Talk:KMFDM discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New article[edit]

Okay, I've started the KMFDM discography article and have included all the studio albums, compilations, and live albums. If no one beats me to it, I'll expand the sections on singles, videos, soundtracks, and remixes. I've based the template on the Nine Inch Nails discography, which includes chart information (US and UK) and sales figures. However, I don't know this info for the KMFDM releases. Since only a few KMFDM albums/singles have charted, perhaps including this in the template is not necessary? Also, I'm not sure about the relationship between KMFDM Records and Metropolis Records, so I don't know if certain releases should be credited to one or the other, or both. Someone with more knowledge in this area may want to clarify. As always, thoughts and opinions are most welcome. --buck 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I definitely think this is the right place for all this expanded information. I also think that now that we have a place to put all this info, we should revert the discography on the main page back to the simple format it was before someone added tables (i.e. just the simple list of albums and a list of singles/EPs, without the extended lists of remixes and video game soundtracks, videos, etc.). Again, kudos... keep up the good work. 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, things seem to be coming along nicely. Thanks for the improvements, and of course for migrating the sinlges/EPs/videos. --buck 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

The majority of the fair use images on this page are not used properly with reguard to our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy (likely in that the use is not minimal (3.a.) and it is in a list or a gallery (8.) and are decorative or not necessary to understand the material) or our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline that states that cover images may only be used for critical commentary on the cover itself, not just identification. Could you please explain why you believe this use is proper? Kotepho 08:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this usage is against NFCC. (1) These images represent the albums in question and there is no acceptable free equivalent (2) These images do not degrade the commercial opportunities of the original artist (3a) These images are used minimally with respect to what they represent, in that each album is unique and requires its own image (i.e. you can't use one image to represent them all). Only one image is used per album. (3b) Images are of a low enough resolution that they cannot be used for piracy (4) All have been previously published outside Wikipedia (5) Encyclopedic in nature (6) Follow media-specific policy (7) All used in at least one article (8) The cover images are extremely significant to this article. They allow a user to identify albums they may know by sight but not by name, permit users to find particular albums much faster than if they were to search by title alone, and allow users to see all covers together so as to be able to make visual comparisons, which cannot be done without a great deal of effort when each image is hosted on one of 20 different pages. As such, this use is not merely decorative. "Decorative" use would imply that the images could be reasonably replaced by another similar "decorative" element. This is not the case here; each image used is the only image that could be used in that particular instance. (9) only used in article namespace (10) Images tagged as fair use album covers. 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Decorative does not imply that it could be replaced with some other image at all. Take the instance of a sports team's logo. Is there another image that would be used to identify them? It would seem to be analogous to what you believe. Then, if you had a list of every player in an All-star game that listed their names, positions, and what team they are from adding the team's logo could be used in the list as it would not be decorative by your argumentation (the "minimum" amount is used and they are not "decorative" and yet there are a vast number of images used and they do not actually increase a reader's understanding in a reasonable fashion). Your other arguments in regards to criterion 8 assume that the use of Wikipedia in this fashion is one that we care about. Each album page could have the full song for every track, as it helps the reader decide if he wants to buy the album or allows him to easily compare all of the tracks against each other. Wikipedia is not AllMusicGuide, but an encyclopeda. Kotepho 13:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Under your definition then, every single image used anywhere could be considered decorative. "Decorative" to me conveys that the image is being used solely for the purpose of making something "pretty", and doesn't particularly enhance its readability, understandability, and usability (e.g. when someone adds those damn stick figures in slide presentations...). That is absolutely not the case with these cover images. They are intrinsically tied to and serve to represent the key visual aspect of the item being described, and aide greatly in all three aspects I mentioned above.
I get your point about the sport team logos, but I don't believe it's quite the same thing. In your example, the images are not being used to identify the player himself but a non-unique sub-property of each person. In the case of this discography, each image directly and uniquely represents its corresponding entry. In this situation, we have a 1-to-1 relationship, i.e. each image belongs to exactly one entry and each entry belongs to exactly 1 image, whereas in your all-star example you have a 1-to-many relationship (since the images represent a non-unique sub-property). This all-star example would be equivalent to if we were instead to make a list of every song, and include an image of the corresponding album cover next to each song (don't worry, I'm not advocating this...). A more apt parallel would be, say, a list of all teams in MLB.
As far as your last point, why would the uses I described not be ones that we care about? The primary purpose of using an encyclopedia is to be able to find information, and I'd claim that album covers used in this manner assist greatly to that end. Your final hypothetical is moot, since including full song tracks would be beyond fair use (since it would diminish the copyright holder's commercial opportunities), and also I never said anything about this being for the purpose of setting up a "buyer's" guide, just the most efficient way of discovering and absorbing new information, as an encyclopedia should be. 22:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how I have not defined decorative and that I do not find all images decorative, could you please explain my definition of decorative? Or don't, it really isn't important... especially as it is quite similar to the one you yourself give. The cases you describe are either silly (helps you find the album on the page faster for example, less images = more text per screen real estate and certainly the search function of your browser is the best way to find the album when you know the title...), contrived (visual comparisons?) and such. What if you only know what the back cover looks like or the CD label, should we include those also? What about releases that have had different covers for the same album, we include every one of them?
I do like your version better, but the conclusion is still the same, is it not? There does not need to be a different image that could serve the same purpose for the usage to be decorative (which you argued above).
There are a great number of uses of Wikipedia that we do not care about, some of which are listed at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Some people wished to use Wikipedia as the place to keep track of what episode of the Simpsons was airing in many, many jurisdictions and it was decided that this was not a meaningful use for our purposes. Much of your argumentation hinges upon "someone could concievably use this for x, y, z" and I am just outlining how that is not enough in itself.
The reason that the English Wikipedia allows fair use at all is there are certain cases where someone's understanding of our article would be significantly hindered without a fair use image. Campbell's_Soup_Can would be severly less informative without fair use images for example. Other subjects where free images are not possible only enjoy the possibility of fair use images because of such obviously encyclopedic usage of fair use material, but that is not to say it is without limit. In an article about an album or an artist fair use may be easily justified and probably does outweigh the benefits of including non-free content in our free encyclopedia. The information that is conveyed by using images in this manner is not important enough to justify using fair use images in this fashion, even if you deem it extremely significant for exotic reasons. Kotepho 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was partially inferred from your reaction to the aspects I described. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I think you're mistaken to write off the examples I provided as silly and contrived. I contend that it absolutely is faster to find what you're looking for when cover images are included. Humans are highly visual creatures, and most people can absorb and comprehend a graphical image much faster than by reading text alone. I'd even go as far to say it's often still faster to find an album by its cover image than by searching text, even when you know its correct title (at least it is for me — I can find what I'm looking for almost instantaneously by scrolling down a list that includes covers when I know what I'm looking for, and I'd bet it's the same for many others). The visual comparison, again, I believe is a very valid application. This discography is a prime example of when such an arrangement would be desirable, since there is such a high level of visual continuity between the various artworks. Another good example of such a page is the Keane discography (before the cover images were removed). Each album and its associated singles follow a unique theme/style in their artwork that I would assert is worth being seen together in one place.
I'd agree that local Simpsons listings are not encyclopedic, since they are fundamentally ephemeral in nature. I still believe the uses I outlined fall within the realm of encyclopedic use, but I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Campbell's Soup Cans surely is an excellent application of fair use images, but I strongly feel that the image usage here is still valid fair use in itself for the reasons I outlined earlier, even if it is for what you deem to be a less important purpose. Is it possible to make a discography without cover images? Sure. But in doing so, you lose a very important fundamental component of the identity of the albums. You could also write Campbell's Soup Cans without the fair use images and just thoroughly describe the artwork, but obviously you would be losing out there a lot as well. 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is faster (for me probably not, but I am not all people), including fair use images just for someone to be able to search a list faster or so that someone could compare images would not really be enough justification, or you could justify just about any usage of images in such a manner. Is the visual comparison valid in this case? Maybe. The Keane example is quite stark. If there is an important theme of the album artwork and it is significant, it would make more sense for it to be in the band's artice and it should be sourced. If you can flesh out a discography with actual commentary on the albums and/or their cover art, the use of non-free media is more easily justified (in my mind, others see things differently).
I have been looking at this in the perspective of the forest instead of a tree mostly (which I guess is easy to do when you are dealing with a mb:ForestFire) and being too dismissive of your arguments because of it, sorry. The visual comparision aspect certainly can be encyclopedic, it is just that I have not seen the case made for it and I have seen it asserted in the general sense multiple times. Kotepho 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in guys, but I'd also like to point out that no other discographies feature the album artwork in the list. Heck, even the Beatles and the Stones have to comply. Now as much as I like the KMFDM cover art and would think including the album covers in the discography would improve it, I'm inclined to follow the policy because someday I'd like to see the KMFDM article reach featured status. That said, I agree that KMFDM cover artwork has become iconic, and at the very least the cover images should remain in their respective articles--but perhaps it would be possible to include just one image to illustrate this discography with a short explanation of the BRUTE! artwork and it's association with KMFDM? Perhaps What Do You Know Deutschland or Naive? Just my two cents--take it or leave it. Peace! --buck 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Buck, the reason there are no images in those discographies is because there has recently been a major push by several anti/absolute-minimal-fair-use editors to eliminate all discography artwork. There was some resistance on The Beatles discography, but unfortunately some of the people there resorted to name calling and accusations and the whole discussion just degenerated very quickly. I too would love to see the KMFDM article be featured someday, but I also don't want to sacrifice the quality of this article solely for that purpose. The primary issue at hand here is the interpretation of what constitutes "significant contribution" and "mere decoration". Those are the only things that are explicitly addressed in the official policy. Everything else is part of an interpretive guideline based on various users' interpretations of these statements. I have laid out how I believe the images contribute significantly to this article, so that is the best I can do for now. 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -Mask? 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry that you don't like it, but both policy and consensus are riding on the other side of this one. Please stop edit warring now. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to engage in an edit war any more than you are trying to engage in an edit war. I'm only trying in good faith to preserve an important aspect of this page that is still permissible under the current wording of nfcc. Please point me in the direction of the strong and overwhelming consensus you speak of, because every discussion of this issue I've ever encountered has only been an acrimonious disagreement between the two sides of the issue. 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
He can't because there is none. This is a huge, raging debate over this topic in various places such as Talk:Non-free_content, but there is no true consensus; only a handful of people who have declared consensus and attempt to ram it down the majority's throat. What would be nice is if the deletionists stop the wholesale stripping discography pages of images and the inclusionists stop creating new ones until something formal such as the wiki Foundation makes a firm ruling one way or another, but no one seems interested in a true detente. Tarc 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's primarily where I'm coming from. I dug through the discussion archives in several of those places back through several months, and as I mentioned earlier, saw no sign of a true consensus, only heated disagreement. Unfortunately, the removal advocates here seem more interested in just reverting and admonishing others not to do the same than engaging in true discussion and providing pointers to the alleged consensus. I very much appreciated the efforts of Kotepho, because while he and I fundamentally disagreed on the issues, he put in the effort to engage in discourse and never just resorted to deletion. 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I knew it was only a matter of time before the anti-fair-use cabal called in reinforcements. And of course he also reverted the page and protected it on the wrong version... in all seriousness though, it would be nice if people were willing to engage in true discussion instead of stonewalling behind controversial interpretations of policy and phantom consensus. 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
True discussion: here for starters, which resulted in this policy clarification, which had previously been listed in WP:NFCC. Are we done here, or are you going to keep tilting at this windmill? (ESkog)(Talk) 23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for actually responding this time. By discussion I meant talking about this specific usage and discussing my specific arguments as to why it's worthwhile, since that's supposedly how exceptions to the general rule are supposed to be considered: on a case-by-case basis. The change in policy wording between Wikidemo and the others that you pointed to was a fatigued compromise at best — hardly a sweeping consensus — and came well after I first started asking for the alleged consensus and you started reverting based on it.
Oh, and the more I've thought about it, the more I have come to believe that Steel359's intervention here was a violation of the protection policy. That policy says that protection should only ever be performed on the current version of a page by an uninvolved admin in the case of content disputes (what we have here). By reverting first and then protecting, Steel359 exposed his own bias on the issue and effectively became an involved party in the disagreement. That policy also says that semi-protection (the action taken) should only be used in the case of vandalism, and not to lock out anonymous users in content disputes. In his protection summary, he referred to me as an "IP hopping anon", which comes across with a very accusatory tone, as if I was trying to evade or trick somebody. First of all, I have no control over what IP I am assigned. It is usually fairly consistent, but sometimes it fluctuates for reasons unknown and uncontrolled by me. In any case, I never made any claim nor led anyone to believe I was anyone other than than myself.
But you're right. It's futile for me to even try to get my point across, because despite the approximate balance in numbers between users who are pro-fair-use and those who are anti-fair-use in non-replaceable situations, the people who are diametrically opposed to its inclusion are the same people who are able to devote upwards of 70% of their day patrolling Wikipedia searching for content to delete and creating the illusion of widespread consensus on this issue. I used to be very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and regularly contributed real content other than just reverts, but lately I've intentionally scaled back the time I allow myself to spend here to avoid getting overly passionate over this dispute and letting it consume my life any more than it already has. There's no way I can "compete" with someone like you who is so dead against just about all reasonable fair-use and has the time to watch Wikipedia frequently enough to revert my changes within a few minutes of me making them, especially when you have a second like-minded admin to take sides with you and lock out my class of user. 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe we should change the way the groups are organized, and combine EPs and Remix albums into a single group, while leaving Singles as a separate group. The reason is because the divisions between some releases, and whether they are EPs or Remix albums, can be extremely hazy at time. Ruck Zuck, in particular, clearly straddles that line, as it contains a number of new tracks in addition to its many remixes. Better to combine them, rather than trying to figure out which is which. (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is one option that I think could clean things up a bit as far as arguments over albums vs. EPs vs remix albums vs Side projects vs KMFDM. I hope that makes sense. This change would basically get rid of EPs as a category completely, thus, each group would be just one type of item. (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


  • List of albums here...

KMFDM versus[edit]

Remix albums[edit]


  • List of singles here...
I think this is a good idea. No debates over whether the "vs" releases are side projects or not, and no debates over what's an EP or not. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The new layout looks good. Nice job. Should the Naïve/The Days of Swine & Roses single be moved to the versus section? I don't recall whether or not it was credited as a "Vs." project. --buck (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's a split single (each band only remixed each others track, there was no collaboration), and it was never credited as "KMFDM vs TKK". I agree, the new layout looks better. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Compilations - other[edit]

We have a section for KMFDM compilations, but what about compilation albums they contributed to? That Madonna cover made me think of it. It was part of that Virgin Voices album. And there was also the Shut Up Kitty album from like 1992. Should we add another section for that type of thing? I don't see a cover songs section either, although those examples overlap. (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, should the links in the soundtracks sections point to the movies, or the sountracks themselves? I would've thought the soundtracks, but I'll wait for another opinion before messing with it. (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A "Compilations" section sounds like a good idea. A "Covers" section sounds like it would unnecessarily take up space (any covers are already mentioned on their respective album/single pages, and I haven't seen many Wikipedia pages with a "covers" section). As for the soundtracks part, I'd say it should point to the soundtrack itself. However, in a lot of cases the soundtrack is included in the movie article, so a link to the soundtrack section for those pages would be appropriate. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wurst vs Würst[edit]

I understand that Würst means sausage, and it's shown that way on the KMFDM home page where it says Würst Shit, but on both Amazon and Metropolis show the title without the umlaut. I haven't seen it shown anywhere else as Würst when referring to the title of the album specifically. I'm open to discussion on it though. Torchiest talk/contribs 01:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The store shows an umlaut: [1]. Since this is in German (well, presumably), and the MOS for music says we should keep the original spelling in its original language: [2], I'd suggest keeping the umlaut. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh. That's really strange. I wonder how there could be different images of the album cover with and without the umlaut. You'd think they'd all be the same. But okay, I'd rather go with the German spelling. Torchiest talk/contribs 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Godlike 2010[edit]

From discussion on talk:Godlike (song), if Godlike 2010 is a single, then shouldn't it be linked to from Day Of Light and put in as the Next Single? If not, then should Godlike 2010 go under Remix Albums? It is sort of a remix album (just 1 song instead of many). Then this makes me think of Light. Light was a single in the traditional sense (promotional for track off of new album). Godlike 2010 sort of floats between single and remix, but if it is a Single shouldn't we see it after Day of Light? Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tough call. I would be okay with listing as a single after DoL, and just linking it back to the regular Godlike article. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We have a couple other items on the list that are multiple singles linking to the same article. Oh, and we did something similar with Naïve. Torchiest talk/contribs 01:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request - 10th June 2013[edit]

On American Tragedy Redux, they remixed the Hollywood Undead "Been to Hell". And also I've noticed the band has made music videos, but why aren't they on this page? I don't know many but I know there are some out there, even on their official YouTube page. - SilentDan297 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentDan297 (talkcontribs)