Talk:Rolling Stone

Britain/England

Theres several times where the british flag is used for the beatles (all english) but the england flag is used for the rolling stones, I don't want to change anything yet. Is there a reason for this thanks Tukogbani (talk) 20:03, 21st July 2009 (GMT)

New Cover Photo

The current cover shown in the article is from 2012. Was going to upload a newer version but thought it best to get some input on which cover to use. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Without input, I wasn't sure what was best so I simply updated with the most current cover of the publication found on Amazon. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The image should not be changed without good reason. It is not clear there is any good reason to change the image. Even if there is a good reason to change it then we should be able to do better than changing it to the September 2019 cover image. The magazine has been published since 1967, there should be some cover images that were more notable than others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.

For example: Led Zepplin or Johnny Cash or Janet Jackson. Yahoo took the latest cover as a reason to look at 10 other covers, most of which are fairly recent except John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

For the time being I have reverted to the last cover image but many other articles magazine article Infoboxes avoid the copyright complexity and simply use the logo instead of a cover image, and when it comes to the Rolling Stone magazine logo we have three different SVG to choose from if there is any problem. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely surprised to find that there already exists Category:Fair use Rolling Stone magazine covers. The Janet Jackson cover image is already used in her article. The Heath Ledger article includes a cover image too. The John Lennon and Yoko Ono cover is also already used in an article titled 26 October 1993.

If for some reason there is a real problem with the cover showing the judges of The Voice then we can reuse existing images, or use only the logo. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Normally you would be fine to revert per WP:BRD, but you missed the part about the discussion already being discussed above. If you want to change it, you can jump in the discussion, but changing to your preferred version isn't acceptable during the process. I don't really care about the image so no need to push my point here, but using something newer than 7 1/2 years old IS an improvement to the encyclopedia. Here is a link for your future editing WP:CONSENSUS.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to but it is good that made a suggestion and waited some time before making your change but WP:BRD still applies as normal, even if people are slow to notice. I reverted to the status quo, not my preferred image.

Template:Infobox_magazine doesn't say anything about what image should be used. Perhaps there are some guidelines elsewhere. I don't accept what seems to be your starting point, that newer images are preferable or even desirable. I would even say the older the cover image the better, but as I said before a cover image of some particular notability would be better. I'm fine with the status quo but I reiterate my earlier suggestion to use the Lennon/Ono cover, Vanity Fair literally called it the "Greatest Rolling Stone Cover Ever".

Any real discussion and consensus requires more people though and anyone looking to change the cover image would be wise not to do so until they have other opinions, either by requesting WP:3RD opinions or by some other means. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Point is moot. Use any image you wish, but an article about a CURRENT magazine reflecting one of the CURRENT covers is absolutely more appropriate than using a historical image. If you want to use a historical image in the body to describe a specific cover or show one for that time period, it would be appropriate as well. As far as the discussion, there is not time limit for any discussion but chiming in as a new IP user (who seems to have a pretty good grasp for Wikipedia despite being a new user) and reverting things after the fact certainly isn't a good way to introduce yourself to the community. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that in your opinion a current image is better, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, WP:RECENTISM is a problem not a virtue. It is not like as if the magazine hasn't gone through some fundamental change of direction or started a new era. (BTW, I'm not new, but I prefer to use the option to edit as an Anonymous IP. There's an essay at WP:WNCAA elaborating why some people might choose this option.)

For a long time the Infobox only contained the logo image and did not include a cover image. The image was moved from the article body into the Infobox with no explanation 24 November 2016. IMO it doesn't look as good to have both the logo and the magazine cover (which itself includes the logo again) in the infobox at the same time anyway. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it about the IP. Just remember WP:LOUT. If you are an experienced user, I am sure you know the guidelines and will follow them "if applicable." Now, it is also your "opinion" about the logo and the image being used together. Some pages do the same while others don't. As far as a newer image, it is always preferable to have a more recent image in pages. That's actually not my opinion but pretty standard practice in Wikipedia. Again, I don't really care so its moot, but make sure to base things on policy and guidelines. Happy editing (I mean that sincerely). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We've both stated our opinions, and if maybe others want to pursue the matter they can consider our opinions if they think the article should use a different image. WP:LOUT duly noted (experienced is maybe the wrong word, old and with a history of procrastination might be the more appropriate description).

I went ahead and added the historical cover image to the article body, maybe other editors will let it stay in the article for a while. -- 109.79.173.32 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Another New Cover Photo 2021

Someone went ahead and changed the cover the edit summary said "Most recent cover" but gave no explanation why. (Image was changed to the cover labelled February, 2021, featuring Dua Lipa.) By the time I spotted it the previous cover image had been deleted from Wikipedia.
No reason was given for the change of cover. What makes any one cover more suitable than any other? Rolling Stone has existed for more than 50 years and had many famous over images, why not any one of those? (See above.) If the cover needs to be changed to something "recent" then how often should it be changed, monthly, yearly? If it is an entirely arbitrary decision without any discussion or consensus then there is nothing stopping an editor changing it next month too.
I've removed the the Cover image from the Infobox for now since the logo is included, a cover image is not necessarily required at all. Please discuss before adding or changing a cover image. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need fans arbitrarily changing the cover image just because someone they like happens to be featured that month. [1][2][3][4][5] -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I was the user who uploaded the image, in the article there was a cover from the year 2012 and I wanted to update the cover a more recent decade, I don't understand the problem with that. Exactly since you call me a fan it makes me laugh, just like I did with the Cosmopolitan and Glamour magazines, right? You are an IP and I see that you have language and you write in Wikipedia code, that makes me suspect that you are a Wikipedia user who uses as IP only for the purpose of eliminating these images and I do not think you are so cowardly. Alexismata7 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no need to change the cover. There is no requirement to include a recent cover image. There is no requirement to include any cover image at all. It is clear you are huge Dua Lipa fan but that's no reason to spam as many magazine articles as you can with covers of Dua Lipa. You need a better reason for changing the cover image, otherwise something like BTS will end up everywhere, and that does not make a better good encyclopedia.

I choose to edit anonymously as Wikipedia allows. I make no claim to be anything other than a user who does not log in because there is no requirement to do so. You can go to the admins and ask them if I'm a sock puppet but you're the one spamming articles with Dua Lipa.

If you want to suggest a famous or notable cover image that is another matter, but changing a cover image just because you like Dua Lipa is not a good enough reason. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

N.B. Template:Non-free magazine cover "Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." That's exactly what is happening here, it's a blatant violation. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But who are you to say that the image should not be changed? This is a free encyclopedia and my way of supporting the project was by adding the image of a recent cover. Likewise, since it is not a requirement to have a cover necessarily, it does not give you the right to remove it simply because you do not like or do not think the image ... Ah, but the previous image you would have left still, right because Dua Lipa does not appear, right? I have added covers to some magazines and coincidentally Dua Lipa was part of their recent issues except NME and my reason for adding it is for its current notoriety in popular culture and more for Rolling Stone. And I repeat it again, the articles should not have a mandatory cover but it is not mandatory to leave them without an image when there is one that was uploaded. Alexismata7 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"who are you" it isn't about me. You've ignored the rules, you've spammed Dua Lipa across multiple articles, you've no basis for your fair use claim.

as you have already been told[6] there is a better fair use argument for older cover image. it is on you to justify the change. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those extremely rare instances where I agree with an IP user. Far more appropriate would be to use a famous, past cover, such as the Lennon/Ono cover which is considered iconic. Alexismata7, please WP:AGF, it is uncivil to cast aspersions on another editor as you did above. Wikipedia works by consensus. If one of your peers challenges the rationale for an edit, you provide your rationale, and allow other of your peers to also discuss the matter. Eventually (hopefully) consensus is found. We work together here, not by going on about "who are you to say", since IP user didn't dictate anything, he/she/it shared his opinion regarding an edit. My feeling is that using a very recent cover bumps up against fair use, and it potentially sets an annoying 'precedent' where others might take it upon themselves to start updating magazine covers every month, which does not improve the encyclopedia in my estimation. The encyclopedia exists to be an encyclopedia, not a rolling demonstration of "right now" content. Stability is a virtue.Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To hopefully emphasize what you are saying, cover photos would become a form of WP:FANCRUFT where it is changed each month or someone uses one "they like" just because it suits them. Thinking we need a consensus on an issue to use for the infobox (my thoughts are something newer-ish) and then leave historical ones (like Lennon) in the "Covers" section. Just my 2 cents. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I certainly asked him/her/it "who he was" because it told me that the image should not be changed, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia (with rules) in which we all have our ways of contributing to help the project. There is currently a discussion and I already explained to the IP that I will upload new images with different people but with the Rolling Stone not because my upload was motivated by the fact that I wanted to place an image that represented the current situation of popular culture, as it is [Dua Lipa]] and many other characters that can be Miley Cyrus or Taylor Swift. Alexismata7 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My most significant concern was not the 'who are you to say' (although that is also uncivil - all users have a say), it is more the assumptions you made, e.g. "You are an IP and I see that you have language and you write in Wikipedia code, that makes me suspect that you are a Wikipedia user who uses as IP only for the purpose of eliminating these images and I do not think you are so cowardly." We are supposed to assume Good Faith, not immediately trash other users based on what we think may be their motivation. We are to leave motivation out of it, and instead focus on encyclopedia content, and whether it's appropriate, reasonable, and an improvement. To be fair, IP user also made some assumptions about motivation; however, IP user did not call you "cowardly", which is a gross affront. Please. We are to at least make a small effort to maintain a collegial atmosphere here.

A user can have a username, be an IP, can have a huge detailed user page with lots of 'flair' or just a blank page, they can be ten years old or almost 100 (like me), they can be non-native speakers of whichever wikipedia language version they edit, they can be tall, short, male, female, live in a box or live in a mansion, be conservative or liberal, and everything in between all those dualities (and they can even maintain a fictional presence of who they are so you can only guess and always be wrong - welcome to my user page). Making assumptions about a user just because their an IP is certainly common, that doesn't make it worthwhile to do so or even a correct characterization. I'm full of coffee right now, and can't seem to stop typing. Sorry.

I would agree with user CNMall41 in general. Perhaps there's a way to just pick a random cover from the last two years. I don't read RS, and haven't seen any of its current covers in years. I just visited a random month generator webpage, and it output July 2019. I'm not going to look up that issue, and I have no dog in this fight. Perhaps we use that? Anastrophe (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to Amazon with some recent covers in case someone has a suggestion. As stated when this conversation came up last year, I really don't care what is chosen but would think something more recent than 2012 would be better since it is about a current magazine. Older covers that have themselves become the topic of notability could be included (based on room and length of page) in the "covers" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@CNMall41: @Anastrophe: You are right, I have realized that I was wrong in having responded in such a way. I will try to solve the matter, anyone here will argue which is the cover that should go in the main article and I promise to put it or upload it (if it is not uploaded). Alexismata7 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia went through a phase (years back) of eliminating cover images from Infoboxes almost entirely, with some editors insisting there was no fair use justification at all for including anything other than the logo. Wikipedia is full of rules and it is difficult to be aware of them all, so the rules can often be enforced very selectively and in ways that seem can seem unfair arbitrary and capricious. I want Wikipedia editors to take the rules a bit more seriously and apply them more consistently.
I'm not trying to hold anyone to the harsh standard of not including any cover image at all but I do think that when a magazine has over 50 years and many famous even iconic covers, I don't think there is a strong enough fair use claim to use allow the use of some arbitrary non-notable recent cover. Even if editors felt it was necessary to pick a Rolling Stone cover from the last 10 years that's over 200 covers, and we already have 12 Rolling stone covers from the 2020's. If there's local consensus to include a particular cover I will of course go along with that but this particular choice of cover seems like WP:FANCRUFT (thanks CNMall41, I can remember that the guidelines exist but not always their specific names). The matter was slightly complicated by bots deleting the previous cover so I could not easily roll back, also the previous cover didn't seem particularly notable either. In 2017 The New York Times wrote about the cover, and said the Kanye West wearing a crown of thorns from 2006 drew particular criticism[7] so it might be a notable choice. I wouldn't choose the Rolling Stone cover of Obama (or the even more recent Biden cover) unless it was specifically to make the point that Rolling Stone mixed pop culture with politics, but that could probably be done more effectively using prose.
Apparently the Beatles have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine more than anyone else in one form or another over 30 times, and if we were not trying to go for something recent I would suggest an anniversary edition such as the Rolling Stone magazine #1000 cover which recreated the cover of Sgt. Pepper's using the faces of 150 celebrities.

This recent cover gallery page might be helpful, takes ages to load though. -- 109.79.68.226 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

TLDR the cover image used in the Infobox of this article was changed for no particular reason. It can be changed again, but please try to discuss first and pick a notable cover image. WP:N WP:NFCC#8 -- 109.78.201.221 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone decided on a cover to propose yet?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's an idea (and I am ready to get roasted for suggesting it), but if we claimed fair use for each cover and then allowed there here for each decade listed, that would likely keep the fancruft off this page and we wouldn't have to worry about people trying to change this cover so much. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't require a vote. As Alexismata7 has so clearly shown anyone can just change the image, but it helps for the image to be notable and to have consensus if you want other editors to stop the next person from arbitrarily replacing whatever image you add. It might be possible to reuse a Rolling Stone cover image already uploaded to Wikipedia for other reasons Category:Fair use Rolling Stone magazine covers, Heath Ledger 2006 for example.

I don't think having an image for every decade would be workable, but I wouldn't say it was impossible, there are list articles of all the people who have been on the cover of Rolling Stone and it is possible someone could make a reasonable argument for adding images to some of those articles.

I'm not set on any particular cover but my preference would be for a cover featuring a musician, or group of musicians. -- 109.76.136.35 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't require a vote. However, I believe we are in WP:BRD territory at this point with all the reverts and changes that have taken place so consensus should be established. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RS 500 Front Cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RS 500 Front Cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

I thought about taking the current infobox image to WP:FFD. Seems that every current cover has replaced every previous cover, and WP:MAGAZINES/WG doesn't explain how to solve this matter. WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#Unacceptable use don't explain as well which usage of magazine covers are acceptable except only to illustrate critical commentary. If every cover is getting replaced over and over, then this becomes the WP:NFCC#8 issue. To put this another way, almost every cover would implicitly fail the criterion if getting replaced over and over, meaning that a cover may not suit well as a lead image. Why not no magazine cover in the lead instead? That can solve the problem, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As I previously noted the Infobox contained only the logo image for quite a long while until 24 November 2016. You could make an argument to do that again. Personally I'd still argue for picking a better cover image, but it is far easier to delete than it is to gain consensus for a better choice of image. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There is already a section on this above. I don't think it needs any type of noticeboard at this point. Simply getting consensus on which cover image to use would suffice. Do have any you would propose?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be a static logo, not each cover, that would be, to me, ridiculous. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone is proposing to put each cover. The question is about the current cover and if it should be changed. And, if so to which one? If anyone is advocating for no cover at all, I would be opposed to that. Especially when it is a publication known for its cover photos. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Same as before I would suggest an anniversary edition such as the Rolling Stone magazine #1000 cover, but I'm open to suggestions if someone thinks another image would be more representative or more notable in some other way. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I would have no objection to that. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Changed to the 1,000th issue cover for now if it makes everyone happy. However, I'm not sure how much I can hold off as many covers will be made and then published. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If that image is chosen by consensus, then someone wanting to change it to something else would need to obtain a different consensus per WP:ONUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well... Umm.... ... ... (Trying to come up with words about local consensus... vs. wide....) George Ho (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an anniversary cover, it reportedly cost $1 million to make[8] I think that makes it more noteworthy than most, but I am not saying it is the only possible choice. (If I absolutely had to pick only one single cover to represent the entire history of the magazine it would have to be the Lennon cover by Leibowitz, but we've got that in the article body already.) If someone wants to argue that some other cover is more famous or important in some other way they can still discuss that. My objection was to the cover being arbitrarily changed to something more recent purely because it was more recent and not because the cover was more noteworthy than any of the hundreds of other covers. I hope we can get at least a few years out of this choice. -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)