Template talk:Album cover fur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Man, this thing is farkin brilliant. I've been reading through this whole image free/non-free imbroglio the last few days with a growing sense of distaste and despair. This will help a lot, thanks for the good work. Tarc 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Use: Infobox
I agree with Tarc above!! + now I see why people get documents written by real lawyers. :-)
It might be good to add an explicit "Use = Infobox", possibly with a tweaked rationale specifically tuned for that case, as that is going to be one of the most common types of use, and doesn't quite match any of the existing options. Jheald 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a go. Hope it's acceptable. Jheald 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad rationale and use
No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- What needs to be made not-generic for this template to be used? Λυδαcιτγ 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, the generic-part isn't really my concern. My concern is with the rationale that being used to identify an album is enough. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, how would you change it for, let's say, Image:RedHotChiliPeppersCalifornication.jpg? Λυδαcιτγ 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, I understand the source being different for each transclusion, but won't the purpose be the same for each infobox use, header use, etc? Λυδαcιτγ 06:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Warning: This template is unstable
Because of an ongoing debate over the use of this template, this template is very unstable. Until it stabilizes, I would suggest that editors who wish put fair-use rationales on album-cover image files continue on with their own hand-crafted fair-use rationales, using the language from this template as a basis. — WiseKwai 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the meantime, to help those discussions, can we leave this template in the form it was in when it was applied (which was believed at that time to be stable), and in which form it was specifically instanced in the discussions at WP:AN and WT:FAIR. That version is the version by Jogers, 15:48, 14 July 2007.
- Please do not change this template while those discussions are current, or it will enormously confuse the meaning of comments that have been made there. Jheald 09:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, as this template already has over 400 live usages, if people want to demonstrate ways they think it could/should be altered, can I suggest they edit up a separate version of the template on another page, for prototyping/scratch purposes, to show off their point; rather than unilaterally changing this one, which is in live use. Jheald 10:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Seconded. Please do not engage in WP:vandalism. If you blank or gut this template you are replacing bona fide fair use rationales on several hundred images with an instruction to delete those images, a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy.Wikidemo 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It's been pointed out to you on other talk pages, but it's very inappropriate for you to call these edits vandalism. Ironically, this template, and the potential for it's abuse, would harm Wikipedia more than your average vandalism anyways. Good intentions or not, it misses the point, and just enables Wikipedians to be lazy about non-free images, and to not give the situation it's due attention. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's still just letting the user choose from generic messages, not giving the situation the due attention it needs, and is still to easy to abuse. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If there's abuse, then deal with the abuse itself, not by removing a template from the hands of those who are able and willing to use it properly. The new "(undo)" link at the end of every edit certainly makes it easier for revert-warriors to wage their battles by simplifying the click process, but that would be a weak reason to call for its removal. Tarc 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We've got a template that can and will be abused. Those who don't abuse it (as in, those who use the override fields to list a proper FUR) can use existing templates that won't be abused. Images with this tag, even with the selectable options, do not pass WP:NFCC. The fact that it isn't as easy as slapping a tag on an image to make a FUR is intentional, to get the uploader to think and evaluate the situation, and to come up with an honest claim for our non-free content policy. -- Ned Scott 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ned, out of interest, can you give a concrete example of where you think it has been abused? That would make your objection easier to assess. Jheald 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, that is my concern, that they won't consider fair use or our policies, that they will just slap a tag on there, with a selectable option, and not give any real though to it. That is the abuse. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Then why have a template? -- Ned Scott 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Honestly, there isn't that much to consider in regards to the narrow scope of this template, which is to provide a rationale for album cover use. There is zero variance in the reason/rationale to use of cover art in a Burt Bacharach album article as thee it use use cover art in a Cannibal Corpse album article. It will always be used in whole, always be irreplaceable with a free alternative, etc... The only real variance really is where cover art would be used. If in an infobox for the album itself, there's no question that that is acceptable use. If there is something else, such as wanting to use the iconic cover of Sgt. Pepper in an article about the 60's, then the template provides the means to justify it. Templates are simply just for ease of use. WHy make everyone reinvent the wheel everytime? Tarc 12:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Edit request
{{editprotected}}
I've been adding this template for the past few days and now the images I was hoping to save from deletion are going to be deleted anyway? Please revert it to the last stable revision. Jogers (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely bogus, I just spent several minutes clearing out browser caches and such trying to figure out why this kept coming up even though I couldn't see "di-no fair use rationale" temple on the page itself, and came here to see what the hell was going on. So, yea great move guys; you just marked hundreds of acceptable and valid fair use images used in album infoboxes to be deleted 7 days from now. Tarc 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not really what "editprotected" is intended for. Anyway, I've unprotected. [1] I hope you manage to work this out. Haukur 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No sources
Images with no sources are being marked as "No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source." No, we don't need to wait, any image that doesn't have a source can be speedy deleted within 48 hours, and thus I will tag any image as such if I see anymore nonsense like this. — Moe ε 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- But it's always better to find a source - one may be in the edit history, or may be easily identified - and add it it than to delete. Λυδαcιτγ 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You guys are forgetting a key point, in that source should also tell us who holds the copyright. Even with a detailed FUR, these images can all still be deleted for simply not having the copyright information on them. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, but you must say who holds the copyright. For example, ©2007 Sony Records, or whatever. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- How would I document an album cover that I got through iTunes, as there is no direct link to the cover? --TwoToad (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ERROR message display
The ERROR message display is intentional and does NOT show up on pages when the template is properly used. The purpose of the message is to warn users if they did not use the Article parameter in the template's code. If the parameter is used, then the ERROR message will not display. Click "what links here" on the template's page to see the template being used, and you'll see what I mean. In the future, please comply with the guidelines at Help:Reverting do not revert such edits before posting comments on the talk page. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do not need help with reverting; don't be a dick, please. And it already worked that way before...that red error msg comes up with a user fails to enter something in the article field. All your change accomplishes is making the error message appear on the template page, which is pointless. Tarc 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. It used to work just fine without displaying the message on the template page as it does now. Something was changes in the mass of edits a month or so ago. I will still stand by the point that your "if you need help reverting" crap was needlessly biting though. Tarc 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't call me a dick as I find that very inappropriate and uncalled for. You obviously did not take complete note of my changes, as adding the error message was not the only change I had made. Much more importantly, I removed the heading from the top of the template, because on every page which had the template, the heading's edit button would edit the actual template, rather than the section on the page itself. I was not accusing you of needing help reverting, but I was instead trying to inform you of the correct usage for page reverts, as it is not to be used to remove an edit you find "pointless," especially since that does not assume good faith. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notice: proposal that will make this template obsolete.
There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal that would create a templated use rationale for album covers. That proposal would, presumably, make this template obsolete by authorizing a replacement. Comments about that proposal would be very welcome; please put them on the talk page of the proposal, not here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming the proposal is accepted we'll probably deprecate it at some point and ask people not to use it anymore. Existing uses might be left alone or converted automatically to the new format, which will probably be simpler and easier to use. Wikidemo 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heading
Does an extra heading need to be added when using this template? See this diff for example. Is it necessary to add ==Fair use rationale for [album]== when it's already in the template? Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- It should not be necessary but it does not hurt. A human reader will see the template and know that there's a rationale. A bot that reads the markup source but not the page output looking for a rationale will only see that there's a template called "Album cover fur." That means the bot has to be trained to spot this template and realize it is a rationale. At first the bots that were tagging images for lack of rationale did not recognize this template. However, the major bots are now trained to look for it, and any bot that doesn't see it is probably an unauthorized one....So there is a very slim chance that without the haeding the image could be tagged by an errant bot. But a live administrator is required to delete any image, so chances are the mistake would be caught. Personally, I just add the tag and don't bother with a heading.Wikidemo (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- As long as the more up-to-date bots recognise it, the heading wouldn't be necessary then. Thanks for your quick reply. Spellcast (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Singles
Any chance of a slightly reworded template for singles? Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- This works for singles too. If you want to specify it's a single, just put "single" in the type field. In fact, I think Template:Single rationale is redundant to this. Spellcast (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Issue with template on Image:Outtathaway_singlecover.jpg
Although i didn't insert it (but moved it to correct place as listed on Template:Album cover fur, i can't seem to find the error thats causing it to misbehave on the page, i'm think its to do with the article having !! in its name. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is the exclamation points yea. From the looks of the article, the singles infobox chokes on em as well. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Graphic artist
Can the template be enhanced to display the name of the album cover artist? According to the template page, that's already a parameter -- "Graphic Artist". (Can parameter names have an embedded blank?) — Mudwater (Talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
