Talk:Hipgnosis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:45, 5 September 2007

Pink Floyd Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd 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.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

I added a partial list of works using http://www.sound.jp/hipgnosis/yapwall/yhip.html as a reference, not truly authoritative but much better than the zilch that was here before. We need:

links for the albums
to fix some of the artist links (I realize I was a bit sloppy)
verify years and spelling of the artists
flush out the catalog
a better history

Hipgnosis worked with some of the biggest bands of the 70's - at a time when "The Album" on the whole had a meaning. They deserve a well researched entry.

What about illustrator George Hardie? And I agree with above. Two Halves

Freeze Frame

I just added the Godley & Creme album Freeze Frame, which came out in 1979. This is definitely a Hipgnosis cover; it makes me suspicious that J Geils Band's album of the name is also credited to Hipgnosis. Grimhim 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The cover for the J. Geils Band album does not look at all like Hipgnosis's work. I removed it. -Freekee 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Evans

People keep trying to make "Richard Evans" into a link. The rule is that we never link to a disambiguation page because following that link does not give us any useful information about the person - only a list of other people of that name. Until this Richard Evans gets his own article, please stop linking it. -Freekee 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

= Clean Up

i'd like to request a clean-up of the list of work they have done. i think all albums by one band should be grouped together as opposed to scattered, e.g. the led zeppelin albums. can someone please arrange them in alphabetical order by BAND not by title of album.
thanks. --Flvg94 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was good arranged by year. If you want to see it arranged by band, you could go the band's discography. -Freekee 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image...

I removed the fair-use warning boilerplate text from this talk page, as it is no longer relevant, since the images were deleted. -Freekee 20:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What genius....

What genius removed the images from this article? Hipgnosis was a graphic design outfit: To strip this article of examples of their work—some of which were iconic and thus notable—is to essentially gut the article. --TallulahBelle 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moe Epsilon did. Maybe you should ask him about it. -Freekee 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't readd copyright violations, do it again and I'll start handing out warnings for such. — Moe ε 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice. -Freekee 05:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why the caption, "The Dark Side of the Moon — One of Hipgnosis' most famous album covers." underneath an image of the album cover does not constitute fair use? -Freekee 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how famous it is, it's copyright. One sentence is not enough to apply fair use, you have to have significant commentary about the image to merit it's inclusion. Adding images here is like adding a discography to this article, which is strickly against WP:NONFREE and has been removed all over Wikipedia. — Moe ε 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that giving an example of the work that is responsible for an artist's stardom is good enough. I'd replace the image and suggest you take the dispute to a higher court, but I'm sure that what drives people to serve in such a group is the desire to delete. -Freekee 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss policy changes here on Wikipedia fine. But U.S. law cannot be changed by the likes of a conversation by yourself. Sorry. — Moe ε 01:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about your interpretation of policy, which I don't believe there is broad consensus for, except among a certain group of editors who make it a point to do something according to their beliefs. -Freekee 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that general consensus is among the editors here at Wikipedia, and it is law, see the article on fair use, these kinds of things have to be taken seriously. — Moe ε 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bias. -Freekee 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's beside the point. Moe, what sort of thing could I say about the cover of DSOM, in order to make it a worthwhile addtion to the article? -Freekee 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be a major article section about DSOTM in order for it do make fair use applicable. A single sentence or two saying that Hipgnosis made it, and it's iconic, doesn't cut it. A paragraph or two of why the picture is iconic, how Hipgnosis came up with the design, the popularity of the album in general, etc. should be discussed. — Moe ε 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair, but at this point, a major section would constitute a third of the article text. I would think a paragraph would be fine, and it wouldn't even have to be a long one, given it includes the info you suggest. I also think that the criterion (#8) is a little vague. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The article must create a need for the media such that its omission would be detrimental to the reader. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable. If I write it, and you disagree that it is enough, where do we go to resolve the dispute? -Freekee 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read up on the issue of fair use—you do not have to have extensive commentary in the caption under the image for it to be fair use. The image's mere inclusion in the specific article (together with a basic label describing what it is and its relationship to the article id est "The cover of Dark Side of the Moon, one of Hipgnosis' most famous covers") is enough to indicate that the article itself is a commentary on the image.

Moe seems to be carrying fair-use to an extreme that detracts from the very rationale of the fair use concept. Under Moe's conception of it, what would constitute fair use? --TallulahBelle 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His conception is described just above, in the comment that begins There would have to be. Myself, I go back and forth on it, between your opinion and his. There is a large number of editors who have feelings on the matter, and most of them feel you need some sort of explanation as to why the image is important. Unfortunately, when there's a dispute the deletionists usually seem to win. Moe seemed to think he's right because it's a matter of copyright law. But with that rationalization, I could say the same thing about my opinion. The only difference is that he's erring on the side of caution. I don't see the need for that much caution yet, and I don't see the consensus for that view that he does. Another thing that editors like him do, is delete something, forcing other editors to improve the article. <personal attack removed by — Moe ε at 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)> I disagree, and I think their feelings are either smugness or defensiveness. -Freekee 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how the removal of the "personal attack" almost makes what I'm complaining sound like a good thing. Let me rephrase it: Some people seem to think that treating other editors is okay if it improves articles. -Freekee 04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 Moe seems to be carrying fair-use to an extreme that detracts from the very rationale of the fair use concept. Under Moe's conception of it, what would constitute fair use? --[[User:TallulahBelle|TallulahBelle]] 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 :His conception is described just above, in the comment that begins ''There would have to be''. Myself, I go back and forth on it, between your opinion and his. There is a large number of editors who have feelings on the matter, and most of them feel you need some sort of explanation as to why the image is important. Unfortunately, when there's a dispute the deletionists usually seem to win. Moe seemed to think he's right because it's a matter of copyright law. But with that rationalization, I could say the same thing about my opinion. The only difference is that he's erring on the side of caution. I don't see the need for that much caution yet, and I don't see the consensus for that view that he does. Another thing that editors like him do, is delete something, forcing other editors to improve the article. <personal attack removed by — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="FF0000">M</font><font color="EE0000" >o</font><font color="DD0000">e</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="0000FF">ε</font>]] at 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)> I disagree, and I think their feelings are either smugness or defensiveness. -[[User:Freekee|Freekee]] 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
+::Funny how the removal of the "personal attack" almost makes what I'm complaining sound like a good thing. Let me rephrase it: ''Some people seem to think that treating other editors is okay if it improves articles.'' -[[User:Freekee|Freekee]] 04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)