Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 December 25

< December 24	December 26 >

December 25[edit]

File:Calubian.jpeg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low-quality image. Better alternatives exist at Category:Calubian. ✗plicit 01:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:48, 25 December 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.

File:Logo of Darul Huda Islamic University.jpeg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of recently deleted file. There is another discussion related to it going on here! Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 13:01, 25 December 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.

File:All My Life (Foo Fighters song - sample).ogg[edit]

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: relisted on 2022 January 18. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:All My Life (Foo Fighters song - sample).ogg (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.

The One (Foo Fighters song)[edit]

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:Foo Fighters The One Australian CD single.jpg. Textbook WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are similar to each other—feet of a ballet (or ballerina?) dancer—even with "HMV Import" banner on one of them. Using them conflicts with WP:NFCC#3a and MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation. No point on using them both, so one of them must be kept. If discussion results in "no consensus", then by default, let's use the PNG version first uploaded by Livewire1015, which was first before the one by QuintusPetillius. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained before the reason for the second image is to demonstrate that in the United Kingdom the CD single was only available via "Import" of the Australian CD. This is not trivial information but important facts that are relevant to anyone reading or researching a music discography. The whole reason why the Single infobox template has the capacity to have extra cover arts is for this purpose: Different artwork + different track listings. Otherwise the template would not have those options.QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images are still subject to policy, including WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS, even with instructions of Template:Infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover. Merely showing "HMV Import" isn't what the context describes and mainly focuses on. I'll find other discussions involving extra cover arts soon. --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extra covers do not fail any of those: There is a completely different track listing for each of the alternate covers. If it was a case of them all having the same track listing then I would say yes we don't need them all, but they do all have different track listings. The article does not need to mainly focus on this issue and it is mentioned in the context of the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings can still be well identified, recognized, and understood without the cover art. Furthermore, an alternative cover art is unnecessary just to illustrate the release(s) and their track listings. Any reader can already differentiate various track listings without extra covers. Look at other album articles, like The Party's Over (Talk Talk album). --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for research. If alternate track listings have alternate artworks shown for them then this will help the researcher to identify them (or a record collector for that matter). As for your "The Party's Over" example that just happens to be an article with multiple track listings that does not have alternate artworks but would be a lot better if it did have them. As mentioned already the song template does not have this capacity for no apparent reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of extra covers has been discussed previously. Examples are one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago. BTW, Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia especially in real life. George Ho (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having read: one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago, I don't see how the arguments "against" in those apply to the Foo Fighters articles. I also sense from those discussions in which you were "for" keeping the extra cover arts, but you lost out, that you are bitter and are therefore trying to apply it to other articles. Regarding "Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia" - Firstly, that is exactly why we should be improving Wikipedia, the whole point of it is to make it more reliable so that it can be cited as a reliable source. Secondly, you are citing Wikipedia as part of you argument are you not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintusPetillius (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

...Let's go back to a ballet dancer's feet on the cover please. Why do you think deleting one of the covers using the same artwork would detriment the understanding of the song (and its context) in question? Furthermore, the "HMV Import", even when necessary as part of export distribution, distracts the part of of the artwork more than any other feature or element seen in the cover. Sure, the song has its single releases, but IMHO the releases themselves don't predominate what the topic, i.e. the song, is about in context. Nonetheless, just one cover art would normally be acceptable as long as it follows project criteria. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is about providing good information to people and in the context of a different cover art which also has a different track listing then this provides better information, particularly to someone who is researching from a record collector's point of view. As mentioned already, the whole reason the template has the capacity for alternate covers is for this reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that we are provoking each other into arguing. Not to mention copying-and-pasting. I'm doing my best to treat this discussion almost differently from other two discussions below, but your copying-and-pasting implies that you treat this the same as other. Right? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository. Regarding your latest reply, cover arts and track lists may interrelate and partner each other as part of a release, but the cover arts and tracklists are not the same. As said before, an extra cover isn't needed to identify a tracklist or another release. Honestly, I think text content, including track list, would be sufficient enough in lieu of excessive amount of non-free content.

In this case, both the Australian single and the other imported (more likely) from Australia use the same track list. Why should the "HMV Import" banner make a hell lotta difference to most, if not general, readers of the article? Furthermore, a record collector doesn't need Wikipedia just to research releases of the song, does that person? The collector can also seek other sites and sources providing similar or extensive info about the song. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the "Next Year" covers which you want to delete is in fact a cover for another region and not just a CD2 that was released in the same territory as a CD1. It is "Part II" of the "Live in Holland" collectors set, so should remain.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to reply at #Next Year extra covers. Copying the above reply there... George Ho (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~You do realize that this thread is solely about The One (Foo Fighters song), right? --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)~~ Struck, George Ho (talk) 17:33, 27 December 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.

File:AllMyLife2.jpg[edit]

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other image File:Allmylife1.jpg is a standard artwork used for multiple releases worldwide. The one I'm nominating contains white background but is an alternative variant of the standard artwork. Nonetheless, it was used for one or two releases. I'm unconvinced that the image is needed. Merely differentiating from the standard artwork wouldn't be supported by context and shouldn't be the sole reason to keep the cover art. The usage conflicts with WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extra covers do not fail any of those: There is a completely different track listing for each of the alternate covers. If it was a case of them all having the same track listing then I would say yes we don't need them all, but they do all have different track listings.QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings can still be well identified, recognized, and understood without the cover art. Furthermore, an alternative cover art is unnecessary just to illustrate the release(s) and their track listings. Any reader can already differentiate various track listings without extra covers. Look at other album articles, like The Party's Over (Talk Talk album). --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for research. If alternate track listings have alternate artworks shown for them then this will help the researcher to identify them (or a record collector for that matter). As for your "The Party's Over" example that just happens to be an article with multiple track listings that does not have alternate artworks but would be a lot better if it did have them. As mentioned already the song template does not have this capacity for no apparent reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of extra covers has been discussed previously. Examples are one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago. BTW, Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia especially in real life. George Ho (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having read: one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago, I don't see how the arguments "against" in those apply to the Foo Fighters articles. I also sense from those discussions in which you were "for" keeping the extra cover arts, but you lost out, that you are bitter and are therefore trying to apply it to other articles. Regarding "Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia" - Firstly, that is exactly why we should be improving Wikipedia, the whole point of it is to make it more reliable so that it can be cited as a reliable source. Secondly, you are citing Wikipedia as part of you argument are you not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintusPetillius (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

...In this case, this alternative cover is no exception to other alternative covers that have been deleted from other articles, no matter how different the covers have been. Even as part of one release, I still don't see how and why deleting the extra cover would affect understanding of the song in context and how and why one cover art isn't enough. BTW, citing Wikipedia may be okay in discussions, not in articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is about providing good information to people and in the context of a different cover art which also has a different track listing then this provides better information, particularly to someone who is researching from a record collector's point of view. As mentioned already, the whole reason the template has the capacity for alternate covers is for this reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (moved from below the "delete" vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I can't believe that we are provoking each other into arguing. Not to mention copying-and-pasting. I'm doing my best to treat this discussion almost differently from other two discussions below, but your copying-and-pasting implies that you treat this the same as other. Right? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository. Regarding your latest reply, cover arts and track lists may interrelate and partner each other as part of a release, but the cover arts and tracklists are not the same. As said before, an extra cover isn't needed to identify a tracklist or another release. Honestly, I think text content, including track list, would be sufficient enough in lieu of excessive amount of non-free content.

In this case, an extra cover of "All My Life", almost resembling the other cover but uses different colors or elements, still wouldn't make a huge difference to most readers of the article, who can still learn about the song and its single release without extra covers. Well... Some other cases can be different from this case, like two cover arts each in the "Hanging on the Telephone" article and the Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 24#I Should Be So Lucky single covers. However, they are not used to just identify track listings in context. Rather those cases I mentioned were about distribution in various regional areas, including one's home country. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alternative covers that do not have vital commentary fail NFCC. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:01, 26 December 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.

Next Year extra covers[edit]

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#3a/WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss either image in-depth -FASTILY 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foo Fighters Next Year CD1.jpg (which I'm not nominating) has been the standard artwork for multiple worldwide releases. Extra covers that I'm nominating may not illustrate the topic in context. Rather used to merely differentiate from the standard artwork. The extra covers may fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a and MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extra covers do not fail any of those: There is a completely different track listing for each of the alternate covers. If it was a case of them all having the same track listing then I would say yes we don't need them all, but they do all have different track listings. QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings can still be well identified, recognized, and understood without the cover art. Furthermore, an alternative cover art is unnecessary just to illustrate the release(s) and their track listings. Any reader can already differentiate various track listings without extra covers. Look at other album articles, like The Party's Over (Talk Talk album). --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for research. If alternate track listings have alternate artworks shown for them then this will help the researcher to identify them (or a record collector for that matter). As for your "The Party's Over" example that just happens to be an article with multiple track listings that does not have alternate artworks but would be a lot better if it did have them. As mentioned already the song template does not have this capacity for no apparent reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of extra covers has been discussed previously. Examples are one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago. BTW, Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia especially in real life. George Ho (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having read: one past FFD discussion and one Village pump discussion years ago, I don't see how the arguments "against" in those apply to the Foo Fighters articles. I also sense from those discussions in which you were "for" keeping the extra cover arts, but you lost out, that you are bitter and are therefore trying to apply it to other articles. Regarding "Wikipedia is neither a reliable source nor so great. Furthermore, there are cautions of citing Wikipedia" - Firstly, that is exactly why we should be improving Wikipedia, the whole point of it is to make it more reliable so that it can be cited as a reliable source. Secondly, you are citing Wikipedia as part of you argument are you not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintusPetillius (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I struggle to see how and why both alternative covers of the single release(s) are exceptions to the other alternative covers deleted from this project. IMHO, the extra covers still don't identify the song in context, even with various releases. I also struggle to see how and why one cover isn't enough to improve understanding of the song. BTW, citing Wikipedia may be okay in discussions, not in articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is about providing good information to people and in the context of a different cover art which also has a different track listing then this provides better information, particularly to someone who is researching from a record collector's point of view. As mentioned already, the whole reason the template has the capacity for alternate covers is for this reason.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (moved from below the "delete" vote. George Ho (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I can't believe that we are provoking each other into arguing. Not to mention copying-and-pasting. I'm doing my best to treat this discussion almost differently from other two discussions below, but your copying-and-pasting implies that you treat this the same as other. Right? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository. Regarding your latest reply, cover arts and track lists may interrelate and partner each other as part of a release, but the cover arts and tracklists are not the same. As said before, an extra cover isn't needed to identify a tracklist or another release. Honestly, I think text content, including track list, would be sufficient enough in lieu of excessive amount of non-free content.

In this case, IMHO extra covers of the single release(s) still wouldn't make a different to most readers of the article, who want to learn about the song and distributing it. Wikipedia isn't the only source for record collectors, who can use other sources to learn more about various releases. Well, Some other cases can be different from this case, like two cover arts each in the "Hanging on the Telephone" article and the "I Should Be So Lucky" article. However, they are not used to just identify track listings in context. Rather those cases I mentioned were about distribution in various regional areas, including one's home country. George Ho (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the "Next Year" covers which you want to delete is in fact a cover for another region and not just a CD2 that was released in the same territory as a CD1. It is "Part II" of the "Live in Holland" collectors set, so should remain.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (copied from #The One (Foo Fighters song).) George Ho (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In context, the "Live in Holland: Part Two" release still doesn't improve understanding of the song. Furthermore, as I believe, the studio recording version charted, not the live performance one. Speaking of live, the cover arts of live versions of I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan song) and She's Got a Way are used but solely in context of songs' successes... or rather which version or release was the most successful. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had taken the time to read the article you would have realised that it is only the b-sides that are live tracks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC) (moved from #The One (Foo Fighters song). --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Still, critical commentary about the live version is insufficient, i.e. not sufficient, enough to support the cover art of the live release. Also, the mention of the live version is very brief, even with the track lists. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple nominations about duplicate purpose NFCC have been closed as delete over the years. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_December_17#My_Kind_of_Christmas_(Reba_McEntire_album) Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_February_17#File:Parasite_Original_Score.jpg Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_13#File:YW-Graphic2.jpg Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_June_15#File:Panorama_of_South_Utopia_Planitia,_Mars,_taken_by_Zhurong_rover.jpg for examples of more previous discussions. Furthermore, there is absolutely no commentary about the releases for NFCC#8 and the covers are simialr enough to the standard artwork that the identification of that one suffices to cover of the other ones. There is aboslutely no commentary for the additional two images. NFCC is conservative and commentary must exist if not for identification. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:28, 26 December 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.

File:Berton Churchill.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URAA restored copyright until 2033 as it was not out of copyright in the UK by 1996. Not used in any article so would be an orphaned non-free image. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:17, 25 December 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.