Talk:Anastacia discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Vadalisation
People have defaced this article time and time again and I'm sick of it
[edit] The Case For Removing All Images
Let's have it... because the image-free version is certainly not as useful nor informative, from an encyclopedia standpoint... Jenolen speak it! 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean other than the fact that it provides all the same information. A discography is a list of all the records by an artist - the article serves that purpose (listing records) more than adequately without the images. While covers may be helpful to some people in identifying the album, a linked title is perfectly adequate (FUC#1). If there were some encyclopaedic value in an "The artwork of Anastacia's CDs and DVDs" then by all means write it and give some detailed rationales for all the images you need to the add significantly to the points made. ed g2s • talk 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your plea for "adequacy" in place of quality aside, it's obvious you have no idea what a discography is, what its value is to collectors, or what the encyclopedic value of an image is, as you've repeatedly stated that text is an "adequate" replacement for images. It's not, and please, I don't want to hear any more about how text is "better" than images when it comes to describing album covers.
-
- Anyhow, I don't think you're showing respect for the community in this case; the people who've worked on this discography (NOT a gallery, but an actually illustrated discography) would probably be pretty surprised and not a little disappointed to find out that since they've somehow failed to meet your standards for text-instead-of-image substitution, they need to change this. They don't; there's not a legal reason to do so, and there's not a Wikipedia reason to do so. The covers ARE helpful to MOST people, not some, and which part of FUC#1 do you specificially thinks entitles you to completely gut what was previously a very well put together page? I honestly believe you are acting in accordance with your own beliefs and wishes, not within policy; certainly not with any attempt to develop consensus. For example, a posting on this very page which says, "I'd like to change every image on this page to a linked title, and remove all images - what do you think?" would have been a good step toward indicating you actually have any interest in working to build consensus, but you don't. So you didn't.
-
- You want to make big changes? Then sell your changes. Explain how they contribute toward Wikipedia's mission of producing the highest quality possible encyclopedia. Explain, clearly and concisely, which Wikipedia policies require this page to be image-free. Otherwise, I think the previous, "pre-Ed G2s" version should stand. Jenolen speak it! 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"it's obvious you have no idea what a discography is" - by our own definition, a discography is the "listing of sound recordings". "I don't want to hear any more about how text is "better" than images when it comes to describing album covers" - I have never said that. I have however said that text adequately identifies an album. Sure you need an album cover to show what the cover looks like - but there is no critical commentary in the article that warrants a description of the cover. That there is a consensus amongst some users to use Fair Use whenever they think it is quite helpful and pretty is not going to stop me from continuing to enforce our policy, the justifications for which have been explained to you numerous times before. Fair Use is allowed as a last resort for academic discussion - it was never intended for decorating lists - and recent discussion by the Foundation has made this more than clear. ed g2s • talk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- by our own definition, a discography is the "listing of sound recordings". As you well know, Wikipedia can not be used as a primary source. (If it was, I'm sure you'd see someone arguing that apples really are oranges, because someone once changed the page that way...) As such, I have no interest in Wikipedia's definition of a discography. Common sense and standard practice would seem to indicate a discography (not a gallery!) WITH images is inherently more helpful than one without. Images of copyrighted material used for identification and differentiation are consistent with WP:FU. And, of course, fair use is permitted on Wikipedia. (For now.)
- Also, your edits are contrary to the consensus established by User:Luigi-ish, User:66.30.14.0, User:Rsf7589, User:Phil Boswell, User:Ruymi P3, User:Electric Storm89, User:Lillygirl,
User:Gimmetrow,User:Ericorbitand a host of other IP addresses. These are the users who are affected by your changes, and I think you owe them something, so I'll ask again:
- Explain, clearly and concisely, which Wikipedia policies require this page to be image-free. Jenolen speak it! 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm removing my name from the comment above. I'm ok with album covers, but personally I think all the video images are overkill. A screenshot within the article for the song is one thing, but I don't think they are needed here. I've not contributed to their inclusion nor to any previous conversation regarding the music video stills in this discography. - eo 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It should be apparent, and I'm sorry if it isn't, but the listing of previous editors of the article is in no way meant to imply previous editors ENDORSE the current version of the article; just that they were willing to go through that most Wikipedian of processes, establishing CONSENSUS, and not simply implement their personal interpretation of a policy that they believe is going to change substantially. If that wasn't clear, my apologies. Jenolen speak it! 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also removing my name. I think my involvement in this article involved citations for sales figures, perhaps some vandalism reverts. I'm more along the line of EO on this. Screencaps for the videos are a little tenuous to say the least - only a couple of the 17(?) look distinctive enough for me to identify the video, and we don't even do screencaps for every movie an actor is in! On the other hand, discussing the cover art is relevant to a discography, so album covers can be justified by fair use. I don't like to toss work away. However with WP, these fair use covers may be hacked off by commercial downstream re-users anyway. Is any discussion or compromise possible? Gimmetrow 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind having my name on that list you made, all I have been doing lately is cleaning and trying to find as many sources as possible, however there tend to be people which abuse these sources and write what they think is the real info, I agree with user Jenolen when it comes to album covers, in a way it distiguishes the album covers and after all this is an encyclopedia so the more specific something is the better understanding you will be provided with, if there is an inconvenience with the video caps then that shouldn't be discussed with me because I did not create that videography Rsf7589 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "if it's useful then use it" philosophy does not apply to unfree media. That is used under much tighter restrictions, and not just those of the US law. Jenolen has a well documented disagreement with our Fair Use priciples, but that does not change the fact that we only want to use it as a last resort for critical commentary. The images should not be readded as they violate FUC#10 (no rationale provided) and FUC#8 (they neither illustrate the subject of the article [which is a list], nor a specific point being made). The purpose of this article is to list the discs. If you want to know more about each album, you can read each individual article, where the cover art is allowed. ed g2s • talk 11:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind having my name on that list you made, all I have been doing lately is cleaning and trying to find as many sources as possible, however there tend to be people which abuse these sources and write what they think is the real info, I agree with user Jenolen when it comes to album covers, in a way it distiguishes the album covers and after all this is an encyclopedia so the more specific something is the better understanding you will be provided with, if there is an inconvenience with the video caps then that shouldn't be discussed with me because I did not create that videography Rsf7589 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also removing my name. I think my involvement in this article involved citations for sales figures, perhaps some vandalism reverts. I'm more along the line of EO on this. Screencaps for the videos are a little tenuous to say the least - only a couple of the 17(?) look distinctive enough for me to identify the video, and we don't even do screencaps for every movie an actor is in! On the other hand, discussing the cover art is relevant to a discography, so album covers can be justified by fair use. I don't like to toss work away. However with WP, these fair use covers may be hacked off by commercial downstream re-users anyway. Is any discussion or compromise possible? Gimmetrow 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It should be apparent, and I'm sorry if it isn't, but the listing of previous editors of the article is in no way meant to imply previous editors ENDORSE the current version of the article; just that they were willing to go through that most Wikipedian of processes, establishing CONSENSUS, and not simply implement their personal interpretation of a policy that they believe is going to change substantially. If that wasn't clear, my apologies. Jenolen speak it! 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm removing my name from the comment above. I'm ok with album covers, but personally I think all the video images are overkill. A screenshot within the article for the song is one thing, but I don't think they are needed here. I've not contributed to their inclusion nor to any previous conversation regarding the music video stills in this discography. - eo 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
See, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
FUC#10 - No rationale provided. It seems to me really picky; I mean, do you really need a rationale in a case like this? Since this page clearly meets the legal standards for fair use (remember, even Jimbo himself has said he's never seen a case of non-legal fair use on Wikipedia), it's easy for me to see why so many editors would think it would also be within Wikipedia's policy. But since one of the unintended consequences of Wikipedia's committment to free content is a complete abrogation of rights to fairly use copyrighted content, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's shameful to me that the Wikiminds behind this ridiculous anti-fair use crusade can't understand that in their haste to exalt the free (a utopia to which we are most certainly not headed), they're also hastening the erosion of fundamental rights to excerpt and use -- for critical commentary, among other things -- copyrwrited material. Simply put - it's not a legal problem to illustrate a list like this with album covers, and it shouldn't be a policy problem, either. The images clearly provide an identifying function, and without identification, there can be no critical commentary.
As for FUC#8 - They neither illustrate the subject of the article (they, in fact, do; the subject of the article is not "a list," as you state, but, instead, the collected works of a musical artist) nor a specific point being made? I strongly disagree. Wikipedia should not be afraid to illustrate articles about copyrighted material with fairly used copyrighted material. And while I have very minor disagreements with our fair use policy, I have a much greater disagreement with how it has been implemented and tweaked, gamed so as to make the LEGAL fair useage of copyrighted material a POLICY violation -- a policy, it should be noted, that has suffered from ever-shifting standards, outright changes, and more than a few alternate interpretations over the past two years.
The pendulum is swinging "German," though -- I have no doubt fair use will be banned, shortly, as it is on our sister project. But for now -- it's not. And your "it should be used only as a dreaded and horrible last resort" interpretation of fair use is counterproductive, counter-enclopediative, and, as I tried to point out above, in many ways quite contrary to the consensus that is ostensibly valued around here. That, too, much like the policy which clearly and unambiguously states "Wikipedia allows fair use", seems to be only lip service... Jenolen speak it! 12:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
