December 12
Bedtime Stories (Madonna album)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete File:Bedtime Stories Madonna album upturned variant.png. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Bedtime Stories Madonna album upturned variant.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The history and upload logs of one of file pages show attempts to replace one variant with another variant of the same image of Madonna on her album Bedtime Stories. I'm taking both variants here to decide whether to keep one or both. Normally, duplicates are discouraged per WP:NFCC#3a, and both variants are no different from each other. However, enforcing the "minimal number of items" criterion (#3a), "contextual significance" (#8), and all other NFC criteria may not be easy when variants have been switched back and forth. Furthermore, unless I stand corrected, one of variants was uploaded separately but then immediately removed.
I thought about switching back to the variant showing Madonna in an upturned (i.e upside-down) view, replacing the other in a normal (right side up) view. The upturned view variant has been used as a lead image of the article for a long while. It also was commonly used for 1990s pressings of the album primarily to American customers. However, the normal (right side up) variant has been also distributed worldwide, including one of earliest US pressings and digital/streaming editions. I can see the case of keeping the normal (right side up) variant because it's been standard for years, especially outside the US. However, the upturned variant can be also seen in many eBay listings of the album.
Regarding criterion #3a, the variants' significant information
may or may not be equivalent
. However, readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching.
WP:NFC#Number of items, while reading it, normally prefers one file providing multiple points of understanding the subject to multiple files providing fewer points each, but it has also neither encouraged nor discouraged deletion of any image.
Switching variants back and forth cyclically may have implicitly harmed the understanding and would either deprive readers from understanding the distribution and marketing conveyed by the cover variants. Then I have wondered whether eliminating the upturned (mostly 1990s) variant would have deprived American readers from recognizing the album well. I have also wondered whether eliminating the normal (right side up) variant must have deprived most readers from recognizing the album well. Indeed, I really thought that captions are adequate to prevent others from replacing one variant with another. However, as I figured, captions may not have prevented further changes and switches.
(tl;dr) In short, two variants have been replacing each other over and over. Now is the time for consensus to decide whether keeping either variant or both variants complies with this project's
standards of
fair use content. If wide distribution is the standard, then we should keep the normal (right side up) variant used for most releases and ditch the upturned (upside-down) variant. However, if the upturned variant is too significant to delete, then the upturned variant shall be kept. However, if no agreement to keep either variant is made, then how about keeping both variants shall be kept by default?
George Ho (
talk) 01:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 10:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are we seriously arguing this again after almost 10 years? That archived talk sums it up perfectly: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", and "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given that the image here is the same except that the photo is upside-down, it seems like a reasonable argument that the second image is not necessary. Readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching I don't even want to address how silly and unencyclopedic this statement is. It's the exact same image (plus I don't think the casual reader will care and, if by some weird coincidence they do, they can just google it)! This cover is used on nearly all digital and streaming platforms (Spotify, YouTube, apple iTunes); and I speak for experience when I say it's the one most retails stores carry here in Europe. I'm sure @ George Ho: has the best intentions, but that second image is completely unnecessary and should be deleted.-- Christian ( talk) 03:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the one uploaded by George Ho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishm21 ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
-
Christian, you attempted to replace the upturned variant back in 2018 with the normal (right side up) one that you mentioned is used in digital and streaming platforms, but then it was immediately reverted back to the upturned one. Seems that you have been fortunate that the editor who reverted your move has been inactive for at least one year. Unlike that editor, I couldn't revert back to the upturned variant, recognizing how widely distributed the normal/right-side-up variant has been, especially at ongoing digital age.
However, as said before, the upturned variant was commonly used in most of physical American editions before the (golden?) streaming age. I had a cassette copy that uses the upturned variant. As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed. [See my further comment below my sig. George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)]
Overseas customers have been fortunate to receive the normal/standard variant, and earliest American customers must have been fortunate to buy earliest American copies using the normal/standard one. Today's streaming customers have been fortunate to see the normal variant. On the other hand, how Americans have been fortunate or unfortunate to buy copies showing the upturned variant would be up to them. Well, both variants posit Madonna's name on top and album title on bottom, but they posit the same image in different ways... and may have given different meanings. Let's not underestimate the album cover's (or album covers') influence to customers.
As I see, you brought up the discussion from 2009–10. Hate to say this, but the past discussion is mere local consensus, which I believe should neither overturn FFD consensus nor undermine the process of FFD. Unless the FFD discussion would be the same as that past discussion, if this FFD discussion gets relisted, then... as proven, the local discussion may no longer hold up anymore. By the way, at the time of that discussion, the upturned variant (link from that discussion) was the lead, and the normal variant uploaded as an alternative cover was taken out. (Off-topic: The person who removed the one that you favor keeping has been banned since 2013.) As proven to my point, one side favors one variant, and another side favors the other. George Ho ( talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I may likely take most of those back. Both variants show Madonna lying on a bed and giving posture with eyes open. However, despite using same image in different positions, the positions of the singer's name and the album title may have given both variants either the same or different meanings of the album (or album cover). However, I can't tell whether the meanings of the variants are the same.As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed.
— written by meAs I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them. George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
-
Christian, you attempted to replace the upturned variant back in 2018 with the normal (right side up) one that you mentioned is used in digital and streaming platforms, but then it was immediately reverted back to the upturned one. Seems that you have been fortunate that the editor who reverted your move has been inactive for at least one year. Unlike that editor, I couldn't revert back to the upturned variant, recognizing how widely distributed the normal/right-side-up variant has been, especially at ongoing digital age.
- I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them This is 100% your opinion George Ho, it's not a good arguement to keep both images. But like I previously said on the (IMO, pointless) Like a Prayer single cover debate, I don't really care which image is used. Kind regards! -- Christian ( talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Only the normal variant of the cover should be shown on the article, as it is unnecessary to show an alternate non-free album cover that is identical to the normal cover but upturned. The k nine 2 ( talk) 09:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a similar discussion about the
Madame X cover where eventually the alternate deluxe cover was deleted as it was deemed unnecessary, hence I support deleting the alternate upturned cover.
The k nine 2 (
talk) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- You were meant to link
Talk:Madame X (album)#One cover Vs two covers?, right?
George Ho (
talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes apologies I messed up the link. I have fixed the link now. The k nine 2 ( talk) 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- You were meant to link
Talk:Madame X (album)#One cover Vs two covers?, right?
George Ho (
talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the alternate upturned cover. The current main cover is the one used for most releases outside the US. All the digital/streaming versions (including US iTunes/Apple) also use it, hence the vast majority of the world is more familiar with it. Bluesatellite ( talk) 10:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the alternate cover As written at Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover, an extra cover is appropriate only when it is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original". The upturned cover is not "widely distributed" to the extent that it could replace the right-side-up original as a probable identification of the album. HĐ ( talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:STS-52 crew.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:STS-52 crew.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reubenbarton ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Two public domain images were edited together to make this image. I think there is a copyright issue: the uploader never actually claimed to be the person who edited the images together; and there might be enough creativity in the editing process to allow that person to claim copyright. On top of that, the image is unused, and replaceable by the (far higher-quality) File:Sts-2 crew.jpg. Suggest delete. Wikiacc ( ¶) 04:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The image is of low quality, orphaned, and obselete. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Grey Nurse Said Nothing Case.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Grey Nurse Said Nothing Case.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dutchy85 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free mage is being used to illustrate a section of of The Grey Nurse Said Nothing. The image is part of an advertisement which was the subject of a lawsuit. Although there is sourced commentary about the lawsuit, the use of this image does not really provide any more understanding of the topic, and its removal would not detract from the understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rossrs ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I previously PRODded the screenshot of the "
I Should Be So Lucky" music video, but then I am listing this here instead. Indeed, as I found out, it was previously tagged with {{
subst:dfu}}. To explain the listing, the critical commentary of the article to this date isn't sufficient enough to support usage of the screenshot. I searched for reliable sources without avail, which would have improved the understanding. Unless I stand corrected, the screenshot may fail
WP:NFCC#8.
George Ho (
talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
BET Awards Logos
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep the png version, delete jpg version. - FASTILY 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:2020-bet-awards-logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HeyitsBen ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:2020-bet-awards-logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juwan1203 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
One of these files needs to go. In my personal opinion, I think the JPG is below the WP:TOO, and the PNG is above, so the JPG should be deleted. The JPG is currently orphaned. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Raya and the Last Dragon.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
- File:Raya and the Last Dragon.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyxaros ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Duplicate of File:Raya and the Last Dragon poster.jpg BOVINEBOY 2008 20:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The jpeg version is replaced and then orphaned. If you don't want to withdraw the nomination, then why do you want to re-use the inferior jpeg version? --
George Ho (
talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused as to why the jpg version is "inferior". Is there a guideline that I am not aware of that states that a png is superior to a jpg? Visually, they are the same image, and the jpg has been in use longer. Additionally, the jpg version has version history that may be relevant for future discussions.
BOVINEBOY
2008 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly,
WP:IUP#Format (policy) doesn't forbid changing from
JPEG to
PNG AFAIK. Neither does
WP:IMAGERES (guideline), which discusses image resolution itself but not the formats. Low-res jpeg images have degraded for years after upload date, so I have to switch most (or some) of my uploads to PNG copies instead. Indeed, PNG has been better at image compression yet being lossless simultaneously. You still may not wanna enlarge the images in either format not just to avert copyright infringement but because enlarging a smaller image would worsen the image quality.
George Ho (
talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- If there are technical reasons to keep it for the good of the project, then I am fine with keeping. I am not a huge fan of editors uploading identical images of existing files with no explanation, resulting in the other image with a longer history and use being deleted because both are non-free image and thus would leave it unused. I do think there should be some way to merge their histories to maintain the continuity of the image and perhaps that is a discussion I need to find a different platform for. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly,
WP:IUP#Format (policy) doesn't forbid changing from
JPEG to
PNG AFAIK. Neither does
WP:IMAGERES (guideline), which discusses image resolution itself but not the formats. Low-res jpeg images have degraded for years after upload date, so I have to switch most (or some) of my uploads to PNG copies instead. Indeed, PNG has been better at image compression yet being lossless simultaneously. You still may not wanna enlarge the images in either format not just to avert copyright infringement but because enlarging a smaller image would worsen the image quality.
George Ho (
talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused as to why the jpg version is "inferior". Is there a guideline that I am not aware of that states that a png is superior to a jpg? Visually, they are the same image, and the jpg has been in use longer. Additionally, the jpg version has version history that may be relevant for future discussions.
BOVINEBOY
2008 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
December 12
Bedtime Stories (Madonna album)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete File:Bedtime Stories Madonna album upturned variant.png. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Bedtime Stories Madonna album upturned variant.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The history and upload logs of one of file pages show attempts to replace one variant with another variant of the same image of Madonna on her album Bedtime Stories. I'm taking both variants here to decide whether to keep one or both. Normally, duplicates are discouraged per WP:NFCC#3a, and both variants are no different from each other. However, enforcing the "minimal number of items" criterion (#3a), "contextual significance" (#8), and all other NFC criteria may not be easy when variants have been switched back and forth. Furthermore, unless I stand corrected, one of variants was uploaded separately but then immediately removed.
I thought about switching back to the variant showing Madonna in an upturned (i.e upside-down) view, replacing the other in a normal (right side up) view. The upturned view variant has been used as a lead image of the article for a long while. It also was commonly used for 1990s pressings of the album primarily to American customers. However, the normal (right side up) variant has been also distributed worldwide, including one of earliest US pressings and digital/streaming editions. I can see the case of keeping the normal (right side up) variant because it's been standard for years, especially outside the US. However, the upturned variant can be also seen in many eBay listings of the album.
Regarding criterion #3a, the variants' significant information
may or may not be equivalent
. However, readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching.
WP:NFC#Number of items, while reading it, normally prefers one file providing multiple points of understanding the subject to multiple files providing fewer points each, but it has also neither encouraged nor discouraged deletion of any image.
Switching variants back and forth cyclically may have implicitly harmed the understanding and would either deprive readers from understanding the distribution and marketing conveyed by the cover variants. Then I have wondered whether eliminating the upturned (mostly 1990s) variant would have deprived American readers from recognizing the album well. I have also wondered whether eliminating the normal (right side up) variant must have deprived most readers from recognizing the album well. Indeed, I really thought that captions are adequate to prevent others from replacing one variant with another. However, as I figured, captions may not have prevented further changes and switches.
(tl;dr) In short, two variants have been replacing each other over and over. Now is the time for consensus to decide whether keeping either variant or both variants complies with this project's
standards of
fair use content. If wide distribution is the standard, then we should keep the normal (right side up) variant used for most releases and ditch the upturned (upside-down) variant. However, if the upturned variant is too significant to delete, then the upturned variant shall be kept. However, if no agreement to keep either variant is made, then how about keeping both variants shall be kept by default?
George Ho (
talk) 01:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC); amended, 10:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are we seriously arguing this again after almost 10 years? That archived talk sums it up perfectly: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", and "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Given that the image here is the same except that the photo is upside-down, it seems like a reasonable argument that the second image is not necessary. Readers would have to turn either their own heads (while using desktops) or their laptops and/or mobile devices (while disabling portrait/landscape orientation switching) to compare the variants. Then, after comparison, they would probably decide that even variants of the same image may or may not convey the same info and are too eye-catching I don't even want to address how silly and unencyclopedic this statement is. It's the exact same image (plus I don't think the casual reader will care and, if by some weird coincidence they do, they can just google it)! This cover is used on nearly all digital and streaming platforms (Spotify, YouTube, apple iTunes); and I speak for experience when I say it's the one most retails stores carry here in Europe. I'm sure @ George Ho: has the best intentions, but that second image is completely unnecessary and should be deleted.-- Christian ( talk) 03:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the one uploaded by George Ho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishm21 ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
-
Christian, you attempted to replace the upturned variant back in 2018 with the normal (right side up) one that you mentioned is used in digital and streaming platforms, but then it was immediately reverted back to the upturned one. Seems that you have been fortunate that the editor who reverted your move has been inactive for at least one year. Unlike that editor, I couldn't revert back to the upturned variant, recognizing how widely distributed the normal/right-side-up variant has been, especially at ongoing digital age.
However, as said before, the upturned variant was commonly used in most of physical American editions before the (golden?) streaming age. I had a cassette copy that uses the upturned variant. As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed. [See my further comment below my sig. George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)]
Overseas customers have been fortunate to receive the normal/standard variant, and earliest American customers must have been fortunate to buy earliest American copies using the normal/standard one. Today's streaming customers have been fortunate to see the normal variant. On the other hand, how Americans have been fortunate or unfortunate to buy copies showing the upturned variant would be up to them. Well, both variants posit Madonna's name on top and album title on bottom, but they posit the same image in different ways... and may have given different meanings. Let's not underestimate the album cover's (or album covers') influence to customers.
As I see, you brought up the discussion from 2009–10. Hate to say this, but the past discussion is mere local consensus, which I believe should neither overturn FFD consensus nor undermine the process of FFD. Unless the FFD discussion would be the same as that past discussion, if this FFD discussion gets relisted, then... as proven, the local discussion may no longer hold up anymore. By the way, at the time of that discussion, the upturned variant (link from that discussion) was the lead, and the normal variant uploaded as an alternative cover was taken out. (Off-topic: The person who removed the one that you favor keeping has been banned since 2013.) As proven to my point, one side favors one variant, and another side favors the other. George Ho ( talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I may likely take most of those back. Both variants show Madonna lying on a bed and giving posture with eyes open. However, despite using same image in different positions, the positions of the singer's name and the album title may have given both variants either the same or different meanings of the album (or album cover). However, I can't tell whether the meanings of the variants are the same.As I should have mentioned earlier in my initial rationale, the upturned variant given to most Americans in pre-digital era (i.e. mostly 1990s) not only shows the same image upside-down but also shows Madonna lying on bed and giving posture with eyes open and also provides the meaning of the album and its title. The normal/right-side-up variant hasn't given customers the same meaning that the upturned variant has had to American customers who either used to possess or has still possessed their own copies of the album. Rather the normal variant just rather gives customers... convenience and comfort, yet it's been widely distributed.
— written by meAs I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them. George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
-
Christian, you attempted to replace the upturned variant back in 2018 with the normal (right side up) one that you mentioned is used in digital and streaming platforms, but then it was immediately reverted back to the upturned one. Seems that you have been fortunate that the editor who reverted your move has been inactive for at least one year. Unlike that editor, I couldn't revert back to the upturned variant, recognizing how widely distributed the normal/right-side-up variant has been, especially at ongoing digital age.
- I still believe, the normal variant gives customers a much more comfortable and convenient view of Madonna. IMHO, OTOH, the upturned variant clarifies the meaning of Madonna's bed posture a lot better than the normal one, yet American customers have turned around physical copies of the album mainly for the fun of it and to see Madonna's face more clearly. If the meanings of the variants are different, then the name and title must have provided the covers' meanings much better (or more) than the image itself. If the meanings of the variants are the same, then... I wonder whether American customers have liked either the normal variant or the upturned variant more and whether the covers' meanings would mean much to them This is 100% your opinion George Ho, it's not a good arguement to keep both images. But like I previously said on the (IMO, pointless) Like a Prayer single cover debate, I don't really care which image is used. Kind regards! -- Christian ( talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Only the normal variant of the cover should be shown on the article, as it is unnecessary to show an alternate non-free album cover that is identical to the normal cover but upturned. The k nine 2 ( talk) 09:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There was a similar discussion about the
Madame X cover where eventually the alternate deluxe cover was deleted as it was deemed unnecessary, hence I support deleting the alternate upturned cover.
The k nine 2 (
talk) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- You were meant to link
Talk:Madame X (album)#One cover Vs two covers?, right?
George Ho (
talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes apologies I messed up the link. I have fixed the link now. The k nine 2 ( talk) 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- You were meant to link
Talk:Madame X (album)#One cover Vs two covers?, right?
George Ho (
talk) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the alternate upturned cover. The current main cover is the one used for most releases outside the US. All the digital/streaming versions (including US iTunes/Apple) also use it, hence the vast majority of the world is more familiar with it. Bluesatellite ( talk) 10:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the alternate cover As written at Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover, an extra cover is appropriate only when it is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original". The upturned cover is not "widely distributed" to the extent that it could replace the right-side-up original as a probable identification of the album. HĐ ( talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:STS-52 crew.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:STS-52 crew.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Reubenbarton ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Two public domain images were edited together to make this image. I think there is a copyright issue: the uploader never actually claimed to be the person who edited the images together; and there might be enough creativity in the editing process to allow that person to claim copyright. On top of that, the image is unused, and replaceable by the (far higher-quality) File:Sts-2 crew.jpg. Suggest delete. Wikiacc ( ¶) 04:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The image is of low quality, orphaned, and obselete. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Grey Nurse Said Nothing Case.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Grey Nurse Said Nothing Case.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dutchy85 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
This non-free mage is being used to illustrate a section of of The Grey Nurse Said Nothing. The image is part of an advertisement which was the subject of a lawsuit. Although there is sourced commentary about the lawsuit, the use of this image does not really provide any more understanding of the topic, and its removal would not detract from the understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media'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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rossrs ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I previously PRODded the screenshot of the "
I Should Be So Lucky" music video, but then I am listing this here instead. Indeed, as I found out, it was previously tagged with {{
subst:dfu}}. To explain the listing, the critical commentary of the article to this date isn't sufficient enough to support usage of the screenshot. I searched for reliable sources without avail, which would have improved the understanding. Unless I stand corrected, the screenshot may fail
WP:NFCC#8.
George Ho (
talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
BET Awards Logos
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep the png version, delete jpg version. - FASTILY 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:2020-bet-awards-logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HeyitsBen ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
- File:2020-bet-awards-logo.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juwan1203 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
One of these files needs to go. In my personal opinion, I think the JPG is below the WP:TOO, and the PNG is above, so the JPG should be deleted. The JPG is currently orphaned. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Raya and the Last Dragon.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
- File:Raya and the Last Dragon.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nyxaros ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Duplicate of File:Raya and the Last Dragon poster.jpg BOVINEBOY 2008 20:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The jpeg version is replaced and then orphaned. If you don't want to withdraw the nomination, then why do you want to re-use the inferior jpeg version? --
George Ho (
talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused as to why the jpg version is "inferior". Is there a guideline that I am not aware of that states that a png is superior to a jpg? Visually, they are the same image, and the jpg has been in use longer. Additionally, the jpg version has version history that may be relevant for future discussions.
BOVINEBOY
2008 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly,
WP:IUP#Format (policy) doesn't forbid changing from
JPEG to
PNG AFAIK. Neither does
WP:IMAGERES (guideline), which discusses image resolution itself but not the formats. Low-res jpeg images have degraded for years after upload date, so I have to switch most (or some) of my uploads to PNG copies instead. Indeed, PNG has been better at image compression yet being lossless simultaneously. You still may not wanna enlarge the images in either format not just to avert copyright infringement but because enlarging a smaller image would worsen the image quality.
George Ho (
talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- If there are technical reasons to keep it for the good of the project, then I am fine with keeping. I am not a huge fan of editors uploading identical images of existing files with no explanation, resulting in the other image with a longer history and use being deleted because both are non-free image and thus would leave it unused. I do think there should be some way to merge their histories to maintain the continuity of the image and perhaps that is a discussion I need to find a different platform for. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly,
WP:IUP#Format (policy) doesn't forbid changing from
JPEG to
PNG AFAIK. Neither does
WP:IMAGERES (guideline), which discusses image resolution itself but not the formats. Low-res jpeg images have degraded for years after upload date, so I have to switch most (or some) of my uploads to PNG copies instead. Indeed, PNG has been better at image compression yet being lossless simultaneously. You still may not wanna enlarge the images in either format not just to avert copyright infringement but because enlarging a smaller image would worsen the image quality.
George Ho (
talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused as to why the jpg version is "inferior". Is there a guideline that I am not aware of that states that a png is superior to a jpg? Visually, they are the same image, and the jpg has been in use longer. Additionally, the jpg version has version history that may be relevant for future discussions.
BOVINEBOY
2008 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.