Talk:List of Madlax albums/Archive 1

Archive 1

Album covers removed

Album covers are not supported in discographies. This has been long standing practice now and is not in dispute. Pick any random sampling of 50 articles from Category:Discographies. You will not find a single article in that category that contains album covers. If by some miracle you do find one, it will have only recently been added and the covers will be removed soon. I've removed the album covers again, as this is a clear violation of our guideline and policy. Do not re-add them. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I personally agree, however I suspect others are going to argue due to the various Final Fantasy discographies, which are GA articles and have images for every album for which an image can be ound. See: Discography of Final Fantasy III, Discography of Final Fantasy IV, Discography of Final Fantasy V, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because there are individual articles for each album which do contain the album cover. In fact, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Cover they are supposed to contain the cover art. I think the problem we are running into is that for Anime it makes more sense to list the music albums together instead of having an article for each one. Anyway, it sounds like you could put the album covers back in. Argel1200 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they should be put back. They will et removed again. This isn't an individual album article, its a "discography" for the Madlax series, so no covers. At best, a single cover image in the lead to represent all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why they had to be removed. We have an example of a GA with multiple albums in it and no one from either WP:Discog or WP:Albums has said that this would be a problem yet (and I asked on the talk page for both projects). I will also point out that WP:Discog only has a proposed MOS so I question Hammersoft's assertion that it has been a long standing policy. I will also point out that the proposed MOS for discogrpahies seems to be heavily focused on Artist Discographies and not album listings like this article. For example, see the Ignore All Rules section and take note of how it only refers to artists. Meanwhile there is this response from someone in the WP:Albums project indicates that having more than one album is likely okay/acceptable. That means we can use the WP:ALBUMS MOS which includes cover art. :-) Argel1200 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No. IAR is no excuse to try and get around long standing policies (like, WP:NONFREE) just because people like covers. This list doesn't need it. Those GAs have been under some heavy scrutiny and I suspect they will never pass an FA attempt as is, in large part because of the excessive covers and track lists. Discog may be "proposed" but the TV MOS was in a similar state for years before it became official. That doesn't make it any less valid. This is a discography, not an album page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The only use for IAR is to say that the discography MOS doesn't fit this siutation. And we are not IAR anyway because we are falling back to the [[WP:Albums] MOS. The fact is we have GAs that support using cover art, the WP:Albums MOS includes cover art, and we have a member of the WP:Albums project saying that a list of albums is acceptable. So are you saying that the WP:Albums project itself is wrong?? It is also pretty clear just by reading the WP:Discog MOS that it is still in it's early stages and is primarly focused on artist/band discographies right now. I think it's a bit premature to start using that MOS to justify any action. The only concern I can think of is that we might have too many images in one article? Is that what your concern is? Argel1200 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To me, having an image for every album when all they have are track listings is a very clear violation of WP:NONFREE (specifically the section on the use of images in lists and in the list of unacceptable usages, the very first image item is "An album cover as part of a discography". The Albums guidelines are specifically for individual album articles, not lists. This is a list, a discography list. The Disco MoS is the ONLY one that fits the situation, not the Albums one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The discography MOS does not really apply because it is geared towards artist-type discographies. This is easy to see given how often it references terms like "artist" in it (even in the IAR section). This discography is not an artist discography. There is no MOS that is currently specifically geared towards this type of list. Quoting from a still-in-development MOS that doesn't actually directly apply to this type of discography seems pointless. I have posted for clarification in both projects and have yet to here anything concrete form the discography project. Meanwhile, two members of the Albums project have both stated that putting multiple albums into one article is acceptable. Argel1200 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so according to WP:NONFREE we would need to add some reception/review information to the article before we could use cover art. Then I agree the cover art should stay out based on the contents of the current article. I wish you had pointed that out earlier without the whole discography distraction. (note: this was written while you were writing the response directly below this) Argel1200 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discography does apply. It may not be an "artist" discography, but it is a series one. And no, quoting it isn't pointless. If that were true, there wouldn't even be any TV FAs as its MoS wasn't "official" until last month. That didn't invalidate it at all. Officialness is just a final process, that doesn't negate its applicability. Please point to the two members stating this, as none of them have said so here. So far here, two editors agree no individual album images, as supported by policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discography" may apply but the MOS they have right imo now does not as it is fairly clearly geared towards artist discographies (and is also clearly still being worked on). I do not see how you can claim the MOS applies when the actual MOS refers to the "artist" over and over and over again. For example, are you saying that the IAR section only applies to artist discographies!?! I'm sorry, but that MOS needs more work before it is usable for other types of discographies. If you thought I was claiming this was not a discography then I apologize. What I meant was that it does not qualify for the WP:Discog project (given that projects current state). As I mentioned, I posted on the discussion page for those projects so the responses I was referring to are also there. FWIW they support me in that we can have all of the albums in one article but the most recent reply supports you as per WP:NONFREE. Here's a link for you. As a side note, I think it would be really helpful if people stuck to the tried and true arguments. If WP:NONFREE had been mentioned at the top and without other distractions then we would not have wasted so much time on this. Argel1200 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Which MoS applies is not a waste of time, as it dictates what content and the format of this page as well. Of course, all that said, considering how little info is here beyond just name, release date, and the tracklistings, I still think a merger is best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a waste of time in the sense that WP:NONFREE best addresses the cover art issue. It's is not clear that the discography MOS applies since it needs to be expanded to cover other types of discographies so using that was a major distraction. If there was a MOS that clearly applied then I would agree, but that is not the case here (the fact that we are in disagreement over that proves it). Argel1200 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. Unacceptable use includes "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above". That guideline explains current application of the WP:NFCC policy, which addresses minimal use in item 3 of that policy. If you review Category:Discographies you will note that discographies there do not have album covers. If you wish to get this application of policy changed, take it up at WT:NFC. Trying to change consensus here on this talk page is the wrong way to go about doing it. The album covers will remain off the article and all other discographies until (if) consensus changes to permit them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree about WP policy but I disagree on the discography point. The discogrpahy project only has a MOS for artist discographies and similar (e.g. bands) and thus cannot apply to all discographies at this time. Furthermore, the Albums project team agrees that more than one album can be in an article. They also agree that images can only be used as per WP:NONFREE. I am getting very tired of editors on here trying to claim the an immature MOS that only refers to artists should somehow apply to every type of discography. It doesn't. If you have a problem with that then you should join the discography project and work on updating the MOS to cover multiple types of discographies. Until then, the best MOS we have is actually the one from WP:ALBUMS. I will reiterate that the only valid justification for removing the album covers is WP:NONFREE and that is the argument that should have been made originally. Argel1200 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly interested in the MOS. The policy at WP:NFCC as explained at WP:NFC applies to all discographies. I understand your frustration with the MOS, but I'm not working from that. More than one album cover can be in an article, just not in a discography. I have no interest in the discography project. I do have an interest in policy being upheld. The MOS in the project can not supersede the policy. If you want the policy/guideline to change, feel free to start at discussion at WT:NFC on the use of album covers in discographies. You may wish to review the archives of that talk page before starting such a discussion. This has been previously discussed at great length, with the conclusion that album covers have been removed from discographies. This is why Category:Discographies is empty of articles with album covers on them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ahh, thank you for the clarification! Do you think more than one cover can be in an article as long as there is legitimate comment, reviews, criticism, etc? For example, could the two Madlax OSTs be put into one "album" article and use the covers (given there is critical discussion)? Or perhaps the two NOIR OSTs would be a better example since the lyrics for the songs in both albums are only included in the second OST. Argel1200 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm trying to think of an example to describe what I mean. I pinged a few group articles and came up with nothing though. I've seen a few articles on particular artists where album covers were an essential part of that artist's history, usually through ground breaking cover work or controversial cover work. Discussing those works in the context of the artist's development makes sense, and including images of those works in the context of that discussion is within the bounds of our fair use policy here. I don't think it'd be a good direction to go to split this or any other discography into sub articles, unless the albums are independently notable. I wish I could cite you a ready example, but I don't have one handy for artists. Oddly, this might be a reasonable example of what I am talking about; Campbell's Soup Cans. Lots of fair use images, but it's hard to have an article discussing the cans without having the fair use images. Plus, that's a featured article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's actually a very good example!! Argel1200 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Spam"

I took offense at that edit comment. :) --Koveras ^☭ 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)