# Talk:Rufus Wainwright (album)

Independent coverage needed, but the album has been nominated for a  Slaight Family Polaris Heritage Prize. 

https://polarismusicprize.ca/heritage-prize/
---Another Believer (Talk) 20:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.stereogum.com/2224214/rufus-wainwright-releases-25th-anniversary-reissue-of-debut-album-with-previously-unreleased-outtakes/music/
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, should the cover art of the re-issue be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Threw on a quick track list which looks like crap but at least the info is there. Wasn't too worried about formatting, just getting the info on there, and hopefully someone else who knows better can clean it up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@QuietHere Thanks! Yes, we can work on the formatting over time. Hopefully someone else will weigh in on the appropriateness of the new album cover, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, adding the new cover should be fine. I've seen other album pages which use multiple album covers. Since it's a different photo, I think it's distinct enough to be worth including. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@QuietHere Ok, thanks! I've attempted to add the new cover, hopefully correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: I noticed you removed content per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, but I don't see how this is an improvement to the article. There are sources about this re-issue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:ALTTRACKLIST. Popcornfud (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Right, but I am disagreeing with your assessment and application of ALTTRACKLIST. @QuietHere: Curious if you have any thoughts here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, the article fails the criteria for inclusion specified at WP:ALTTRACKLIST. The tracks are not "the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about their recording, musical content or critical response". Not sure what else to say here. Popcornfud (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I realized just how strict that requirement was. I might even argue that it's too strict; I'm not sure I see the harm in including that reliably sourced information regardless of whether it received extensive commentary or just bog-standard news coverage from sources. I wouldn't be surprised if the intent behind that rule was to prevent overloading albums with numerous released version such as Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, and shouldn't necessarily be applied to the same degree in cases like this where it's only one additional tracklist taking up a reasonably small amount of space. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention, now there's no mention of the anniversary edition. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I support the guideline, because it prevents articles from turning into arbitrary lists of stuff. We should be focused on encylopedic content (ie explanatory prose) rather than exhaustive data dumps, which gets into diminishing returns fast, especially for albums with numerous reissues, alternative versions etc. Anyone who absolutely needs to know exactly which version of which album contains which bonus material can check a resource like Discogs, which is properly set up to handle that need.
Consider that the anniversary edition isn't actually that important in the grand scheme of things. The proper way to cover it from an enyclopedic perspective would be to summarise the salient parts (content, critical reception) in prose, properly cited. It's surprising to me that the anniversary track listing was included in the article, and deemed important, when it isn't mentioned or sourced in the prose at all. That's putting the cart before the horse.
I have more bad news, which is that we shouldn't be including the anniversary edition cover either. Album covers are non-free images and should be used minimally. They're primarily included in album articles to help the reader identify the subject. Per WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFCCP there's no justification for additional covers. Popcornfud (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I think this is also not an improvement to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 10:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, but I'm explaining why I'm making these changes per Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and you're just responding that you don't like it. Popcornfud (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I've added back the bonus tracks info as prose. Don't see how removing the alt cover is an improvement but whatever. ---Another Believer (Talk) 10:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Thoughts on removal of the 25th anniversary album cover? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If the tracklist (or any prose info on the anniversary release) is there then I think the alt cover should be too, but I wouldn't have the cover on its own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
We can't include the second album cover for copyright reasons. See the policies I linked above. If people want to challenge the copyright policies maybe create a discussion at WP:CQ or WP:ALBUMS. If you're not addressing those policies you're simply saying "I don't like this". Popcornfud (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I've added back the file. Feel free to start a file deletion discussion, Popcornfud. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)