Talk:13 Japanese Birds

General cleanup

I rewrote the introduction.

The actual albums only use "Title: 13 Japanese Birds Pt. #". Changed per Discogs.

Removed redundant album info:

There's no need to say an album "is the #th album of the box-set" when the header says "Vol. #", or the release date when it's also in the infobox. There's also no need to source each release date.

Credits which are the same for every album can go in the intro, exception: Fukurou. Recording info is also repeated in the infobox.

Each album has two external links, one to Important, one to Discogs. Redundant info, and the label and Discogs pages are popular enough, people can look it up themselves.

Album infoboxes: Genre, Label & Producer are repeated from the main infobox.

Allmusic has many Merzbow albums listed, but only a few have reviews, only actual reviews included. Added other professional reviews. 96.18.209.17 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Jigokuhen

It listen to the advice given to me. But decided to mantain the individual release information of the Jigokuhen album, because it might say its the 15th album of the series, but it never says that it will be sold along with it which is different than the previous 14 albums. The core information is posed in this page but with a link to the individual release page.Pachon (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability and fair use images

Since when are the album covers considered overuse? Last I checked wikipedia has 118,091 of them, are you going to remove them all? --Muhandes (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Album covers used in list or discographies articles where the individual albums are non-notable for their own article is considered overuse, per WP:NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How are the albums not notable? They were just combined for convenience. Do you want me to break them into 14 articles? --Muhandes (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do, they will be deleted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, none of the individual albums appear to meet our notability guidelines, so they will be deleted unless you can provide secondary sources for the articles. Instead, when combined in a list, the album images are only decorative and do not serve the same purpose that album art on standalone articles serves, and thus are inappropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Did any of you two actually look at the article? We seem to be discussing two different articles. Most of these albums have two independent sources - allmusic and Musique Machine. I can probably dig more, but that should be more than enough for notability per WP:NALBUMS - "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". And if you insist on templating regulars, and in the middle of a discussion, I can do that too. --Muhandes (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, and I would argue that with only two sources for each, you likely would fail notability requirements; in other words, separate articles would not be acceptable. In fact, it is really the collection of CDs that is notable, so one respesentative cover would be ok, but not for individual articles. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a collection of albums which were released individually, each receiving media reviews. You could argue they fail notability with two sources, but that would be against WP:NALBUMS and more importantly against the consensus at WP:ALBUMS. --Muhandes (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

NALBUMS requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, just like WP:N. As NALBUMS points out, receiving reviews may (the operative word) indicate an album to be notable. But knowing how people see notability, if you try to create an individual article for any single one of these albums, you will likely find people ready to delete it if you can't back it with more secondary, reliable coverage. This is not to say that the lsit collection is bad - it is probably the better way to group it since it seems to be a project to release an album a month with a centralized theme. But in that fashion, you simply cannot use images for each album cover. One is acceptable for general representation, but not any more without significant commentary on the images themselves. --MASEM (t) 07:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. If an album is notable, its identification is fair use. If you are arguing that a studio album from a notable artist with discogs listing, a rateyourmusic listing, an allmusic review and a Musique Machine review don't together amount to notability, I am willing to take this to WT:ALBUM or any other venue and check, but this would result in deletion of (in a very conservative estimate) thousands of articles. If the albums are notable on their own and are only listed together for convenience and to create additional notability, then their covers fall under fair use and WP:NFLISTS does not apply. --Muhandes (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Being simply listed at a site is not an aspect of notability. I am aware that NABLUMS does assert that an album from a notable artist is presumed notable for a standalone article -- however, this is based that more sources can be found in the future to expand the article to an encyclopedic topic as opposed to just a listing. But ignoring that issue and working that you are grouping the albums together as one because it is easier to handle that way, past consensus on this is that no, image-per-album is still not appropriate, unless each image is specifically discussed from sources in detail - the article is still a discography and falls under WP:NFLISTS. Its understood that one album image is appropriate for identifying the branding of a set of related works, but cannot be used to support identification per album. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. If an album is notable, using an image for identification is fair use. If albums are notable enough to be listed on a separate article, where the image is used for identification, I don't see how putting them together deprives them of that. There is no consensus to the opposite, as it would be ridiculous. It would force editors to split articles just so a cover could be added. WP:NFLISTS is not meant to be used as means to force editors to split articles. --Muhandes (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Using an album cover to identify an album certainly falls in US fair use law, but WP's non-free content policy is purposely more restrictive. We seek minimal use of non-free images. Cover art barely meets the requirement of WP:NFCC#8 for significance for the reader - we allow it on standalone articles for a single work by consensus, but on lists of works, like a discography that this article is, there is no allowance for it because such uses fail "minimal use" of NFCC#3a, and rarely meet NFCC#8. (see WP:NFC#UUI in addition to WP:NFLISTS, and you can search the archives at WT:NFC for "lists" to see lengthy past discussion on this issue).

I understand the situation you're in - I will tell you that if you split out the articles to individual albums, they won't be deleted immediately - but knowing what you have there for these albums in terms of sourcing and knowing they are thematically tied, I would not be surprised in a year or more that someone will come along to suggest deletion or merging back to a single article, barring the discovery of new secondary sources. But standard consensus for non-free images explicitly prevents illustrating every album in a discography like this is. One representative cover (This being likely the woodbox one) makes complete sense to include, but any other cover image will be removed per policy -- unless that cover image meets NFCC#8 through commentary about the cover art itself. If you think this needs to be changed, you can likely open discussion at WT:NFC, but given how many times the issue has come up, it is unlikely you'll gain any new traction on it. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Muhandes, Masem happens to be right. These images have to go. It's not a question of fair use. If it were, we could use every album cover on every discography here. If you peruse Category:Discographies of Japanese artists, you will note a distinct lack of covers in any of the articles in that category. You may think this article is somehow different, but it isn't. Further, the ability of any of these CDs to stand alone is highly suspect. There's plenty of "series" articles like this one that have just one image as Masem suggests. These images need to be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion up to this point moved from User talk:Δ.

The comparison to a discography is irrelevant. A discography is, in essence, about the artist. As such it will have a picture of the artist - it does not need the album images. This is about the albums, and it needs identification of the albums. Just to demonstrate how far this is from a discography, a discography does not have infoboxes, full track lists, cover art details and credits, reviews, etc.

As for the ability of these CDs to stand on their own, I have edited hundreds, if not thousands of album articles, so I think I know what a notable album is. I stated above the relevant sources. These albums have much more notability than the majority of the album articles. I am willing to take the notability of such albums to WT:ALBUMS.

Bottom line, none of you has showed any policy or consensus that when a bunch of notable albums are put in one article, they suddenly loose notability and do not need identification. You link parts of WP:NFC which do not mean what you claim they mean. All the ten requirements of WP:NFC apply, especially WP:NFC#8. WP:NFC#UUI does not apply as this is not a discography.

Last word (for the moment, need to run to work). I think none of us really wants these articles split. As such, even if you think there is some rule not followed to the dot, ignore it - it is for the best of the subject. --Muhandes (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A discography is any related collection of albums, not just the entire listing of an artist. But even ignoring the exact definition, we don't allow non-free images to illustrate every element of a discography, bibliography, episode list, character list, list of currency, list of stamps, list of people, and so on - eg , the core of WP:NFLISTS is that when you are illustrating any list or table, regardless of where else non-free may be able to be used, it is heavily restricted there because more often than not, the use is simply decorative. This is a list, it falls under the same restrictions. Yes, the logic that follows is that if you had kept these as separate articles that each would be able to have their cover image, no questions asked there, while you can't have them while grouped. But that's based on your presumption that the individual albums are notable. The series of works is notable, that's not a question, and I'm sure there's language at WP:NALBUMS that asserts that any album by a notable artist is presumed notable, but remember, the word is "presumed", not "assured". Someone can challenge that. This would be a very prime case since it's clearly the grouping that is notable, not the individual albums.

Now, there is a midway solution. I found [1] which (appears to be) the artist's blog. Importantly, he provides his own montages of the various album covers; not all of them, but blocks of 4. Now, I doubt that anyone would have a problem if you used the main woodbox art cover as the infobox picture, and then supply one of these montage pics (like [2]) as representative samples of the artwork used in the series. It is important that the artist or publisher as the copyright holder have created that montage because for us that is only one single non-free image; if you were to create the same montage, that would be four separate non-free pictures. This thus gets you some of the covers in this summary article, a reasonable compromise compared to using every cover or removing all but one. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not "every element of a discography, bibliography, episode list, character list, list of currency, list of stamps, list of people, and so on". These are individual albums, released on their own, and notable on their own. Yes, they have something in common, which is the reason they were bundled on the same article, but one could just as easily split them. The core of WP:NFLISTS, as you yourself say, is to prevent decorative usage. The usage here isn't decorative at all - far from it. It is crucial to the identification of each notable album, just like any other album cover. What you suggest above would have been fine if one wanted to represent the artwork of the series, but this is exactly not the point of these covers. They are here to identify individual creations. --Muhandes (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed them again, this article clearly violates NFLISTS. If you re-insert them you may be blocked for violating our copyright and non-free content policies. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing them again while discussion is ongoing is clear edit warring. Please stop it. It does not "clearly violates NFLISTS" while we are still discussing if it does. And stop threatening me - continue to revert and you will be the one blocked. --Muhandes (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Its crystal clear, you have been told by three different users that this article violates our non-free content policy. Policy requires disputed non-free content to be removed until consensus to include it is formed. Right how there is no such agreement. Please note that enforcing NFCC is exempt from 3RR so you will be blocked, not me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about 3RR? I was talking about the civility of reverting while a discussion is ongoing. There were some other editors having a civil discussion here, and trying to reach an understanding. None of them saw fit to start threatening by block and making it a revert war. --Muhandes (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have remained very civil, our policy on non-free content it crystal clear. As of now the only person trying to re-insert large volumes of copyrighted material into this article is you. Even after being told by multiple users that it goes against policy. WP:NFCC is not negotiable it must be followed. Policy states that removal must be done until there is consensus to include the material. You are the one who is reverting and bringing up editwarring. I just wanted to make my position clear, and let you know what may happen if you continue to ignore policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your actions, especially when compared to the actions of other editors involved, speak for themselves. For now I'll take Masem's suggestion and in parallel check for notability with WT:ALBUMS. --Muhandes (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Muhandes, "If you re-insert them you may be blocked for violating our copyright and non-free content policies." is a fair warning of the case. Copyright violations are not negotiable - they have to go until the issue is resolved, reinsertions of that, while knowing that the fair-use is disputed, may be the re-insertion of a violation of copyright - you may be right that it is in this case not, but there is no reason why we should take the risk of keeping a violation of copyright in mainspace. The burden is on the editors wishing to include the images. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the 13 original albums were released individually, at their own date, with their own covers and such. I would rather like the albums to be splitted into 13 independent articles, instead of having partial information. And what i mean about partial information is that the cover is also part of that piece of information. I know so, because if i hadnt saw the cover when i was interested in the album, i wouldnt have realised it was part of the set and therefore i wouldnt have bought it.

That to the side, i wouldnt have any problem slpitting them up and putting some links to each album.--Pachon (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:13 Japanese Birds covers.jpg

This image has to go. Muhandes, it's not at all uncommon for people to feel that creating a montage vacates the problems with having too many non-free images. The problem is, a montage doesn't reduce the number of images. A montage of four images, such as this file, is still four images. I'm sorry, but this image has to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is not clear, I did not create this montage, the artist did. I think I mentioned this in the image description. As such, it is one image, not four. At least that's what Masem suggested above. --Muhandes (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hammer, this is what I pointed to above, created by the artist himself and published on his own blog. Yes, if Muhandes created it himself, that would be 4 nfc's but here it is only one as it is coming from the primary source themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for correcting me. That being the case, this image should replace the image in the infobox, and the infobox image should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems both Masem and myself disagree. The infobox cover is for identification of the box set. It was created by Merzbow. The cover montage is for demonstrating the cover art by Jenny Akita. The first could not serve for the second, nor vice verse. --Muhandes (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• How so? Is there some secondary sourcing pointing to the notability of the cover in the infobox that the montage image can't convey? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me time to answer, I did not notice the question up to now. I'm not an NFCC expert, so I'm guessing based on Masem's comment above, though I think Masem is the best to explain. The bamboo painting by Merzbow is for identification of the subject, 13 Japanese Birds box set, under the terms in {{Non-free album cover}}. The image montage (images by Jenny Akita) is for demonstrating the artwork of the covers of the 12 albums, not the box set (it may fall under {{Non-free 2D art}}, there is a short section discussing the art, which they demonstrate). So yes, I think there is a separate notability and separate reasoning. --Muhandes (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• The "artwork" section comprises two sentences with no references. Any other mention of artwork is a repetition of "The album cover features artwork by Jenny Akita", over and over and over again. There's no discussion of the artwork at all. It's just credit. We don't need the montage in order for someone to understand that the artwork was done by Jenny Akita. It's completely superfluous and fails WP:NFCC #1, as it's already been replaced by text conveying the needed meaning. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The single sentence "artwork" section was mentioned in passing and I don't claim it is a "critical discussion" justifying the image. I said the image is demonstrative of an artwork which is different than the cover box. All the single sentence section does is establish that it is a different artwork than the cover and that it uses various artistic style worth demonstrating. Do you seriously think the three words "various artistic ways" are a "free equivalent" to the image per WP:NFCC #1? If they are than there is no reason to accept any images under NFCC, they can all be described in three words. --Muhandes (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I didn't say that. I said that the artwork's tie to the text was "The album cover features artwork by Jenny Akita". Still, we come back to; there's no sourced discussion of the artwork. Remove the montage of artwork, and the article is not missing anything that inhibits the reader. That's a failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)