The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that we typically permit reduced resolution images of album covers for use in articles about albums, but when it comes to the musical group, particularly when many members are still alive, we don't permit copyrighted images. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this low resolution copyrighted image because no free equivalent image is available. The Soulquarians are/were a musical collective, not a group who regularly performs or appears together. As such this images from this copyrighted photo shoot are the only time the entire collective was together. Jean15paul (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFC#UUI lists an exception, which may be relevant here: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." A fair-use image of one member from the collective would not be an adequate illustration for the Soulquarians article, so I would lean on keeping this image. In addition, two of the deceased members were among the key members by reliable accounts. isento (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would be replaceable with a composite image made from free images of the individual members. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trying to argue that a composite would look ugly seems like trying to argue in favor of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use, which isn't really allowed. It would be better to explain how the composite proposed by Seraphimblade would not be considered a free equivalnt capable of serving eseentially the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free. There seem to be freely available images for each of the individuals pictured in this non-free one, and the collective as a whole doesn't appear to have a had group look (e.g. costumes, makeup, etc.) that would meet the exception of WP:NFC#UUI. I don't think a group photo is really essential to the reader's understanding of what's written about the collective in the article and the Vibe photo doesn't seem to be have been the subject of and sourced critical commentary on its own. Look for possible alternative images online, I came across this and this, which are bascially similar to what Seraphimblade has describe above; so, a composite of free equivalents does seem possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first WP:!VOTE above was to "keep" the file. Are you now changing your !vote to "delete"? You can do that if you want, but you should follow the procedure laid out in WP:AFDFORMAT and strikethrough your original !vote instead of making it seem as if you've !voted twice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My dumdum brain is used to me saying delete instead of keep. As I meant to say, I still say keep. — WinnerWolf99talkWhat did I break now? 19:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does a template or example of a composite image exist on Wikipedia? Jean15paul (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:2015 NRL Logo.png
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Remove from National Rugby League#2010–present: Establishment of the ARLC. This particular use fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite-4) as posted about by Jonteemil. The file is also missing a non-free use rationale for this particular use, which means that the file is going to be removed at some point probably sooner than later by a WP:BOT if no rationale for this use is added to the file's page.Possible keep in an individual season article if can be detrmined when the logo was first used. The file's other use in 2015 NRL season is a bit more difficult to assess. Sometimes a former non-free logo like this has been allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI when it's used for primary identification purposes (i.e. as the main infobox image) in a stand-alone article about the season in which the organization changed its branding, but the connection between this logo and the 2015 NRL season is unclear and thus a problem per WP:NFCC. The file's name, the date it was uploaded, and the description given in the rationale indicate that it was used in 2015, but there's nothing to indicate that this was the first season the logo was used. The caption for file in the main article states "NRL logo used from late 2012 until 2018." There are individual articles for 2012, 2013, and 2014 NRL seasons, but this logo is not being used in them; therfore, it's not clear why the file is being used the 2015 NRL season article and not in any of them.If the logo was changed in late 2012 (as the aforementioned caption states) and the typical NRL season runs from March to September, then that would seem to mean that the 2013 NRL season (not the 2015 season) was the first time the logo was officially used in league play. According to National Rugby League#1998–2002: Rationalisation, Telstra started sponsoring the league in 2001. Both the 2007 NRL season and 2008 NRL season show a different logo was used than the one being discussed. It's likely that the NRL and Telstra changed the logo a couple of times over the years; so, the thing to figure out is when the change to this logo actually happened and then see if any sourced commentary about it can be found. There's no way to know whether the caption for the file in the main NRL article is correct since it's unsourced and there's nothing about the logo or branding change at all in the relevant section. So, if the season for which this logo was first used can be determined, then I could see using it in that article; if not, then I think it should also be removed from the 2015 season article as well, which means the file should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from all unless rationale is completed (two fields are currently marked "n.a."; all of those are always applicable.) Remove regardless from any articles except the one about the organization. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Several Images of mass shooters
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the cover art of the 1991 re-release as intended replacement of the 1982 US limited ed. sleeve (showing Ronald Reagan on the cover). However, my PROD tag on the US sleeve was contested, citing that original release is more preferable than reissues.
I'll explain why the 1991 reissue cover art should be the sole lead image for Should I Stay or Should I Go. First, the 1980s US releases of the single performed modestly, if not less than modest, on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Second, there were other concurrent releases outside the US, such as the band's home country, the United Kingdom. Third, I have not yet found one reliable source connecting Reagan and the song, which would have justified using the US ltd ed. sleeve more. (Vulture article mentions Reagan but not in the section about the song, which is ranked #19.) Fourth, the double A-sided release shows the other song "Straight to Hell" on the front cover and puts "Should I Stay or Should I Go" as part of the tracklist on the back cover; strangely, "Straight to Hell" is labelled the AA-side track, while the other is labelled A-side track. Neither image of that double A-sided release would adequately match the critical commentary contained within the article. The picture disc edition of the double A-sided release would not be suitable either; the song title above a picture of the band in one vinyl flip side would be harder to see in small size.
Fifth, the Levi's TV/radio(?) commercial helped the song receive greater attention from TV viewers and probably radio listeners, leading to the song's re-release and then success in 1991. I have worked on the article on the "Draft:" namespace primarily to emphasize and weigh more on the 1991 re-release. Sixth, I have used cover arts of the reissues of There She Goes (The La's song), Dreams (The Cranberries song), and Holding Back the Years, whose re-releases were much more successful than their initial single releases, though the more successful re-releases came one to two years after their own initial (less successful) releases. The greater example would be Etta James's recording of I Just Want to Make Love to You, which became a lot more successful in 1996 as the result of the Diet Coke commercial. I want to make it consistent with other articles that weighed more on more successful re-releases. If the examples aren't enough, how about It Must Have Been Love and Dolly Parton's version of I Will Always Love You? Well, each has sections about both original and re-releases (or re-recordings).
In short, if above is tl;dr for you, I will say that more weight should go for the 1991 re-release cover art mainly because it was much, much more successful in Europe (and New Zealand) than it performed modestly worldwide and the Levi's company, whose logo is shown on the cover, made the song more successful. Unless there's a reliable source proving explicit reference connecting the song to Reagan, I should favor the 1991 Levi's cover art and drop the 1982 Reagan one. George Ho (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both covers given that both were notable versions of the songs and each would have their own article. The first three reissue examples provided have re-releases that came out two years later than the original and the originals were not notable. The last two reissue examples are similar to this, in that they were farther apart in time and the originals were notable. I would not be opposed to the reissue having its own section and infobox and the last two reissue examples have. Aspects (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The releases of this song aren't "versions" but different single releases of the same recording. The 1991 re-release uses the same original 1982 studio recording. The US release in early 1980s was modest compared to the European/Oceania double A-side release. Also note that the quantity of the US picture sleeve must have been very limited since the US single release was branded as "Special Limited Edition". Alternatively, the 1983 US/Dutch single can be used as replacement of the Special Ltd Ed release, but the chart performances of the 1980s US releases were still modest at best. By the way, I've not seen you commented on "I Just Want to Make Love to You" yet. Well, I'm trying to find a better example to compare, but they aren't easy to find. Nevertheless, I can't use the original studio recordings and recorded live performances of other songs, like I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song), for comparison. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the second one per WP:NFCC#3a, multiple images being used where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, if you explained your additional reasons a little more further, that would be great. I've seen you cite just policy to delete one over the other in other discussions regarding cover arts but without sufficient explanation for your preference(s). I've explained my reasons that the 1982 US sleeve should be deleted and that the 1991 reissue cover art should be kept. How are my reasons not convincing enough for you? George Ho (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 00:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy speaks for itself and does not need additional reasons. I don't really mind if you'd prefer to keep the other one, but they can't both stay. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or, more aptly, "Stay"). With a little more citation and writeup about the relevance and historical significance of these 45 covers, they greatly add to this article. I'll happily take that on, once we come to consensus to keep the images being debated here. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: How do you explain the "no consensus" decision, resulting in two images at "Hanging on the Telephone" kept by default? Furthermore, is policy enough to justify deletion in one case but not enough for that other case? Is FFD the right venue for which image (free or non-free) to prefer? George Ho (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. Each FFD is independent and there are no precedents. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make a comparison. That discussion was about keeping either one or two regional covers for the single release of that song and enforcing WP:NFCC#3a. This discussion also has the same purpose. George Ho (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced commentary should be produced to support keeping multiple files here before a !vote for keep entered, not after. Given the discussion above, I would support keeping the later re-release's image. Delete File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 06:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morganfitzp and Aspects: I searched for sources covering the cover art featuring Reagan but then found none as of date, especially at Google and databases from the Wikipedia Library. I even searched for books from libraries' online catalogs but could neither find one fresher info nor access a few books. I even recently tried to find reliable sources that would improve the necessity of displaying one of the original early-1980s releases, but then I fell short. I still am trying to figure out why else, besides being one of earliest releases and in music charts early then, the US Reagan sleeve is favored as much as (or more than) the 1991 "Levi" reissue.
It's been months. I still favor (and prefer) the "Levi" brand artwork more than the other, especially per WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#CS, for reasons that I mentioned when I listed both cover arts. Have you either stuck to your original votes or changed your minds? BTW, Aspects, I mentioned months ago that the releases use the same original recording; I just couldn't find studio re-recordings of the song. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:George HoL I remain a firm keep. Sticking to NPOV and not "favoring" one sleeve or another. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to keep this file, and it might even help a researcher find something that they'd be otherwise hardpressed to find. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically a double vote, yet a re-confirmation (to me). George Ho (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has stayed the same and nothing discussed after my comment led me to change it. Aspects (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I recently found out that the cover art of the 1991 reissue was uploaded under the filename File:Sisosig.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but then replaced in 2015 by the special limited US "Reagan" cover. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original cover, and delete any others. One cover is permitted for visual identification, not two. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally prefer to see an original rather than a re-release. However, I'm not terribly tied to that—if someone can make a case that the rerelease is a better choice in this particular instance, I would not particularly object. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without opinion or preference; no more than a single non-free identifying image should be used for the song, and inline with the summary nature of WP content and the importance of commonness in regard to nomenclature and the like, I'd suggest that whichever image is most distributed should be used. Assuming, for example, the rerelease sold more copies, had more visibility on television and in printed media such as magazines etc, it would be the more suitable representation of the song's presence in a physical media format. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of it being for the original release then, it would seem strange to use the least familiar and not widely released cover for identification I think. For me the best cover to use should be the cover that will serve to best visually describe the single, and a limited release far fewer people ever saw could hardly be considered the preferable cover for that job. If the cover itself had any great artistic or cultural importance, this could be a different discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For trivial note, a different picture sleeve was used for a 1983 US reissue. However, as said before, the song charted modestly in the US Billboard. Even either US sleeve wouldn't represent the song well. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rerelease cover; delete alternatives while they aren't independently noteworthy. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete the alternate covers. Most agree that there should only be one cover per article. There is some uncertainty about which would be best for a given article and that that decision should be left to editorial discretion. If the editors of any of the articles reach a consensus on the article talk page to switch the main cover to the alternate cover, then the alternative may be undeleted and (current) main deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the suggestion made by George Ho at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5, is it possible to add the remaining single covers from each of the articles if there is consensus to delete these files in this discussion? This will allow each single cover to be given a fair chance by the community to determine which cover will remain on each article and reduce potential bias of these files in particular if both files in each article do not meet the criterion of WP:NFCC#8. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If using two images violate "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria, then probably use the earliest artworks for both "I Want You Back (NSYNC song)" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" since those songs were successful back in, respectively, 1996–97 and 1997 right before their 1998 (re-)successes. Otherwise, I don't see the problem of using two images in each of these articles. Having two images would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary only if one image isn't enough for most readers.
Furthermore, using both the US and international images of It's Gonna Be Me would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently. It should also help US readers recognize one cover and international readers recognize the other. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: What do you mean when you say that two images "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" and "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently"? ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase or clarify the "would sufficiently convey how the single releases vary" part. Two images of "I Want You Back" look different obviously; maybe they look essentially similar. Same for "Tearin' Up My Heart". If there is more to explain, then I would say first that single releases of those NYSNC songs must have been periodic(al). Furthermore, the US customers weren't able to receive the retail physical release of "I Want You Back" until 1998. In other words, the US success occurred in 1998; the song didn't have a chance there, despite earlier European success. Moreover, the artwork used for the 1996 release wasn't used for the later 1998 US release. Well, Europeans have received various artworks in their retail stores at the time of various periodic releases. Secondly, NYSNC band members are US-born, yet the band was already the international sensation at their time before they made their chances in the US.
In short, I think most US readers wouldn't recognize the 1996 release of "I Want You Back" but instead the 1998 (re-)release, while overseas readers may recognize one of artworks publicly released prior to 1998 re-release, which they would also recognize.
As for "Tearin' Up My Heart", the Europeans would recognize one (the earliest) or two artworks (that and the 1998 re-release); the US customers didn't receive a retail physical release. The 1998 artwork is used for the US promo but also recognized by European customers who bought the 1998 re-release. The Europeans would also recognize the earlier 1997 release, which was successful in Europe, a year before "Tearin' Up My Heart" arrived in US radio stations.
Rephrasing/Clarifying the "would help readers realize how releases have been distributed differently" part, the US readers would recognize more the animated artwork used for the US limited edition release of "It's Gonna Be Me", while the overseas readers would recognize the live-action artwork more, which was part of the overseas retail physical release. I don't think additional info about the artworks is necessary in order to further justify the usage of the images, is it? I don't think a reader would recognize one or the other artwork without using the two simultaneously, even with captions, some of which were I've seen removed without explanation. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 01:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NFCC3a (multiple non-free files used where one would suffice) and NFCC8 (omitting the images would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article). Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: Deleting every file will leave each article with no cover in the infobox. As I asked above, which of the two covers for each song listed should solely remain in use based on the information provided in the article and in this discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first three. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Stifle, for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart", the cover arts of the 1998 re-releases of those singles should be used instead of the earlier releases, right? Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all My first choice would be to delete both album covers in each article, as the album covers are not the subject of critical commentary reflected in referenced prose (which is the standard for NFCC #8). There are plenty of non-free album covers that do pass that standard, but that's because they are discussed in the article in a non-trival way. These aren't - it's purely decorative. However, should prose materialize, I would still say keep only one cover per article, as having several fails NFCC #3. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Template:Infobox song#cover recommending an image of a sheet music cover, picture sleeve, or other image appropriate for the song, one of the covers in each article should remain. NFCC #3a specifically applies to additional non-free files added, otherwise most songs on Wikipedia would not contain any artwork in the infobox. Which covers would you preferably choose to keep based on the other comments in the discussion? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The instruction for the parameter doesn't say at least one should be kept. That's intended for those wanting to add an image into the parameter. I don't think The Squirrel Conspiracy was wrong to cite NFCC#8 to vote deletion for all of those cover arts, i.e. assuming that songs can be well understood without the cover arts. Well, others' opinions differ from those of the user. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each alternative cover. Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion. Each song was first released in territories outside of NSYNC's native U.S. with a particular cover and each single found success in those markets. They were then released domestically with a different cover, but this time in the group's home country. The argument to justify both covers relies on the different recognizability between the audiences because of the differing covers, and said justification is likely amplified by the existence of ((Extra album cover)). However, this still fails to address WP:NFCC to any degree. Just because it exists doesn't mean its inclusion is justifiable under policy: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Contrary to the comment at DRV that suggested WP:NFC just happens to be a guideline with the implication that it operates separately from WP:NFCC—one of several comments at that discussion which really showed how incredibly out of touch some users are in regards to NFCC—it is more accurately a supplemental page. It outlines, as miniminally as possible, the degree of understanding of how NFCC is applied and has been applied over time to non-free media files. It is almost never acceptable to use a non-free image of a living person in the subject's biography article, for example. NFCC does not directly state this, NFC does. This is why I deleted the alternate covers to begin with under speedy deletion, because they are textbook violations as highlighted by NFC. There are definitely other examples which are significantly less clear which I have declined speedy deletions to, like photos of cast members of a reality show (see this discussion as an example).
A bit of a tangent, but let's get back on track. If we look outside of albums about articles, I think this concept can be better understood. Take Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, for example. An entire generation in the U.S. did not grow up with the book cover displayed in the article, or the title for that matter. In fact, the release history suggests an array of covers for this single book. Notice how there isn't a single extraneous cover in the article? That is because it is not justified by policy. The text alone explains it all, and the readers' understanding of the article is not detrimented in any way. The same goes for films—WALL-E displays one of the many theatrical posters designed for the film, and that's not yet touching on the different covers for the DVD releases. Same with games—Pokémon Red and Blue has three versions of the same game, with slight variations between their gameplay, but only the Red version cover art is displayed. Policy does not justify the other two. Aside from the "this second cover features this Pokémon, and the third one an even different Pokémon" description, there is no critlcally sourced commentary about the other two covers themselves. Regarding the contextual significance criterion WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS elaborates that "only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". Album articles are no different. The use of additional non-free items in the same article requires a higher burden of justification under policy than the main item displayed. Any additional cover art must be subject to sourced critically discussion. If it not, it inherently fails to meet all ten NFCC criteria to justify its inclusion. ƏXPLICIT 09:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: You will need to ask the closing admins Fastily and Jo-Jo Eumerus to explain why the discussions resulted in keep. Interestingly, Finnusertop noted Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover in both discussions, which is what I also brought up at DRV for the exact opposite reason; it does not cite a discussion to verify such a consensus exists for alternate covers. I did some digging and found that the phrase was added here in October 2012 by Jheald. The original wording read: "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, an alternative or regional non-free cover image may be used only if the image is discussed by critical commentary within the article it is used in (see WP:NFCI)." This reflects exactly what I've been arguing the entire time. The way it reads today is a result of Jheald altering the statement citing their own comment in a discussion at WT:NFC. The discussion referenced was likely Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#Multiple non-free images in an article. Both Masem and Hammersoft noted inconsistencies in the application of policy, which persists after eight years—from the discussion at least, the issue itself has likely persisted longer. Ultimately, it is clear that there was no discussion, let alone consensus, for Jheald's aforementioned amendment to the template's documentation page which single-handedly overrided NFCC.
It is very troublesome to find that such an edit with long-lasting ramifications just slipped through the cracks. I am simply interpreting NFCC how it has been applied through the consensus of past discussions, but it is quite evident that the users on the other side of the spectrum have experienced something completely different, and I can see why. I really do think a formal RFC is merited at this point, especially considering my points above regarding other mediums of entertainment. Regardless, it should be handled following the closure of this discussion. I think we should get an initial discussion regarding the matter at WT:NFCC to get out ideas and understandings in order and limit the derailment of the deletion discussion concerning these particular files. ƏXPLICIT 11:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I wrote in 2012. First the edit summary,
Per my comment in current discussion at WT:NFC, The previous statement did not reflect WP:NFCI, nor past discussions at WT:NFC, nor decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted current practise.
-- all of which is precisely true.
Simultaneously to making the change at Template:Infobox album I flagged up the change I was making at WT:NFC (archive link), the relevant policy board for policy in this area , which at the time was very active and lively, making clear exactly what the change was and why I was making it. This was not a change made on the quiet in some corner under the radar. I presented the changed text in detail on the relevant policy board and invited discussion. Nobody objected, nobody disputed it, nobody changed it or re-edited it or reverted it, and the text has remained in place.
But this lack of challenge is perhaps not surprising, because the text I added relected the consensus, already discussed several times at WT:NFC, based on earlier discussions and the balance of decisions at WP:FFD that Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
As I wrote then, and is still relevant today:
This essentially reflects the point, that if we consider an album cover important to show, as informing the reader's understanding of how the album was branded and marketed and made into an identifiable object, so passing NFCC #8, that rationale also applies to an alt cover, if the one item cannot convey equivalent significant information (NFCC #3a) -- i.e. if the alt cover is also strongly associated with the album, and is very different to what the reader would learn from the first cover.
It is true that Masem has consistently opposed that analysis of NFCC #8 and cover art, and sought to present cover art here as a customary exception to NFCC #8, rather than a working-out of it; but when he pushed it to an RfC, he found that that his was not the view of the community. I believe that the fact that neither what I wrote at WT:NFC nor the edit that I made to the template doc was challenged probably indicates that he accepted that what I had written probably did reflect the consensus.
As for Uniplex's text, added a year previously, it was not the original text [1], did not appear to have been discussed, and as I noted at WT:NFC did not reflect something WP:NFCI#1 mandates, did not reflect the run of previous discussion at WT:NFC, nor the run of decisions at WP:FFD, nor generally accepted practice.
If User:Explicit believes that policy or its consensus understanding has changed since 2012, I would be grateful if they could point to the discussion/s at WT:NFC where this change in consensus understanding was established.
It is also unhelpful to mis-state NFCC#8 as being about "readers' understanding of the article". What the NFCC specifically NFCC#8 identifies as the relevant consideration is "readers' understanding of the article topic". I trust User:Explicit appreciates the difference. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I do agree that this issue needs a centralized discussion in order to get a more definitive answer to the age-old question. Both sides of this debate interpret NFCC differently based on their experiences dealing with alternate covers, which have continued to provide contradictory results for more than a decade. I think we can both agree going back and forth will not make the other budge. I do plan to initiate a discussion at WT:NFC once this concludes, and am interested in facilitating productive discussion between the two sides. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "Whichever one is chosen as the main infobox cover is at editorial discretion." Besides how you interpret NFCC, why else would you favor keeping, i.e. choosing as main images, the 1998 re-release cover arts of the two singles and the live-action (non‑US) artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me", content-wise? George Ho (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My statement reflects my non-interest in which of the two covers is decided upon. Some users will prefer the original, and others the re-release. Stefan2 brought up an interesting point regarding book covers at the "Rain" UK cover discussion I linked in response to Jheald above, and which has furthered my curiosity in the disparities between MOS:NOVELS#Images and the approach taken in album articles. Perhaps this is worth considering should this discussion result in the deletion of one of the covers for these articles. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cases you mentioned are years ago. The more recent example should be this FFD discussion about single releases of "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby". Well, my rationale was lengthier and in paragraphs; there were no responses. Regardless, the result was deleting two images of different single releases of the song. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that both covers on the band's debut album also have the same issue, given that the alternate international cover is constantly re-uploaded due to multiple WP:CSD#F7 tags. Should the files also be included here or is it better for them to be discussed separately? In response to Jheald and Explicit, I agree with the prospect that community consensus at WT:NFCC and WT:NFC would hopefully rectify any future incidents. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should not be added to this particular nomination. I think it would be best to hold off on further nominations for now. Once this debate is resolved one way or the other, I would like to proceed to a broader discussion, as I mentioned above. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion has stagnated for months, but hopefully, the discussion can be revived enough to make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One month now...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fair use claims appear valid to me. Aasim 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader comment: Going through each Harry Potter book article and talk page discussions about the cover art as suggested by User:Explicit, there seems to be some ambiguity about which artwork to include on the infobox of each article. Based on the release history section of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I am hesitant on listing every cover art with an ambiguous caption such as (Re-issue with new cover), which fails WP:TECHNICAL since no description about the artwork is used in a similar style as MOS:ALT. In regards to which image to include, both covers for "I Want You Back" and "Tearin' Up My Heart" have been used interchangeably worldwide; there are also covers used in the UK and Australia that are not included in the article per WP:UNDUE. The discussion to decisively choose one will most likely end with neither side willing to budge, which would only leave both covers remaining as a compromise. The infobox image of Pokémon Red and Blue as of this version also suggests that the ambiguous WP:NFC policies have affected several articles. The debate has been going for long enough that we should gain community consensus at WT:NFC and WT:NFCC to establish firmer guidelines specifically for song and album covers to avoid loopholes exploiting Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover and WP:WAX. Adding actively involved editors for consensus @Jheald and George Ho. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the sets of three. I can see a point for keeping either one (German as the first, American as where the band is from). I do not see under the NFCC that it is in fact necessary for more than one image on each song's article. I would tend toward keeping the American release copies. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Technically, "Tearin' Up My Heart" wasn't commercially released as a single in the US. Somehow, someone mistakenly believed that the single was commercially released in North America, so I corrected the wrong assumption. But I see your point about deleting the early German artworks. Oh, the standard live-action artwork of "It's Gonna Be Me" is the non-US, overseas release, while the US edition uses the animated artwork. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095(?) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel like replying to the ping made in August because I didn't have anything much new to further discuss. However, after my recent comment at another FFD discussion and (re-)reading WP:PAG#Adherence (often overlooked?), I have wondered whether the section of Template:Infobox album/doc about using Template:Extra album cover accurately describes what consensus supposedly agreed to be best practice. If that section doesn't reflect what suits the consensus well, then the NFCC shall take precedence toward this case instead and then be decided by consensus. As I've seen so far, the votes seem split on which set to keep and which to delete. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all extras, leaving one cover in each song article. I have no particular preference as to which one in each is kept, but only one per article is generally permitted. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ƏXPLICIT 06:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFCC#1 as the article talks about the loot box as a general idea which is not specific to Blizzard's Overwatch. It is entirely possible to create a free equivalent serving the same encyclopedic purpose. Wcam (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the general concept of a loot box (where this is being used, a box that dumps out random game items) could easily be recreated via a free approach, it is the animation and the visual elements that are used in Overwatch's implementation of the loot box opening, which are designed to create anticipation and thus part of a psychological effect (and thus why they are compared to gambling) that is discussed in depth in the article, which would be nearly impossible to recreate appropriately within that free image that this particular non-free is capturing (including why this is animated). Otherwise reduced to meet all possible NFC metrics. --Masem (t) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless you volunteer to create said free equivalent, I do not believe it should be deleted. That is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, I do not know whether the repeated "explosion" of the box is what appears in the game or whether the opening of a loot box is shown as a single explosion. If, in the game, the effect is repeated then this file fails WP:NFCC#3b because the extent of use is not minimal: a single showing would suffice. If the game shows the effect once then WP:NFCC#5 is failed because the image is misleading (and promotional) and so not encyclopedic. At least for this reader the image and article fails to explain what a loot box appears to look like and so WP:NFCC#8 is failed because the image seemingly could be removed without reducing understanding. Thincat (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a gif image, set to repeat, that's not violating any NFC allowances. (If it were a gif image that included the cycle multiple times in a single loop, that would be a problem). And "loot box" as a term is pretty clear that the object is going to be a box - and the article gives other ideas like loot crate right at the top - so its clear that the gif starts with a "loot box" for the game. In addition, it is the animations associated with that opening that are subject of discussion in the article that meet NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 01:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said, I don't think creating a free equivalent is plausible. Loot boxes, almost by definition, are ways of generating revenue, so I really think it's very unlikely that there will be a comparable gif/image from a free source. Moreover the gif in question is a very small part of the overall work and is fairly transformative (see WP:NFCC#3). I also think its a pretty on-the-nose depiction of the subject article. There's also no way this is occupying any commercial space, in my opinion (see WP:NFCC#2). This seems to pretty clearly meet the NFCC to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable, as it is possible to create a generic loot box animation that fulfills the encyclopedic purpose. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in play is that there is a psychological component (discussed in article text) to these animations that I'm sure Blizzard (developers of OW) have studied or evaluated to make these animations alluring, and that facet is something that a freely created image of a loot box opening would not be able to capture because we don't have this same knowledge of what Blizzard (or other companies) have been able to discover to make the loot box process alluring. If the extent of the article were merely discussing "Here's a loot box, you open it and get stuff" and nothing about the psychological effects, I wouldn't even have a picture to show that, text is sufficient for that. But the whole mess around loot boxes is their psychological impact towards additive behavior, and these animations are specifically tuned towards that, something we simply can't recreate through a free image. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons as above. There is almost certainly no free equivalent that fulfils the same encyclopedic purpose. It is technically possible to create a free equivalent, but there's a significant skill barrier to doing it. Lots of things are technically possible that aren't necessarily going to happen, e.g. if there were only non-free pictures of the surface of Mars, then it might be technically possible to create a free equivalent by either going to Mars or convincing the copyright holder to use a free licence, but in reality it's reasonable to assume that it's not going to happen. Practically, if this gif were deleted then there would be no replacement. If a free equivalent is eventually created then it should be used instead, but the meantime I think this gif should remain. Neckstells (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replaceable by a free image that could be created. It does not matter that the creation might be hard, or the free image might be "worse". That's part of being a free encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be nowhere NEAR the same unless someone from one of those bigjob companies told us what makes it so suspenseful and alluring. So Keep it!! — WinnerWolf99talkWhat did I break now? 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonfree use rationale is incomplete (one field is marked "n.a."). Even if completed, it is replaceable by a free animation made by an editor, so fails NFCC#1. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not true. Loot box opening animations are (as described in the article) carefully designed to encourage more loot box purchasing. This is an effect that a free version could never readily capture the art and animation and time and effort that Blizzard put into this aspect. (Also, that part of rationale is not a required field - its a required consideration to meet NFCC but it is not required to be spelled out in the rationale per NFCC) --Masem (t) 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have mentioned, there is more to a loot box than a simple animation of a crate opening (which a free version could be reasonably recreated). Rather, there is a substantial psychological component to the creation of loot boxes that draws heavily on the psychology that drives the creation of gambling devices such as slot machines. I originally started writing this comment with the intention of expressing "keep", but as I was looking for references to support the argument about the importance the psychological factors to the gif I came across an open source program (MIT license) that has been used to generate loot boxes with varying parameters for academic studies about the salient psychological components. The creator has a YouTube video showing various parameters already - a suitable, free animated gif could probably be made pretty easily (and perhaps the selected part of the video could be cross-referenced with the academic paper). Here are the links: paper, github repository, and youtube video. I think having an animated gif on this article is important, but the raw material for a suitable, free animation seems to exist already. (P.S. It's been many years since I edited Wikipedia so apologies if I messed up anything in this comment.) Douglas Whitaker (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The video can't work because it is not uploaded with the right permissions (no explicit CC license), but the github repository is MIT License *and* the paper (from what I can see, the paper's behind a paywall) was designed to explore effects so yes, this actually a fair free representation due to the fact that the effects were part of the study. So its going to be a matter of compiling and capturing the program to make a new gif at this point. --Masem (t) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be worth reaching out to the creator of the video to see if they'll license it CC-BY? If they're willing to make the source code MIT (which is quite a permissive license), they might also be willing to make the video permissively licensed as well. I skimmed the paper, and they only did a simple two factor design. The two factors were audio effects (low/high) and visual effects (low/high). The factor with evidence of an effect on number of boxes opened was audio effects (high audio effects was associated with increased box opening). Still, I think this is a promising lead. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time, I will create a rough storyboard, upload it to Wikipedia, and you guys comment on if you think it'll work. — WinnerWolf99talkWhat did I break now? 03:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not replaceable, so therefore meets NFCC #1. I suppose it wouldn't hurt if somebody wants to create a fake lootbox under a free license, but even then it fundamentally wouldn't be the same thing: it's not really a lootbox, just an artist's rendition of something like it, so it's not a one-to-one replacement. An accurate rendition of a lootbox entails, well, using a real lootbox. As Masem has noted, sourced critical commentary notes all sorts of psychological triggers and factors in subtle parts of the design, so it's a bit presemptuous to assume that a freely generated alternative is doing the same things. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep original for identification purposes; delete additional cover. czar 05:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having more than one cover art is subjective, but normally it is discouraged, and this may be no exception especially to WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Preferably, I think the artwork for the 1994 release (eBay) should remain. The band was the German Eurodance band, and the song charted well in the band's home country, Germany. Of course, one would prefer either the other image or both. I don't know why having just one cover isn't enough in this case unless... it's about recognition? George Ho (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC); edited, 23:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so much inviting me to contribute, I appreciate it. I agree that in most cases 1 cover artwork is enough. However, in my opinion, when the art work is significant different for different continents, and the song was successful across continents. Then having both cover art work helps improve the article. Many readers might be like “I know this, but the cover looked nothing like that here”.
I’m bias, because I put them there, but in my opinion, in this case, two images is appropriate. 🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one or the other. One cover, not two, is permitted for visual identification. I do not have a strong preference on which is kept. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 06:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An uploader de-PRODded the cover art of the 1992 reissue, writing: This is the ONLY album art you can get a copy of these days of this title. However, I don't think scarcity can help the cover art comply with NFCC, including WP:NFCC#8. Having more than one cover art must be reflected by critical commentary in order to make the cover art necessary and too significant to be deleted. However, I don't see that's the case here. Rather, I think, the album art was used merely as one of visual identifiers of the album, normally discouraged by WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#Number of items. I can say the same about the US album art listed here, but it was used for the original US release in 1989/1990. Still, even when the album was successful globally, including the US, the band was Belgian. The standard (European) artwork should reflect that and be the sole lead image. I further don't see why else more than one cover art is needed in this case. George Ho (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the album was released with one artwork initially, but, for all further releases, the artwork was changed. The differences are significant enough between the two of them to keep them both. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you were (implicitly) citing template:Infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover isn't the issue as itself the section of the doc. From WP:PAG#Adherence: Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined through consensus. However, I'm uncertain whether that section regarding usage of an extra cover art, no matter how significantly different, reflects the "best practice". In this case, I don't see enough critical commentary to justify using an extra cover art. Also, I'm uncertain how an extra cover art of this album would be too significant to delete. I already understand how the article describes the album without an extra cover art, and I think most readers would have the same understanding as mine, right? Besides, Spotify and Amazon Digital Music currently use the standard global cover art, especially for US listeners. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. One cover (already present) is permitted for visual identification. As additional covers, these both fail NFCC 3a. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 06:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep the cassette cover, delete the CD cover. ƏXPLICIT 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I requested undeletion of the US cassette variant as intention to replace the square CD one. The Mary J. Blige single was released in the US commercially as a cassette single; the US customers hadn't received the CD one ([2][3]), unlike overseas customers. The cover arts use the same image, and using them both goes against WP:NFCC#3a. At first I thought about keeping either one. Preferably, I should go for the US cassette mainly to reflect what the American customers received at the time of release and the singer's nationality.
However, with recent proposals and nominations (including mine) on cover arts of artists' cover versions, and with deletions of some (if not many) cover arts of less significant (if not less successful) cover versions, I can't help feel torn about and wonder whether either one variant would also meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. Rose Royce's version charted in North America but didn't perform well (or much) there. (Modest international success is claimed, but I have trouble finding reliable sources to confirm it.) Blige's version performed probably no better either. Well, Blige's version performed either decently or modestly in the US. I don't know how to describe its British chart performance; it debuted in a Top 15 position but then dropped and dropped in weeks. It didn't fare well in another European chart. The Blige version has a music video, but that's much about it.
This all comes down to whether the critical commentary presented can strengthen the usage of either variant. Neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:Notability mentions images (unsurprisingly, I think). MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation stands firm against "decoration" and excessive usages, but that's all there is about using cover arts in song (or album) articles. If either cover art does meet WP:NFCC#8, then I guess critical commentary makes the usage of a cover art stronger. If it doesn't, then the notability of the Blige version couldn't weigh more than the original, the critical commentary isn't strong enough to guarantee a cover art, and a cover art of the Blige version wouldn't make a difference.
tl;dr: In short, I want to keep either one (preferably the US cassette variant), but I have grown torn over its compliance with "contextual significance" criterion. Nonetheless, I don't mind the results of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Two cover arts are visually different from each other, but they have similar role: visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (WP:NFCI). However, using more than one visual identifier, regardless of what Template:infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover entails, is normally discouraged by WP:NFCC#3a, especially when the covers are essentially similar. This comes down to choosing one over the other. Preferably, the US retail cassette edition should be the sole lead. The song charted in both the US and the UK, but using the US retail tape reflects how the release was manufactured and then distributed to US retail customers. Furthermore, the song was recorded by an American singer and produced under an American record label. Nevertheless, I'll respect someone else's favor toward the UK CD. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one or the other. One cover, not two, is permitted for visual identification, so fails NFCC#3a. (I do not have a strong preference for which to keep; absent any other consideration, probably the one currently used in the infobox should be kept.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What if I want to swap the images, i.e. make the US cassette the top/primary image and the UK CD one the secondary? Your opinions would stay the same, right? Or you favor actually keeping whichever image should be the top/primary image, right?George Ho (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 03:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I do not have a strong preference for either one. If they were swapped around, I would not object to that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Metal 2 Logo.png
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Aint Nobody.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Both are almost the same image, and using images that replicate each other may be discouraged per WP:NFCC#3a. I prefer more the US cassette single (discogs) because the Patti LaBelle version charted in only the US AFAIK. However, if anyone here prefers the square-ish version, which was released outside the US, then please declare. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of these two cover which use essentially the same image fails WP:NFCC#3a. Of the two images, I agree with George Ho's reasoning and would advocate Delete for File:If You Asked Me To.jpg, and Keep for File:If You Asked Me To by Patti LaBelle US cassette.png but I would not object strenuously if it were the other way around. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'I'm OK with the cassette image. Just thought the quality of the CD version is better -- Nobooy (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one or the other. One cover, not two, is permitted for visual identification. I have no strong preference which is kept. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Be Happy by Mary J Blige US commercial cassette.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Officers awarded Knight's Crosses at Eben Emael.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a citation/url proving that the file qualifies for ((PD-US-alien property)) -FASTILY 10:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as a US government work, but this is a photo of German officers in WWII (see [4] page 65). This isn't a US government work. Wikiacc (¶) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was seized by the US government after WW2, along with basically every photograph the Germans (especially the Wehrmacht) took, ergo attribution goes to the Federal government which has released them into the public domain. War criminals don't get copyright protection (unless they move to the US, which the photographer doesn't appear to have done). Abattoir666 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually, I first stumbled across it in a book of photographs by Time Magazine, and I believe it was attributed to the Federal government. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Does the crown emblem inside the "P" confer enough to the image, or does this otherwise not meet the threshold of originality? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
![Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 6#File:"Rain" by Madonna - UK single cover.jpeg](/en/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_May_6#File:"Rain"_by_Madonna_-_UK_single_cover.jpeg){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy_2.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+November+6%23File%3AAutomatic+Lover+%28Call+for+Love%29+Real+McCoy+2.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy_2.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy_2.jpeg){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy.jpeg){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy.jpeg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+November+6%23File%3AAutomatic+Lover+%28Call+for+Love%29+Real+McCoy.jpeg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy.jpeg){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy.jpeg&action=history){kind=link}
_Real_McCoy.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+December+8%23File%3ALed+Zeppelin+%28untitled%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2020+December+8%23File%3ABe+Happy+%28Mary+J.+Blige+song%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
