Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 23

April 23

File:New Born 2.png

using more than one cover art conveying same significant info exceeds number of items allowed. possibly may not contextually signify the song. George Ho (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep Artistically speaking, this is part of the same cover art as the other. The work consists of 2 CDs, ergo, the cover art is both of them. It would make sense to put both of these in the lead image. This is no different than the back and front of a book featuring an artistic cover. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um... No. There hasn't been a two-CD release (discogs). The CD2 cover art I'm nominating specifically belongs to the "CD #2" edition. Well, I can't help wonder whether you've been familiar with separate single-CD editions, i.e. #1 and #2, that have been common in late 1990s and early 2000s in Europe and the UK. The cover art of the CD #2 release was never used as a back cover, and the CD2 edition itself was just a single-disc release. I don't know how or why you assumed otherwise. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood what it was based on labeling. Thought it was a 2 CD set. Buffs (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Popcornfud (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supermassiveblackholedvd.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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous DVD cover not providing info different from the (other) top infobox image. May probably not contextually signify the song, but even failing just one criterion should mean also failing the whole NFCC. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pick ONE and that should be sufficient. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already PROD-ded the (other) vinyl single cover and left the CD/digital cover art uncontested. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Popcornfud (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I uploaded this back in 2007. I don't think it adds anything to the article. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:MuseUprisingvinylsingle.jpg

Vinyl cover extraneous and not providing info different from the (other) top/infobox cover art. Its contextual significance is debatable, but even failing just one criterion should be enough for deletion. George Ho (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pick ONE and that should be sufficient. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already left the (other) CD/digital cover art uncontested. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment was more to the fact that there were 3 2 images in the article when 1 would suffice. Buffs (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 images in the article: Umm... Uprising (song) had two. (...Well, used to have two until the nominated image was removed hours ago.) I can assume you confused it with another article that has three images at this time, right? George Ho (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
typo; fixed. Buffs (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need two. Popcornfud (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]