|WikiProject Albums||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
So, this page says that standard album covers are 12.375 inches square, the Gatefold entry says they're 12.5, and just below on the talk page you say they're 12. Which is it?!
This is a placeholder to cover the discussion of album covers and how they were a special feature of vinyl albums in the 70's.
I added a note under vinyl records. Note a search on album cover brings up Gramaphone awards but no main topic.
Vinyl albums had a large 12" cover, which became an important part of the culture of music at the time. As a marketing tool and an expression of artisic intent, gatefold covers, (a folded double cover), and inserts, often with lyric sheets made the album cover to be a desirable artifact in its own right. Notable examples are Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon which had gatefold, lyrics, no title on the sleeve and poster inserts. The move to the small CD format lost the impact of the cover.
- See merge discussion at Talk:Cover art#Merge proposal.
- Personally I think they are better as two separate articles. This article can go into more detail about the role of album covers, classic covers, etc. Cover art is a broader article. There's easily enough material for both articles to be decent. I'll remove the merge tag in the next few days unless someone objects. Soo 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have no objection now that the two articles refer to one another and the cover art article has been expanded to mention books etc, though perhaps these links could be made more obvious with a See Also.
Additional questions to take into account:
- Should Album cover art redirect to Album cover (as it does now), or should it redirect to Cover art?
- When linking the personnel credits on any album article, should the sleeve artists' credits link to Album cover or Cover art? (I will also ask this question on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums).
Gram 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think album cover art should redirect here, because this article is more specific. Ultimately the articles link to each other anyway so no big deal. As for the other one, I really don't know. Hopefully the wikiproject can decide for themselves. Soo 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge content is very similar, with significant overlap between ideas. Cover art (being more general) can include specifics about the different types of media. --Maelgwn 07:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reinstated the example pictures - as displayed on this page they appear appropriate. If they are not valid here, then they should also be removed from the whole of wikipedia - these images are typically from original articles. I defer to the fair use claims on the pictures themselves. Spenny 17:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Using an album cover pic in an article about that album is valid under fair use, but I guess the rationale for removing them from this article may have been that they were being used as example illustrations of "Album covers". Specific album cover pics are not generic, so the fair use argument may not be appropriate. I'll ask on User:SoothingR's talk page (who removed the section) to provide further info. Gram 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alright then, I'll give a quick explanation to you guys. I removed the pictures from the articles, because I thought that they were not compliant with the Wikipedia policy on fair use. There was no discussion on the specific images, they were just thrown into a gallery.SoothingR 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think that in the context, using the low res. picture to illustrate the album in question is appropriate. The principle of fair use certainly can apply to a generic article. As a general point, where the album cover links do have a problem is that wiki has a high res. picture readily accessible and stored. The near thumb-nail on this page is fine - I think there is a problem with the high res. images stored on the source pages which is not fair use.
- In terms of discussion, then the link is there to the main album in each case. For example, behind the Sgt. Pepper cover is a whole story, but it would not be appropriate to replicate the cover story again, though some expansion in the text of why each cover was notable would help the article and would assist the argument of "critical comentary" which I see is used elsewhere (and would show up the fan addition vs. the other notable covers). I agree further expansion is appropriate, though that is why originally I had picked out DSotM and Sgt. Pepper as notable in the text. Spenny 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally resolved the image issue: note that lyrics are not legible in the hi-res picture and an explanation of why the pictures are included is in the captioning and associated image page. Spenny 11:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they should put more about album caver, for interested people!!![[Image:Insert non-formatted text here]] == Headline text ==
tag placed in march says neutrality is at issue, but i see no discussion here of what content is POV. i will query the tagger, and if no discussion is forthcoming, or if i cant find any POV in the article myself, i will remove the tag. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
dont mean to be anal about this, but is 2 mentions of "analbumcover" really necessary? in fact, would one mention possibly be one too many?(mercurywoodrose)18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the template for albums doesnt have a space for the album cover artist? it gets mentioned in the body of the article, but i think it deserves its own line in the template. just saying.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This article has excellent coverage of when and why the outer sleeve (the "album cover" in the strict sense) developed.
But it should say more about the chronology of inner sleeves. Apparently long ago, they were printed with advertisements for other records by the same company -- this is not mentioned in the article. Later on, Decca used plain red and blue ones for mono and stereo -- the article does mention this. But when was the inner sleeve first used as a place to print additional artwork and/or lyrics that are specific to one album? It was common by the early 1970s, but did it exist before that? I don't believe that the Beatles ever printed anything on their inner sleeves; even Sergeant Pepper had a plain white sleeve (although there were additional inserts as well). — Lawrence King (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone might want to add barcode, such as UPC barcode to the article. The reference number might be the same as the UPC barcode number, but prior to the UPC it was a record company inventory number or part number. I'm not an expert in this area. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
We cant use copyrighted images in this article, even for the most famous album cover (which is not universally recognized, only an opinion). i am putting the cover for the white album by the beatles here, as its not copyrightable.22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)