In a recent edit, I was told we shouldn’t set the Front type to close-ups of elements from the front cover.
Only if we see the Front cover in its entirety*.
For me, it’s confusing, and I don’t think any guidelines says that.
Should I stop marking front stickers as Front+Sticker, back stickers as Back+Sticker, CD small print close-ups as Medium, etc. ?
* Which kind of would exclude booklet front covers for jewel case releases, btw.
Not the front:
No, that’s front only.
There is a comment field to describe such things.
@jesus2099 as I was the person responding in that thread, I’ll just point to my answers in there. I treat “Front” as an object, not a location. “Front” is the whole front of the package that you see. A “sticker” is just a sticker and described as such.
A Medium is the whole thing that you see. Closeups I’d mark as “other” as they are not really the medium, they are a small part of the medium shown for details purposes. Same way that a “matrix\runout” is just a “matrix\runout” and not “matrix\runout+medium”.
This is interesting, and I would totally agree. But I’ve seen some people mark a booklet that shows as the front of a CD as front+booklet. I have see MB staff do this so ignore it but always felt it was wrong and confusing.
For me I always just mark that as “front” and start marking a “booklet” as page two onwards. And use the comments to name the page numbers.
I do this because it just makes sense to me that if you were flipping through the booklet you’d consider the front page of the booklet… part of the booklet. But I can’t say I’m really invested.
Perhaps this is something that could use a simple guideline, if consensus can be found (the question that kills so many guidelines 
)
I’ve always marked stickers as just “sticker”. The only instance where I would consider “front+sticker” is if the image showed the whole cover, including the sticker.
If I’m doing the scanning, I would only do an image of the cover with the sticker if the sticker is affixed directly to the booklet cover.
If the sticker is affixed to the jewel case, or the cellophane wrapper, I would have the sticker in a separate image from the cover, and marked “sticker” only (wrappers get tossed, and jewel cases get replaced, so if you bought it used and it doesn’t have a sticker, you have no idea if your release came with a sticker in the first place.).
As for “front+booklet,” I think it makes perfect sense to do that. The booklet page 1 is doing double duty. Why not record it that way?
One reason I don’t do “front+booklet” is Picard may alpha short that and call it “booklet”.
But I also agree with the comments above. It literally is the booklet and the front. Which is why I see both as legit. There will not be “consensus” on it as too view people read the forum. But both seem legit to me and should be allowed.
As to stickers. If I buy a CD with a sticker on the shrinkwrap, I will always scan it like that first. And add that as a “front+sticker” image as this is how I first saw it. And some (sad) people may never actually open it and keep it in “perfect” condition. I’ll then also add a plain “front” image along with a separate “Sticker” image. Give people a choice as to how they see things.
So, why do we tag vinyl labels as type Medium, while we only see the sticker label and we see very little of the medium, around it?
Let’s use a type when it exists, rather than foreign language comments.
I do want to know if this or that sticker, is a front or a back sticker, I am interested in knowing that.
We should use the combination of types, it’s nice and useful.
It’s translated and it’s more concise than long sentences in the comments.
Like these slim jewel case releases, where CD labels are part of the back: Back + Medium + Obi + Other (slim jewel case) + Tray.
A photo of this CD would be, IMO: Back + Medium.
Same if we had a close-up scan of the obi tracklist: Back + Obi.
I usually do front+booklet on jewel case releases. I also do front+sticker when you can see the entire front, but not when it’s close up like this. I’d just say sticker on that.
I’d call that an acceptable exception, primarily because most of us (I presume) don’t have scanners capable of scanning an entire LP. Also, regarding the example you linked — I wouldn’t label an image of the hub of an LP as “sticker.” I don’t think that’s what MB had in mind for that type.
Agreed with this entirely. “Front + sticker” to me says “this image includes the front cover and a sticker”, not “this image is of a sticker that is part of the front cover”.
This is the only way that makes sense.
What do you mean? All I can see there is “The front of a CD release is often the front part of the booklet.” which does in no way indicate it shouldn’t also be set as booklet, just that it is at the same time the front and marking it as such is correct.
See If an image is back of the tray - #66 by chaban
Using single types makes it less ambiguous what the image’s primary purpose is
And what’s more, it makes no sense to show the entire record, at least not with black vinyls. And if labels weren’t considered a “medium,” there would usually be no medium at all for LPs.
If you think about it (at least the way my addled mind thinks about it), an image of a CD is really the same as an image of the label of an LP. The only difference is, the size of the disc of an LP is much larger than the label, while on a CD, the disc is about the same size as the label. 
CDs only play on one side. LPs play on both sides. So LPs got the stickers in the middle where the needle don’t go.
Both technologies put the track list on the non-playable area. See also cassette.
Technically someone could use Picture Disk techniques to write on the LP itself.
The images in MB tend to be of the stuff that is different between releases. I guess its a reason we don’t generally upload jewel cases.
It’s OK, indeed, to not upload jewel cases, but then we have incomplete fronts marked as Front.
So, we don’t see problem with incomplete fronts or backs being marked as Front or Back.
I’ve sometimes looked at black vinyl to get a sense of where track boundaries are. It’s not perfect, but it can help to catch errors in printed track times.
I can kind of agree with this in some cases, but if the front and the booklet cover is the exact same thing, it needs both types (otherwise, a machine cannot know that they need to also take the front image if putting together the booklet). The alternative would be to upload the same image twice, once as front and once as booklet, but that seems like a waste of resources and only marginally clearer.
I still agree that a close-up being marked as front just because it’s on the front doesn’t make sense though. “Front + obi” makes sense for an image that shows the whole front with the obi, but if you made a close up with just the obi, it would be ridiculous to still tag it as “front”.
You need a really good photo to capture these details.