Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 October 17

October 17

File:Tron.Ares (soundtrack).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: relisted on 2025 November 5. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tron.Ares (soundtrack).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:DepecheModePersonalJesus2011.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art of 2011 remix may not contextually signify the song previously recorded (and then made famous by the same band of this remix). De-PRODded under assumption that the 2011 version could've been independently notable. However, per this discussion at WT:NFC (link, oldid), that isn't the case. George Ho (talk) 15:49, 17 October 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:IconTheWho.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a secondary image but it has the incorrect rationale saying it is at "the top of the article" to be used as the primary image. The two images are quite similar, so much so that the second one is not needed to understand the topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFCC#7. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 28 October 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:Korn - Another Brick In The Wall.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 ⚡ 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not contextually significant to previously recorded song. George Ho (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No longer used in article.
~~Keep~~. Since a stand-alone article could be written about this particular cover version the song, per WP:NSONG, but the only reason there isn't a separate article is because relevant content regarding all cover versions of the same song is being incorporated into a single article for encyclopedic reasons, a non-free image of the cover version's cover art is allowed since there is significant independent coverage, charting, etc. per WP:COVERSONG and WP:NFC#cite_note-3.

⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 18:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being charted in only the US isn't enough to justify usage of this plain CD portion, and readers would still see the song as one of Pink Floyd's songs, regardless of any other subsequent singer or band, like Korn.

relevant content regarding all cover versions of the same song is being incorporated into a single article for encyclopedic reasons. Those cover versions aren't the main topic; it's the original, iconic Pink Floyd version. If we interchange "notability" with justification for non-free content use, the lines between the two would be too blurred with irreparable damage, wouldn't it? George Ho (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy & guidance is to include notable cover versions in the original's article, and if the cover version could have had it's own article (e.g. covered independently of the original, along with charting, like the Korn version), then including the single cover art is allowed.

It seems that for song and album covers, notability is the justification for non-free content. Otherwise, we'd have to justify the use of all cover art, even ones that aren't significant to the work - e.g. generic, insignificant covers, of which there are many. I think that's the can of worms we don't want to open. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 18:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Widgetkid: The policy & guidance is to include notable cover versions in the original's article. That's not exactly what Marchjuly said; that's not what policies exactly say either. Rather the policy depends on every case.

notability is the justification for non-free content. Not all articles about notable events include non-free content especially in lead sections, ya know. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us how to decide especially for readers to see; so does MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says: Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho, so do you disagree that the Korn version could have it's own article (so also doesn't warrant a section & infobox)? I'm not following. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 23:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Widgetkid: Not all "notable" topics can have a longstanding article (WP:N). Even presumably meriting an article under certain conditions is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Well, the existing notability guidelines do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists.

In this case, the matter is not the notability of Korn's version but the content, e.g. (the inclusion of) the cover art of the single release of Korn's version. Nonetheless, I'm unsure whether Korn's version is on the same level as, well, I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston recording) or Without You (Mariah Carey recording). George Ho (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho, Korn's cover version is certainly not a that the level of massive hit I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston recording), but that's a mighty high bar!

Do you disagree that the Korn version could have it's own article based on the coverage & charting (if it wasn't a cover)? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Korn version itself received a promo single release. The chart performance is already mentioned in Korn discography. It if the version had its own article, I would've redirected/merged the page to Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (Korn album), which also mentions the version as a (promo) single release. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho, now we're getting somewhere! Your issue is with whether the cover warrants it's own section/article, not the non-free art. I have moved the bit of unique info about the Korn version to the section with other minor covers. I think that renders the discussion about the art moot. :) ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue is with whether the cover warrants it's own section/article, not the non-free art. Enough jumping into conclusions and downplaying my actual rationale for nominating this cover art. The necessity of the cover art is the issue, not the whole section itself. Oh, and speaking of the whole section, perhaps (duplicating) the chatting info may be necessary especially to make accessibility easier for readers. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It if the version had its own article, I would've redirected/merged the page to Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (Korn album), which also mentions the version as a (promo) single release.

@George Ho, would you please make up your mind?

Why does the terrible version of a cover song warrant a section just to show chart info easily available elsewhere? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserted the Billboard charts but in prose instead as requested. Now may you please change your vote since you removed it from the article? George Ho (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: ✅ ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 20:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@anyone reading this: Please see Explicit's counterargument to Widgetkid's voting rationale (oldid link). George Ho (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 18:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFCC 3a and 7. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 28 October 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.