MyWiki:Files for discussion/2025 August 30

< August 29

August 31 >

August 30

File:Isawheragain.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Isawheragain.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Johnny Sumner (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:I Saw Her Again - Even If I Could - ad 1966.jpg (already in use at I Saw Her Again) per WP:NFCC#1. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – The German cover art's "irreplaceability" isn't my concern but rather its contextual significance to the song recorded by the Mamas and the Papas, an American band. Well, the American single release (45cat) didn't use a picture sleeve when initially released. However, I'm unconvinced that deleting this German cover art would affect how the song is understood when reading the article. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – If it weren't obvious, given the arguments I make below for the Elton John "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" sleeve. Template:Non-free album cover applies to single picture sleeves as clearly as it does album covers. This is an established practice for picture sleeves, album covers, posters, book covers, and so on. Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. Tkbrett (✉) 03:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Arguing against that consensus is beyond the scope of this individual image discussion. We can't be certain for sure. Other FFD discussions have resulted in deletion, sometimes. Even other deletion templates were unchallenged. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails NFCC#1 and #8. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Elton John Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Elton John Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tkbrett (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with the {{PD-US-no notice ad}} file c:File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg per WP:NFCC#1. The advertisement was determined to be PD per c:COM:DR/File:Elton John's LSD (1974).jpg. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Advertisements are not a replacement for the cover art of a release. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25 § 20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels). Tkbrett (✉) 17:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your desire for consistency, but how does preferring non-free cover art over PD advertisements and labels of music releases comply with WP:NFCC#1?

The "discussion" you link is mainly a debate between you and George Ho, not an actual discussion with consensus. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, consensus varies in different forms. If neither WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS nor WP:CONBUILD is applicable, then how do you determine the level of consensus from that discussion? George Ho (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CONLEVEL, there is no consensus:

Consensus among a limited group of editors (eg. a back-and-forth of two users with a couple others chiming in), at one place and time (eg. within 21 hours), cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject (eg. WikiProject Songs) cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline (eg. the non-free content criteria) does not apply to articles within its scope. (comments and interpretation added) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Non-free album cover is already understood to apply to album covers, but you have done nothing to show that single cover art is any different. The template's page even specifies that "this template should be used for covers from all types of audio recording releases, not just albums, despite the name of the template." This is because single cover art, or even EP cover art, is no different from an album cover as far as this discussion is concerned. In that discussion, JG66 makes a convincing rebuttal to what you are doing here. Tkbrett (✉) 11:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak delete I wouldn't say I agree fully with John... or Tkbrett here. Well, the cover art itself might be irreplaceable by a free image of the singer who rendered this Beatles song, but my main concern is its contextual significance to one of the Beatles' songs. To one, words may not suffice alone. However, the readers would already know that the song is one of the Beatles' songs ever made and that others have covered it numerous times. How the cover art is perceived to improve such understanding to the point where omitting this cover art would impact such understanding is beyond me. George Ho (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete It is the exact same image with slightly different text so you can edit it and use the high quality version

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   05:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.