The KLF discography

KLF were a popular 1990s british electronica band. this article is spun off from the FA The KLF, and could possibly be FL standard. I couldnt find any other music-related FLs to compare to but it meets the 5 FL criteria, and if not i'm sure any fixes could be quickly implemented. Zzzzz 12:03, 13 August 2006

The points raised below by Rune.welsh lead me to propose renaming the article KLF Communications. Please comment below or at Talk:The KLF discography. --kingboyk 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images - with the exception of the KLF Communications logo - have been commented out pending a project-wide decision on the matter. --kingboyk 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nomintor Zzzzz 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (as main author). This is a companion piece to The KLF, written by the same team and I believe to the same standard. The article has been peer reviewed. I look forward to your comments and suggestions and thank you Zzzzz for the nom. --kingboyk 12:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because pictures do not conform to fair use policy. They do not provide the source, do not have fair use rationales, and some are high resolution (low resolution usually means under 300x300px). See also the whole discussion on WP:FUIL if fair use images can be used in lists at all. Other stuff: more info on movies wanted. Referencesb and footnotes do not follow a single format. Renata 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, image fair use rationales and related points were something I meant to sort out before the nomination went live and totally forgot (we've unfortunately lost a WikiProject member, so there's been a delay between Peer Review and FLC). I will attend to it and report back. Other points: this article does not purport to cover their celluloid work, which is in The KLF films. Will look at the refs and footnotes and report back on that also. --kingboyk 13:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've attended to the points as follows:
      • Image source: the catalogue number and copyright owner of each scan is now given. I don't believe that who scanned it is material, AFAIK there is no copyright in the 2D, flat reproduction of another copyrighted work, i.e. the owner of the artwork holds a copyright but the scanner doesn't. In many cases I myself am the scanner.
      • Fair use rationales provided.
      • Any images higher than 300x300 have been downsized and reuploaded.
      • Thanks for the WP:FUIL link, that's a helpful page. I see that the issue is undecided, and I firmly assert that our image use is fair both legally and morally. If it is later decided that this position is wrong, we can remove the images. I'm sure it need not be a barrier to our candidacy given that the position is unclear and therefore down to editor discretion at this time.
      • References: Excellent spot, thank you. I've tidied them; if any are still not satisfactory please inform me of which and I'll take another look.
    • Thank you, and I hope these points have been cleared up to your satisfaction. --kingboyk 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's also WP:MUSTARD, proposed policy directly affecting images in discographies (currently flat-out against). Something else to consider. –Unint 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I count 8 different editors in the history of the Talk page, so it's not had great community involvement yet :) My problem is this: I don't want to downgrade the article (removing the images) to get it promoted, when at the moment the issue is undecided and later on we as a community might decide the images are OK. If, on the other hand, the article gets Featured and we later decide that the images must go then go they must, automatically. I don't see any impediment to promoting the article in this state because it's Featured status won't make it immune from a future policy which says these images can't be used. So, what to do? I'd prefer to leave the images there until the issue is decided one way or another, because I feel the article is improved greatly by their presence; but if the only way to get this list Featured is to remove them I suppose I'll do it. It's been a long stated aim of WP:KLF to get this article to Featured List status and I believe we've done it, so if I have to make such a change I guess it's worth it. Help me please! Can the images stay for now or must I remove them? --kingboyk 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "My problem is this: I don't want to downgrade the article (removing the images) to get it promoted". That is, unfortunately, what I think is going to happen. I cannot see the value of having the covers in the article, especially when the albums themselves are so prominently linked and have articles of their own. In addition, current Fair Use discussion makes me hesitant to promote lists with so many Fair Use images. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I see. You know the ironic thing is that KLF is said by many to mean "Kopyrite Liberation Front"; they've deleted their entire back catalogue and have no further commercial interest in it. I know that's not likely to change the minds of those who have fair use issues but it causes me a little frustration :) Anyway: I hope to get some more comments on this issue, and will also when I have a moment try to reformat the article without the images save for the KLF Comms logo. --kingboyk 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not saying it's not up for discussion. Going to try to initiate that at MUSTARD. –Unint 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, indeed, and thank you for the heads up. --kingboyk 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - With the recent F.U. changes, this looks pretty nice and now properly supported by fair use claims. Wickethewok 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Apart from the covers I see the following issues: references are not properly formatted, title and scope of list do not coincide (the films and books are not part of the discography, a more proper name for the article would be "The KLF publications" or similar). The whole section of KLF communications should be moved to its own article with just the summary being left here. Purpose of the "additional communicators" section is not clear. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments.
  • In what way are the references not properly formatted? Objections should be actionable, so I need to know what's wrong with them :) They're consistent and in the same format as The KLF. The references aren't referred to in the footnotes because they are general references for the list data.
  • The other sections - about their record label, publications and the additional performers on their works - do indeed increase the scope, and are intended to. Let's examine the sections:
    • KLF Communications. I think this is on-topic for a discography, and to split it out to another article would introduce a very short article of no great standalone merit. Having it here introduces the reader very nicely to their collection of work, emphasises the independence of their activities, and defines the scope of the following lists.
    • Bill Drummond & Jimmy Cauty discography. The meat of the list. This is all of the published music of Drummond and Cauty (The KLF); most of this work was on KLF Communications but see my point after this bulleted list.
    • Other KLF Communications releases. The work of The KLF spinoff band Disco 2000, and Cauty's Space album, released by Drummond & Cauty on their KLF Communications label.
    • The KLF filmography. The films were works of KLF Communications. We might change the name of the article, then, or we could remove this and have a See also entry for The KLF films.
    • KLF Publications bibliography. Again, a KLF Communications piece, so we can rename the article or move this to a see also.
    • Chart performance
    • Additional communicators. This was originally part of the main article, but it was chopped out when The KLF underwent FAC due to length issues. For a short while it was a standalone article, but we felt that the information on who besides Drummond and Cauty appeared on their recordings was suitable material for the discography. Again, if we rename it to KLF Communications "additional communicators" makes more sense. Alternatively, we could split it back out to The KLF personnel.
    • Refs/footnotes/see also/external link
  • We could call the article "KLF Communications", which might be a better description than The KLF discography. The only problem with that is that 3 of the Drummond/Cauty releases (Waiting For The Rights of Mu, an at best semi-official release; and the post-KLF K Cera Cera and Fuck the Millennium) were on different labels. --kingboyk 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written and comprehensive. No way that this could be improved upon. Me677 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The album cover guideline at WP:MUSTARD has been discussed more informally before, and I'm the one that added it to that page. I think their fair use claim is questionable, in that they are not very informative in this context. Also, it adds considerably to the length of the page without adding a lot of encyclopedic value. Tuf-Kat 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I see which way the wind is blowing on this, so for now I've removed the images. What do you think about renaming the article? --kingboyk 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also renamed the article KLF Communications, so we can now see it under a new name and without the fair use images. --kingboyk 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way are the images anti-fairuse? While the rename is more suitable (especially given the various names used) the removal of the images has left the article appearing to be poor quality and unfinished. While still comprehensive the overall effect is negative. I know we have to obey guidelines but The KLF having issues over kopyright? Don't make me laugh.... Me677 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support but I'm biased. On the renaming (and non-discography content) question, I think the article should be at KLF discography and I don't think it matters if it has extra releases that are not records (I'm sure there is a precedent, e.g. Factory Records - many record labels or groups have official "releases" that weren't actually records). However I do think that the KLF kollaborators should be in their own page. Pages that are a list of "minor characters" are the encouraged practice - this list of KLF kollaborators can then have sub-headings and hence they can be wiki linked from other articles. My main problem with the move is that KLF Communications, because of the capital letter should only be used for the KLF's label/organisation - if you want to make a page that acts as a discography but contains non-record items then that should be at KLF communications or KLF communications and publications. cheers Drstuey 10:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This isn't really a standalone-list, it is an article that contains two quite separate embedded lists. The first is a list of releases by the record label and the second is a list of guest contributors to albums. I think the problems with the name and the history behind the various sections and where they came from shows that the KLF project are having difficulty finding the correct home for this material. This article is currently a bit like a collection of stuff that didn't make it to The KLF (i.e. The KLF Vol 2). You might expect to find this material as sections within The KLF - but that article is too big already.
  • The first section of KLF Communications could be a short stand-alone article on the record label. See Apple Records. This could also include info on any products that weren't produced by the band.
  • The second section could be either of two things. It could be a list of releases made by the record label (See Apple Records discography) or it could be a lists of releases by the band (See The Beatles discography). You could have both but I suspect that's overkill. I think most folk are more interested in the band than the record label. So you could create a stand-alone list (KLF discography) with just the KLF material. If there are a few releases by the label that don't fit here then they could go in the KLF Communications article.
  • The third section is a problem. As a non-fan, I'm really struggling to get excited about such a collection of bits and bobs. If each album/single's page mentioned who contributed to that product, isn't that enough? Sometimes having too much information means that the important stuff gets lost. Perhaps you could add a short section/paragraph to The KLF that listed just the important/significant collaborators.
  • You've written tons of stuff on The KLF. It is hard and painful, but I think you need to condese it to make it more accessible. Less is more and all that.
  • So, if we remove the top and bottom, could a stand-alone KLF discography be a featured list? I should note that I haven't managed to find a version of this article with pictures of albums/singles on it, so can't comment on what that looked like. The current formatting won't win any prizes and there are many other discographies that I think are presented better. The track listings are particularly hard to read. The singles list doesn't contain track listings so would be more compact in a table format perhaps.
  • A discography could be a featured list, but to "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." it has got to be quite impressive. I really doubt the KLF have produced enough material for one to be impressed by any list. To win this point, we'd have to be able to say that this was one of the very best discographies on Wikipedia and can be held up as an example to others. In addition, it has to be unique on the Internet. Many web sites (official and fan) have very, very good discographies so that is a hard challenge. IMO, it really does need thumnail album/single covers.
  • In summary, I'd recommend you create small to medium sized articles covering cohesive KLF-related topics. If individually these aren't impressive enough to be featured, then you'll just have to accept that. I don't think combining them does the reader any favours. I would like to add that I think your devotion to the topic is quite remarkable. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I see a consensus on the contributors issue; I've commented that section out and certainly it looks better without it. I'm not sure yet whether to split it back out to another article or dump it. I'm not a fan of short, context-free articles so I might quietly dump that section. Images have been restored (you couldn't see a version with images because it uses templates for the formatting). It just isn't the same without them, I agree with you. I'm happy with the article as it now stands; if it can't get Featured as is and there are no actionable suggestions to make it so, I guess you are right I shall have to accept it and be content with Good Article status. All that said, the article should be judged on its merits not on how impressive the band were and how much of an impact their catalogue made or didn't make, and I still maintain that's it's one of the best discographies on Wikipedia. It's the only one to be listed as a GA, too. Thanks again for your comments. --kingboyk 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. You don't need to show me Apple Records discography, the Apple articles are largely my work too :) :P P.P.S. With regards to formatting, it's not my stroing point. I'm a writer/editor/geek, not, alas, a designer :)[reply]