Talk:Cthulhu Mythos anthology

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

A question about inclusion

Arkham Tales and Arkham's Masters of Horror -- and perhaps others I haven't spotted -- have separate articles: oversight, or is there a reason they get to be separate and the anthologies listed here don't? --Paul A 05:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article for Arkham's Masters of Horror and the Arkham in the title really refers to the publisher rather than the setting, so I don't know that it's really a Mythos anthology per se. I also added the infoboxes to this article, and left it as an omnibus mainly because that's how I found it.--Rtrace 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover images

I agree with Hammersoft's removal of the cover images, as they do not qualify as fair use in an article which is not about the individual books in question. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing this from the discussion I began on Hammersoft's talk page.

First off, while I believe that articles for several of the books detailed in this article could stand on their own (all of the collections published by Arkham House have at least 4 references), I want to leave that to the side for now.

Dealing only with the removal of images from this article:

I'll reiterate that WP:NFCI #1 says that cover art is acceptable.

The reason given for the removal of all images from this article is another guideline, WP:NFLISTS which states that images in "list" articles are to be used "judiciously" and that an image for every item in a list is "inadvisable". There is nothing in these statements that indicates that no images at all are allowed in such articles. Further examples are given on how to reduce the number of images in list articles. #1 could apply here, except that it requires that a composite image be provided by the copyright holder, an impossibility as the copyrights of these images are held by different parties. #2 doesn't apply here as the articles aren't discussing specifics of the covers. These images aren't used elsewhere, nor are they of actors, so #4 & #5 do not apply. That leaves us with #2 & #6 which seem to say close to the same thing. #6 specifically suggests restricting images to those major elements as agreed to by editor consensus.

I see nothing in the cited policy that prohibits all images in this article or states that they all should have been removed as they were. If the policy was to disallow the removed images, then why does it use such soft terms as "judiciously" and then go on to state what sorts of images are allowed. Where was the editor consensus that none of these images are representative of the subject? I again respectfully request that we restore the images until an agreement can be reached on what images should remain or that it is shown in the cited NFLISTS guideline the instruction to delete all images in articles such as this.

Thanks. --Rtrace (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3 requires minimal usage, including every cover is not minimal usage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NFCC#3 applies here. Which one item can "convey equivalent significant information"? If such an item exists, why weren't the deleted images replaced with it? Again, what guideline states that the alternative to too many images is no images at all? --Rtrace (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states use as little as possible. Having as many as there where was not minimal usage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On many occasions the removal of this sort of use has been debated. On every occasion, the removals have Istood. Here's one example in reference to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus the discussion you cite and much of it seems to deal with whether that article is a discography or not, a distinction that would not seem to apply here. Also see WP:STANDING. I don't feel that anyone has responded to my specific questions. Neither WP:NFLISTS nor WP:NFCC#3 require the removal of all images. What policy is supporting that removal? --Rtrace (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rtrace, look around. Go and find an article like this one with cover images for every entry in the list. The lack of them should inform you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rtrace, the underlying issue is the violation of fair-use restrictions on our use of copyrighted images here in Wikipedia. Discographies are where we've had the problem the most frequently, that's all. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft and Orange Mike - I've asked repeatedly for a citation of a policy or guideline that states that no images are allowed in compound articles. The closest thing that has been offered is WP:NFLISTS which suggests ways to limit the use of images "as agreed to by editor consensus". I have asked Hammersoft where, for this article, he found::: consensus that none of the images that were removed were representative of the subject. Hammersoft has only offered a discussion in a different sort of article (a discography), that doesn't even seem to come to an agreement. Again, WP:NFCI, says that cover images aren't a problem for fair-use (BTW, is there somewhere that says NFLISTS which seems to mainly be concerned with lists of fictional characters, trumps NFCI?). As I see this article, there was previously a silent consensus that these images in this article were of the major elements representative of the subject. Hammersoft disagreed and deleted all of the images from this article. He did not seek a new consensus as suggested by the very guideline (NFLISTS) that he cited as the reason for removing images from the article. He removed all the images even though his rational was a policy for limiting the number of images.

We've been discussing this for several days now and nobody has cited any guideline that supports the removal of all images as was done by Hammersoft's edit. Nor, has anybody stated that any particular image in this article is not representative of the major elements of this compound article. I'm going to put the images back before they are deleted (while Hammersoft may be willing to go find them all again, I'd rather not go to unnecessary extra work). If you still feel that there are too many images in this article, I ask that you seek consensus on which to delete before doing so.--Rtrace (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive reverted your violation of the non-free content policy and left you warning. Policy is clear this is a list, and that a 1:1 ratio is not allowed on list pages. If you re-insert them you will be blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS take a good read though WP:FUEXPLAIN ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ - Could you please provide a link to the policy that I supposedly violated. I know it can't be WP:NFCC#3 since it says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (my emphasis) and there is not a single image that can convey the equivalent significant information. If you are going to to threaten me, I would like to know what it is I am accused of. I did read FUEXPLAIN, but it says right at the top that it is an essay and not a policy. Thanks. --Rtrace (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUEXPLAIN is an explanation of our complex non-free content policy. WP:FUEXPLAIN#Q:_This_is_just_your_interpretation_of_policy._Knock_it_off.21_My_interpretation_doesn.27t_agree_with_yours.2C_and_mine_is_just_as_right_as_yours.2C_so_I.27m_going_to_include_the_images. and WP:FUEXPLAIN#Q:_Including_one_image_for_each_character_on_a_.22List_of_....22_type_article_IS_minimal_use.3B_it.27s_one_image_per_character.21. This article may not have the words "List of.." in the title, but it is still a list,and WP:NFLISTS would apply. The word anthology refers to a collection, which is also know as a list. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cover your last point first. The use of "anthology" in this instance refers to the subject of the article (a book collection of works by more than one author), not to the structure of this article. However, I don't really think that has bearing on this discussion and I am willing to accept that NFLISTS may apply. However, NFLISTS talks about achieving consensus as to which images should or should not be included and no such consensus was sought.

As to the questions on differences in interpretation of policy, please point out to me how I've got it wrong. The only way I can interpret NFCC#3 in the way you indicate is to ignore the second half of the policy: "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". I've brought up this up several times now and nobody seems to refute it. The only way I can interpret NFLISTS to support the removal of all images (as done by Hammersoft) is to define "sparingly" as "not at all".

As to the including items question, I've repeatedly asked for us to come to a consensus as to which items should and should not be included in order to come to a consensus. Nobody has seen fit to engage in such a discussion. If none of the editors wish to forge a new consensus, don't we have to revert to the prior consensus that allowed all images? Δ - you stated above that your concern was "Having as many as there where was not minimal usage." Yet you won't tell us which ones you think should be removed.

Lastly returning to your threat to have me blocked. I again ask what policy (with a link please) you accuse me of violating. Can I really be blocked by running afoul of an essay?--Rtrace (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:NFCC which is policy Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof that means that the burden of proof for the usage of each and every single image is up to you provide. This is a list of books that are anthologies and all relate to the same topic. Lets take a random image from this article, why must File:Cthulhu 2000.jpg be used in this article? The primary subject of the article is not this book, it is about a larger collection of books. According to NFCC#9 how would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? to me its decorative. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rtrace, please take up your case at WT:NFC. It's highly unlikely at this point that you will place any credence in what I or Δ have to say on this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ - There is a valid rationale on the image page for File:Cthulhu 2000.jpg and I believe it has been there since the file was uploaded. I do feel that its omission would be detrimental as there would no longer be an identification in the context of critical commentary per WP:NFCI #1. Critical commentary exists here. In fact, this particular book could support its own article as notable under WP:NB#Criteria#1 (Chalker & Owings, Joshi and Nielsen all cover this book. Additionally, in researching my response here, I found a Darrell Schweitzer review that specifically comments on the jacket art). WP:NFLISTS makes no assertion that the images must only relate to the overall topic of the article. Instead it suggests that images be restricted to major elements as agreed to by editor consensus. Chalker and Owings describe it is their "favorite Lovecraftian anthology". Schweitzer's review describes it as "state of the art". If this isn't one of the major elements of the compound article, which one do you consider to be major?

Hammersoft - I'm very interested in what everyone has to say, yourself and Δ. I do find it frustrating to make specific points in support of my position and to have those points unanswered. I'll post to WT:NFC if only if hope of seeing this discussion progress.--Rtrace (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking right?.... The template you cite is not a valid rationale, rather it is a very very weak attempt at one which was probably copy/pasted from a different book cover. This article contains one short paragraph about the book, and a larger listing of what is in the book. And that paragraph is mostly a single quote from Turner. In no way can that be considered critical commentary about the book cover. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RTrace; Δ has taken great pains to explain the problem to you. I too have made efforts to do so. You've declared it all to be invalid, and to not apply to this article. Three different editors have told you the covers are inappropriate for this list. Yet, you're quite certain we're all wrong and you are right. That's fine. Really, it is. I just think at this point you might benefit from having another 3, 6, 9 editors tell you your position is wrong. WT:NFC will help with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]