Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 1

February 1

File:KristianMenchaca.jpg

There is no evidence that this image is:

a work of a U.S. Army employee,
taken or made as part of that person's official duties.

And what does deleting a file on Commons have to do with this? — Ирука¹³ 00:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this appears to be taken on a military installation, very likely in a combat zone. The likelihood that this is a photo by a member of the Army during the course of their duties is extremely high. I see little reason to doubt it. Buffs (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. This is the original photo released by the family from his time in Iraq. As it was in the course of his duties, even if we choose not to mark it as free, we should add a FUR. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miguel Montuori.jpg

There is no evidence that the photo was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука¹³ 04:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moliendo café Chi sarà.png

The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Iruka13 has absolutely no understanding of how Wikipedia works. There is a consensus that in articles about music singles it is acceptable to use the cover art for each version.--Sanslogique (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was reached. — Ирука¹³ 12:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such link (or maybe there is), because the consensus is based on common usage practices. A lot of articles use multiple images of singles, if that doesn't suit you, you can start a discussion about it so that only one remains, at the top of the page.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the image doesn't meet 2 of the 10 WP:NFCC points, but it should be kept because there are similar images in similar articles? — Ирука¹³ 10:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree that you should start a discussion about removing single covers from other articles if you are not satisfied with the current consensus. Otherwise, I will regard your edits as vandalism.--Sanslogique (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off. Opening an FFD to establish consensus isn't vandalism. hinnk (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFCI isn't met here, since this version of the song is only being discussed for 3 sentences. hinnk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Two versions became hits in the same year, 1961. One topped in two countries; this (other) topped in two other countries. Hard to tell which version is more prominent than the other. Oh, and an amount of sentences isn't a sufficient indicator/measurement of "contextual significance". Rather two versions were equally and locally successful, and neither is more prominent than the other, so deleting this cover art and keeping the other wouldn't be wise, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFCC#3a using multiple images where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Push to a wider discussion I would recommend that we do our best to settle this in a wider forum. This seems to be a perpetual problem. I think we need to decide if we will allow 2 covers or not. If we do, we need to be clear on what the criteria are for inclusion. Given that a decision like this should be consistently applied, it will affect thousands of articles, I find that FFD for an individual image is an inappropriate venue (no fault of the nominator or those saying "delete") without a wider consensus. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a decision like this should be consistently applied, it will affect thousands of articles, I find that FFD for an individual image is an inappropriate venue (no fault of the nominator or those saying "delete") without a wider consensus. Doesn't this scream fears of the domino effect? Not all discussions should be this consistent as we ought them to be, should they? George Ho (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg

The image/logo is not located at the top of the article, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. — Ирука¹³ 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The digital/streaming release's cover art is more provocative and more revealing than the CD/vinyl one. Omit this (CD/vinyl) cover art, and you'd be left with the more provocative and revealing cover art. Furthermore, neither CD nor vinyl is a dead format (yet), despite their lack of prominence compared to their own heydays.

Also, it's not like Rebel Heart, whose main artwork shows the musician's/artist's face wrapped in wires and is less provocative and revealing than this (other) album's. Well, it's not like Love for Sale (Boney M. album) either, which has critical commentary. I even nominated its alternative cover to FFD just once, and the result was "kept". Nonetheless, even artworks lacking critical commentary may still be contextually significant to the album and its releases/editions. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This cover is absolutely different from its original cover and even though it doesn't contain any logo, at least it contains a singer's face. Also the vinyl cover is important information for album infobox, so it has to be kept.Camilasdandelions (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the FFD tag done early this month. It's not WP:PROD, so I insist you refrain from re-removing the FFD tag amid ongoing discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm very unfamiliar at file deletion discussion, and there was no opinions for a time so I deleted, but I'll not do that again.

When this discussion will be ended? Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FFD discussions are supposed to stay open for a minimum of seven days, absent some serious need to close them sooner. Basically, the discussion continues until a consensus is established one way or the other. An administrator (or uninvolved non-administrator) will eventually review the discussion and decide if it should be it should be closed or allowed to continue. If you feel the discussion has gone on long enough, you can request that someone take a look at it by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. If you feel after reading the comments left by others that your posistion on the file's non-free use has changed, you can strikethrough your "Keep" WP:!Vote as explained in WP:REDACT and request that the file be deleted instead. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait until an administrator gets around to reviewing the discussion and decides to close it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC 3a and 8 because only one album cover is needed for an infobox. Deletion should be without prejudice to there being discussion on the article talk page about which cover should be used to represent the album, using dispute resolution processes if necessary. "This image is more aesthetically pleasing" is not a reason to keep an image. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a and 8; the inclusion of the secondary cover is not needed to enhance a visitor's knowledge of the subject. An incline citation, explaining the differences, within the article's body would more than suffice. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just now added hopefully detailed info about the digital/streaming artwork, citing Associated Press, NME magazine, and People magazine. Still seeking reliable sources covering the artwork. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this deletion discussion about the CD and vinyl version? I'm not sure how that fixes the issue with this image. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that fixes the issue with this image. I'm doing my best, especially with the singer's opinion about the digital/streaming (main) cover art being replaced with an alternative cover in certain areas, but it seems that you think a digital/streaming (main) cover suffices. I guess we interpret the NFCC differently.

Sure, as applicable as this consistent precedent, other album articles can't normally use more than one cover art. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored, and even certain "offensive materials" can be encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I'm uncertain whether readers would fully understand what the whole album is about without this alternative cover.

When they are shown the (other) main cover, readers unfamiliar with behind-the-scenes stuff within the project and those who are very new would wonder why and how the singer chose to very closely resemble The Birth of Venus and why any other (less offensive) alternative covers aren't used and whether such (less offensive) alternative covers exist. But if you like to treat the album article as (almost?) no different from any other, then I can't stop you. George Ho (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genesis76-82boxset.jpg

Since the visual design of box set in the article is not described in terms of reliable sources, the image in the infobox can only be used as a means of identification (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFCI). A two-dimensional image is sufficient for this purpose (WP:NFCC#3b). In addition, this three-dimensional object has two licenses: the object's license and the photographer's license. In this case, they are both non-free. It is possible to make a freer image by photographing the 3D object yourself; or turn it into a two-dimensional one. — Ирука¹³ 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The photograph of the box set is clearly done by the publisher that owns the copyright to the box set and cover art (as part of the promotional material to send out the box art), so there is not a separate copyright, so the FREER argument falls apart. Once you clear that, then the other arguments for delete fall apart - the 3d photograph will have the same copyright burden as the 2d cover. Masem (t) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this image is indeed made by the copyright holder, according to WP:NFC#UUI#16 we should not use it.

From your answer I still don't understand why we need to use a 3D image of the box set and its contents if a 2D image of the front of the box is sufficient for identification. — Ирука¹³ 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loftus William Jones.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:Loftus William Jones VC.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 14:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (while retaining the equivalent file on Commons) Storye book (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]