Template talk:Non-free use rationale album cover

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brilliant 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've had a go.  Hope it's acceptable.  Jheald 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use: Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: What needs to be made not-generic for this template to be used? Λυδαcιτγ 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, how would you change it for, let's say, :Image:RedHotChiliPeppersCalifornication.jpg? Λυδαcιτγ 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bad rationale and use 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The point is this template should not advocate the lack of sources as something that can be fixed later if anyone bothers to come across it. — Moe ε 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the cover image is always the album itself. Sure, it's nice to state the website where the image can be found but it shouldn't be absolutely necessary. Was it discussed any further than here? Jogers (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't the template say that "the cover art copyright is believed to belong to the record label or the graphic artist"? Jogers (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you must say who holds the copyright. For example, ©2007 Sony Records, or whatever. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how would I know that? And what difference does it make if it's still fair use? Jogers (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, I always use the "label" parameter if it's specified in the infobox. Isn't it good enough? Jogers (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a part of WP:NFCC #10a, but if you are using the label parameter then you should be fine. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: No sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ERROR message display 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notice: proposal that will make this template obsolete. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Heading

message: Any chance of a slightly reworded template for singles? Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks. I'll try that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Issue with template on [[:Image:Outtathaway_singlecover.jpg]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Graphic artist 

message: The comma that occurs after the word "label" in the description field is not needed and incorrect in standard written English as it stands currently. It is not a serial list of label, label name, and graphic artist. Label is a descriptor of the label name that occurs directly after the word "label." Please fix this. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: When the "Commentary" variable is used, there is no spacing between it and the next sentence starting "Use for this purpose does not compete..."  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added additional space at beginning of "use for this..."  SkierRMH (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How long should it take for me to see it applied across images?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spacing 

message: A piece of text that shows up for album covers categorized as "Section"—e.g. Final Fantasy VII Original Soundtrack.jpg—should be changed to "Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work." --an odd name 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor grammar fix for "Replaceable?" text 

message: The "portion used" section should be adjusted for use = Artist, right now it does not make sense when used for an artist article, as it's not the product (album) or branding being identified but the artwork itself. 
Also, right now when Graphic Artist =  is specified (different from above), the template gives this language: "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, ___________, or the graphic artist, ___________." I think the record label is a safe bet in the vast majority of cases, isn't it? —Gendralman (Talk) 03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: 
There are whitespaces missing around the "purpose" parameter, in two places. I noticed this during my edits to :File:Angel Dust meat photo.jpg, as recorded in the history. Please change 
  |#default= 
}}
replies: text: Doing now. There are lots of problems like this in this template. — RockMFR 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Debresser (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: The current description for Type is:
* Type - What kind of music format? CD? Album? Etc.
This is confusing because a CD is also an album, just like an LP is also an album.  And what should we allow for "Etc."?  Based on earlier discussions "single" is also a valid choice for Type.  I suggest that the Type is typically "album" or "single", and can optionally be "CD" or "LP" for albums where the CD and LP covers differ.  It would also be helpful to show the examples for Type as lowercase since it appears mid-sentence, and is not a proper noun.  I suggest the description be changed to:
* Type - Enter the music format, typically "album" (entered without quotes).  Enter "single" if the cover is for a single.  "CD" or "LP" can be used instead of "album" when the CD and LP covers differ.  The type will appear in the resulting description just before the Article name (the album title).
CuriousEric 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Type'' description is confusing 

message: At "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)" I am unable to override the purpose fields in the FURS at :File:Ray Charles Norah Jones Here We Go Again.jpg and :File:NSinatra Herewegoagain.jpg.  Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  22:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to specify Use=Other for this field to work, I think the documentation is pretty clear about this. Note, however, that in this case this isn't required as the image is used in the main infobox for the relevant section. --Muhandes (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)  alternate cover art 

message: I have noticed that many rationales credit more than one graphic artist, so I would like to change "the graphic artist" to "the graphic artist(s)". –Dream out loud (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: by MSGJ. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed, was just coming to say that :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration for multiple graphic artists 

message: It is an "Additional Info" field. There currently is no way to override the description, which means that special wording requires substing the entire template, despite the documentation claiming otherwise. Please fix these issues. — trlkly 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description is not an override field 

message: Could an admin change the line:
|
to
|.
I've just added a period.  The period currently shows up when the  is unspecified, but not when it's specified.  TDL (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have left a situation where a period was still not added, i.e. when  was filled in; so I've  so that it is added in all three cases:  filled in;  blank but  filled in; and both blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, good point.  Thanks for taking care of it!  TDL (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing period 

message: Hi, can someone look over the version in the sandbox which uses  and comment? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandboxed version 

message: To avoid an extra space before the period when the artist is not specified (e.g. for a soundtrack album), please change this:

}} {{#if:{{{Artist|}}}
 |by the artist {{{Artist}}}

To this:

}}{{#if:{{{Artist|}}}
 | by the artist {{{Artist}}}

nyuszika7h (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 May 2016 

message: Currently the last link text reads "us copyright law" and yet the link takes you to fair use. Since the phrase fair use is mentioned just a few words earlier, wouldn't it be better to link that instead? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:FF2B (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor detail 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:Album cover tag and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#Wikipedia:Album cover tag until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:Album cover tag" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Replace Example with Example Mach61 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2023