Talk:Best Of (RBD album)

Too many covers

For years now, Wikipedia has not accepted per-release covers in discography type articles. Whether we call articles such as this discographies or not is really beside the point. Please identify the most representative album cover and reduce the use of non-free images to that one image. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a clear opinion in this case, I thought maybe some people at WP:ALBUM may, as it seems related to previous discussions (I'm not saying it is the same, just that I see a relation), so I invited them to comment. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a particular album, it's not a discography. That is relevant. Current guidelines call for discographies to mostly exclude album covers, but album covers are fine for album articles. How many different album cover images an album article can have is a bit more of a gray area. This article currently has five, which sounds like a lot, but the covers are for releases in different countries, and three of them are totally different from each other. I'd say allow all five, or at least three really different ones. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping in... I say ditch the video covers. They're nearly identical to the CD covers of their respective releases (only real difference is vertical size), so they don't pass NFCC in my opinion. I also don't think you really need 5 infoboxes here; just 1 at the top of the article for the original release (probably the one in their home country?). The release dates etc. for the other versions can simply be stated in prose and the covers put alongside the prose like standard images. The presence of 5 infoboxes is superfluous. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the covers. If you disagree with this, you can plead your case at WT:NFC, but I can assure you the covers being used here will not be supported. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No one really cares. Per your original suggestion, I left the first image as "the most representative". --Muhandes (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best Of (RBD album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224110133/http://www.livrariasaraiva.com.br/produto/produto.dll/detalhe?pro_id=2605723&ID=C94FDED97D80A0F0B19380183&PAC_ID=18659 to http://www.livrariasaraiva.com.br/produto/produto.dll/detalhe?pro_id=2605723&ID=C94FDED97D80A0F0B19380183&PAC_ID=18659

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)