June 23
File:I've Been Loving You - Elton John.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 ⚡ 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:I've Been Loving You - Elton John.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
De-PRODding rationale from an editor was this: I might agree that having the “Portugese EP” cover is a bit unnecessary but the single should still have visual representation in some form.
However, if visual representation is necessary, then the UK vinyl single (
45cat,
discogs) should be used instead of the Portuguese EP release (
45cat,
discogs). Furthermore, the Elton John version itself wasn't that successful, and the article may need cleanup and rewrite and/or reorganization. I'm uncertain whether visual representation of an unsuccessful version is necessary, but I still doubt it.
George Ho (
talk)
02:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’d agree that the UK single label would be the best choice.
- Is there a guideline which states that whether or not single art should be included is dependent on the success of said single? As far as I can tell the notability guidelines only really apply to whether or not a song should have an article dedicated to it in the first place.
Elephantranges (
talk)
16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a non-free content isn't based on notability. Rather it's based on impact toward
readers' understanding of the article topic, i.e. an Elton John song made a Canadian successful later by a Canadian band. Being contextually significant depends on
significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content
, determined by due weight and balance, as described in WP:NFC#CS. In my view, as readers would already figure out, the Elton John version didn't chart at all, another version under different title fared a little bit better in one country, and any visual representation of the Elton John version wouldn't make much difference, especially when such representation is omitted... or deleted. Even illustrating critical commentary, an acceptable use, still wouldn't override the file's non-compliance with NFCC. George Ho ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Makes sense. In any case I’d definitely agree that the current imagine there is pretty unneccesary. Elephantranges ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a non-free content isn't based on notability. Rather it's based on impact toward
readers' understanding of the article topic, i.e. an Elton John song made a Canadian successful later by a Canadian band. Being contextually significant depends on
- 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:Royal Belgian Football Association logo.svg
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Royal Belgian Football Association logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Haggis MacHaggis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFC#UUI17 as the team is a child entity of the FA and logo here is a duplicate of File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg which is the logo used on the FA's page. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:01, 23 June 2024 (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:The Logo of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.png
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:The Logo of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fikku fiq ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The same logo, uploaded under File:Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality emblem.png, is already used on Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The usage of the logo used on Istanbul as well is not really necessary. The omission of the logo from Istanbul would not be detrimental to a readers understanding of the topic, which is a requirement for non-free file usage. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:10, 23 June 2024 (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:Leiria22024logo.png
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Leiria22024logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pietaster ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per WP:NFC#UUI14. The same logo is already used on the 2023 European Throwing Cup. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (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.
June 23
File:I've Been Loving You - Elton John.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 ⚡ 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:I've Been Loving You - Elton John.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
De-PRODding rationale from an editor was this: I might agree that having the “Portugese EP” cover is a bit unnecessary but the single should still have visual representation in some form.
However, if visual representation is necessary, then the UK vinyl single (
45cat,
discogs) should be used instead of the Portuguese EP release (
45cat,
discogs). Furthermore, the Elton John version itself wasn't that successful, and the article may need cleanup and rewrite and/or reorganization. I'm uncertain whether visual representation of an unsuccessful version is necessary, but I still doubt it.
George Ho (
talk)
02:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’d agree that the UK single label would be the best choice.
- Is there a guideline which states that whether or not single art should be included is dependent on the success of said single? As far as I can tell the notability guidelines only really apply to whether or not a song should have an article dedicated to it in the first place.
Elephantranges (
talk)
16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a non-free content isn't based on notability. Rather it's based on impact toward
readers' understanding of the article topic, i.e. an Elton John song made a Canadian successful later by a Canadian band. Being contextually significant depends on
significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content
, determined by due weight and balance, as described in WP:NFC#CS. In my view, as readers would already figure out, the Elton John version didn't chart at all, another version under different title fared a little bit better in one country, and any visual representation of the Elton John version wouldn't make much difference, especially when such representation is omitted... or deleted. Even illustrating critical commentary, an acceptable use, still wouldn't override the file's non-compliance with NFCC. George Ho ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Makes sense. In any case I’d definitely agree that the current imagine there is pretty unneccesary. Elephantranges ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a non-free content isn't based on notability. Rather it's based on impact toward
readers' understanding of the article topic, i.e. an Elton John song made a Canadian successful later by a Canadian band. Being contextually significant depends on
- 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:Royal Belgian Football Association logo.svg
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Royal Belgian Football Association logo.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Haggis MacHaggis ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Violates WP:NFC#UUI17 as the team is a child entity of the FA and logo here is a duplicate of File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg which is the logo used on the FA's page. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:01, 23 June 2024 (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:The Logo of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.png
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:The Logo of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fikku fiq ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The same logo, uploaded under File:Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality emblem.png, is already used on Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The usage of the logo used on Istanbul as well is not really necessary. The omission of the logo from Istanbul would not be detrimental to a readers understanding of the topic, which is a requirement for non-free file usage. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:10, 23 June 2024 (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:Leiria22024logo.png
- 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 ⚡ 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Leiria22024logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pietaster ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Per WP:NFC#UUI14. The same logo is already used on the 2023 European Throwing Cup. Jonteemil ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (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.