the article in question is Written Roads, and I fail to see how either of these images "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic", nor how their omission is deterimental to that understanding, and I can't imagine that you'd be able to find any secondary sources discussing the interior artwork, as all it consists of is photos of the group.


 * To your third question, simply use any image-editing software you may have on your computer. If you're using Windows, an easy way to do this is to open the file using MS Paint, then click "Image", "Stretch/skew", and decrease the horizontal and vertical percentages (for example, setting each to 50% will shrink the image to half its original size). Then click "OK", save the file, and upload it to Wikipedia in place of the original by using the "upload a new version of this file" link on the image page. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at those. I should point out by the way that my wikistalker also recently deleted the following textual reference "The band's debut album, Written Roads, which is adorned with a number of photographs of the band ....  I imagine he deleted the reference in each article.


 * Another editor has suggested I seek permission. Is that an acceptable approach?  And if so, from whom to I get it (the label? the band?), and in what form (what must it say), and what do I do with the (letter? email?) of permission?  And can I then use it in these articles (if they agree to give it to me)?  Many thanks.


 * He also (and I don't know if you have suggestions for this) is now going around deleting any reference he can in other articles that mention the band. --VMAsNYC (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and reduced the size of the image, using Paint as described by IllaZilla, and I've removed the tag about the image being too large, which should resolve that issue. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the removal of the "adorned" phrase, I would probably have done that too. It's pretty poor wording. This is an encyclopedia; we're trying to keep the language professional and encyclopedic. Most albums' packaging has photos of the band. This is nothing special, and calling it "adorned with photographs of the band" seems like flowery language and relatively insignificant. I notice your account is pretty new, so I'll give a bit of advice: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including those related to the use of non-free content (such as album art) are complex and take time to digest and understand. A lot of newer editors find themselves frustrated or flummoxed by these policies and run into situations just like yours. My advice is to, for now, stick to just having the cover image in the infobox. As time goes by and you gain more editing experience and familiarity with our policies, you can try your hand at working in other types of images. But if you jump right into uploading multiple non-free images for uses like this, you're probably going to find most of them get deleted. Keep in mind that our policies have been formed by years of consensus-building, and when it comes to non-free content there are also legal factors to consider. If you have questions, feel free to come back and ask here, but also remember that more experienced editors probably have a more thorough understanding of our policies and what you may view as "stalking" may in fact be a good-faith effort on their part to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia by enforcing those policies.


 * Getting permission for the use of non-free images is very complicated and usually unsuccessful. There's a reason the record company holds the copyright on these photos and doesn't just put them in the public domain; they're their property and their goal is to use them for profit. Even on the slim chance they did give permission, Wikipedia usually doesn't allow images that are only licensed for use on Wikipedia (because we ourselves license our content under the GFDL for other to use, hence the need for non-free content criteria in the first place). For the type of use you're after, you'd have to convince the record label to release their copyrighted promotional photos under a free license, and you can guess what the odds of that happening would be. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:47, 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 --, , , , , , , , , , and  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 and  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)


 * I've not read all of your post, but I would like to say a few things in advance. Firstly, there is absolutely no such thing at all as an "album cover free use exception". If album covers are non-free images, their use must comply with our non-free content criteria. A second point, the majority of counter-examples you use are band photos being used to illustrate articles on broken-up bands- this is generally considered acceptable, as the images will not be replaceable. However, we do not decorate album articles with various cover images. I'm not quite sure why you're feeling the need to discuss this here, when there is actually a discussion ongoing at here. I advise this thread is considered closed, strongly advise VMAsNYC to read our non-free content guidelines and non-free content criteria and feel that anyone interested continue the discussion over there. J Milburn (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm posting here because this seemed like the best place to reach people expert in the subject of album covers. So, for example, in my above explanation as to the gap I perceive between the language of the guidance and the understanding expressed here, and how the guidance might be changed to better reflect the understanding expressed here, this seemed like the best place to make that comment.


 * As to what I inartfully called an exception, what I was referring to was the statement above that "For album covers, it's generally accepted that having a single cover image in the infobox of an article about that album passes these criteria, because there is no free equivalent and an article should provide critical commentary about the album."


 * Your point about broken-up bands is another one I missed in the guidances. Is it there, or is that "generally considered acceptable", but not reflected in writing in the guidances.  If so, it would sure help newbies like me if it were reflected in the guidance so that we didn't have to either: a) mistakenly think that rule didn't exist (how could you guess it does), or b) bother you with questions like mine.


 * It also strikes me that if the image is up to represent the band, it may be replaceable in that someone may have taken a picture of the band. Furthermore, that doesn't reflect the critical commentary requirement -- or does that fall away in the case of a broken up band?  I also missed that, if it is in the guidance.  This may all seem intuitive to you, but I have to say it isn't to me.--VMAsNYC (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)