Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox image

I do not see a clear consensus here. What really needs to be decided is whether this falls foul of NFCC 3a or not, and I think the only good argument here is the argument against having two images. George Ho, I strongly suggest you take this up on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and ping the other participants. What needs to be decided here is bigger than this one article. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a US cassette single and a European vinyl single of the American song by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch (formed by Mark Wahlberg) displayed as part of infobox. Shall we keep one or two images? If just one, either the American or the European cover art? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) ~~--George Ho (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Is there a MOS guideline on this? If not, I guess just the American one. Seems kind of trivial to show the European one, too. I don't have strong feelings on this, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's an American artist, the American image seems more appropriate. As for adding a second image, you might run into a fair-use issue because it isn't clear what (if any) additional educational value is brought to the article by its inclusion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGE briefly mentions non-free images, but it barely touches copyright issue. There is WP:NFC, NinjaRobotPirate. --George Ho (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I think it doesn't look bad with two images and we have nothing to lose by keeping them. It's informative to see there are two covers, unless of course there is a guideline against it. Darwinian Ape^talk 00:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, Darwinian Ape and NinjaRobotPirate? George Ho (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little research, and found out we do not usually use multiple covers, but there is one other example I could find:(there may be more) Point of Entry by Judas Priest. It's a similar situation we have here and the article have both covers. @George Ho: MOS you linked states clearly that you have to have a fair use rationale to use the image. So the question is, do we have a fair use rationale to keep both covers, and I believe we do. Those are not alt covers, one is for Europe and the other America, so it's informative to use them both. Darwinian Ape^talk 04:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in the case of Point of Entry, the article has a separate section discussing the differences between the American and British covers. So, illustrating that particular section could be viewed as the rationale for having the second cover image. Here, there is no analogous section to point to. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: The section is unreferenced; I tried finding sources directly describing artworks in detail without avail. There is another example, Love for Sale (Boney M. album). --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Thank you for the notification. I fear that I might have inadvertently created the impression that I'm arguing against the use of the second image. I'm not. I just happened to stumble across the RfC and, when I got here, I saw that people were talking about using non-free content without also discussing 'fair use'. And it seems to me that 'fair use' ought to be a part of every such discussion. Before responding to your ping, I did some looking around to see if this issue had ever been ruled upon by the WikiGods. Apparently it hasn't. Even the good folks at WikiProject Albums haven't weighed in on what must be a fairly common situation. But if you're interested in my decidedly non-expert opinion, here it is -- there's a reasonably good argument that can be made from the guideline appearing here. Not the first bulleted item, which requires sourced commentary about the alternate image. But the second bulleted item, which addresses the 'fair use' of using an image when helping to identify the subject of the article. Because readers from outside the U.S. might not be familiar with the American album art, having the second image can facilitate identification by those non-U.S. readers. But even as I type this, I get worried about a slippery slope. To wit, exactly how different do the album covers have to be before we can argue fair use of a second image. I don't know, but I suspect there are plenty of borderline cases out there. I hope this discussion was helpful. Thanks again for the notification. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies are a little stricter than fair use legally requires. We're generally instructed (via WP:NFCC) to use as few images as absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your observation, but I note that it merely restates the issue to be whether the second image is "necessary" for facilitating identification by non-American readers. I think that "yes" is a plausible answer, but perhaps not the "official" answer. A little searching showed that a similar issue was addressed earlier this year under the free-content review process. The result of that review is here. Under its logic, the second image is okay in the instant case. But, ... there was virtually no discussion in that review and its one discussant made non-specific reference to earlier reviews. This leads me to ask whether all of the earlier reviews were consistent with this one. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that I have no desire to rummage through years of archives to find out. It has been more than eight years since the Foundation promulgated WP:NFCC. The very fact that we can still be having this discussion suggests that the Album project needs to develop some guidelines on this issue. If such an effort ever gets started, I'll be happy to help out. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary and NinjaRobotPirate: The linked discussion discusses special and deluxe editions, not regional artworks. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, a special/deluxe edition was the issue that gave rise to the review, but regional differences were addressed in its analysis. Specifically, the review's sole discussant noted that second images are sometimes allowed, "generally for a major release in a different region". This was the 'logic' to which I referred in my previous posting. But I agree that it would be better to have one or more reviews for which regional releases comprised the sole topic of the review. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.