Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to
Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See
Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
Although Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear is currently protected by copyright, and although it won't be protected by copyright until 2101 or later, try to avoid using fair use images if there are free copyrighted images, currently in Commons has a Buzz Lightyear statue in Shanghai, China, which is considered a freely licensed image for FoP reasons. The image of the statue is also close in size to the fair use image. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 09:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ TechnoSquirrel69 with the reason: "My concerns that got this file deleted previously still exist. This cover art seems to a represent a single, not the album." Fastily 06:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-free book cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Nori Bunasawa#Career. Non-free book covers are generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the books they represent, but there use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such critical commentary of the cover anywhere in the article (simply mentioning the book by name isn't sufficient) and the cover is also being used in a gallery of images which is not allowed per WP:NFG. For reference, I prodded the file for deletion here, but it was subsequently WP:DEPRODed by the uploader here without any explanation why; so, I'm bringing its non-free use up for further discussion here at FFD. Marchjuly ( talk) 12:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
skeptical about the sample's contextual significance to the whole album, even with a caption and an inline reference. furthermore, role to drive a reader into listening the whole track/recording already fulfilled by free text. furthermore, the album cover art already tells readers what to expect from the album itself. George Ho ( talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is necessary to meet the "Contextual significance" requirement for use of non-free content: 1) the item [song or portion of] is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or 2) where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article".
A comic depiction of the character is already in the infobox. Having another one violates purpose of use ( WP:NFCC#8) and maybe also minimal use (NFCC#3). Neocorelight ( Talk) 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This cover art fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) because the Saudi Arabian release contains a simple cover art design (see here). The Saudi cover art should be uploaded to Commons unless it is determined to be protected under Saudi Arabian copyright law, in which case it should be uploaded locally on Wikipedia as {{ PD-USonly}}. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused file Sangjinhwa ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. It's unclear if this seal is old enough to qualify for PD status. ✗ plicit 05:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Namibian team, it is the logo of the Namibia Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the New Zealand team, it is the logo of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Seychelles team, it is the logo of the Seychelles Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Vanuatu team, it is the logo of the Vanuatu Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged with {{ PD-USGov}}. Actually a work of the Utah DMV. https://dmv.utah.gov/plates says "Copyright © 2024 State of Utah - All rights reserved." See also https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/utah/ ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 00:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Some more copyrightable Utah license plates; see above. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 01:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NFCC: not required to understand the topic, not discussed critically, purely used as decoration, and the differences between this and the standard cover can be adequately described in text. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is located on Commons but it has not been deleted because uploader added a {{ Keep local}}. The file is not used on the front page or heavily used so the only reason for the Keep local is that the uploader found it easier to monitor files when they are local.
Sadly the uploader User:Spinningspark is deceased since more than a year ago so he can no longer monitor the files even if they are local. So the reason for the keep local is no longer there.
Files with a keep local can’t be deleted per CSD F8 but should be nominated for deletion. Per a few old discussion from September 23, 2020, October 1, 2020 and October 14, 2020 files can be deleted even if it has a keep local if uploader is no longer active and there is no other reason to keep it.
Spinningspark have uploaded more files with a keep local and many of those are most likely on Commons. If this file is deleted the question is if a FFD is needed for every single file of if there is a better way. MGA73 ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Now PD on Commons: c:File:Elsie-Driggs.jpg. Yann ( talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No real reason for this file on the article. Riley's Headquarters is barely shown in the image and the character is well depicted by the infobox image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is not a recent rendering which attracts new copyright. Also consider this brief discussion at the media copyright questions noticeboard. Felix QW ( talk) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Superseded by File:SierraOnLine-Box-KingsQuest1.jpg, which is under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Image taken from
hitparade.ch was considered "irreplaceable" when my speedy deletion request was challenged with this rationale: The sleeve and the actual record are two different images and the sleeve is not replaceable with the record itself.
Sure, the sleeve and actual record are two different items with different visuals, but upon further research, turns out the portion is not of a sleeve.
Indeed, when I requested speedy deletion, I just assumed it's a picture sleeve. I bet the one who challenged the request thought so as well. Actually, this is the front cover of a sheet music from overseas: ebay (1), ebay (2), abebooks. None of single releases use this image: discogs, 45cat. Not even the US release uses a picture sleeve. Unsure why hitparade.ch cropped the front cover and has posed it as a "cover art".
Of course, some editors would use a sheet music especially for the Beatles songs. This image, like any other sheet music or picture sleeve, uses an image of a singer and the song title. I'm more concerned about its ability to be contextually significant to the whole song You'll Never Get to Heaven (If You Break My Heart), especially if the image were to be omitted from this project. Furthermore, sheet musics have no longer been common since vinyl singles had been popular at the time.
Per WP:NFC#CS, justification for using the image depends on "due weight" and "balance", despite two common circumstances often used to prevent deletions of certain images. In this case, I've yet to see proof that the sheet music (or the image pretending to be a "cover art") is contextually significant to the song and that omitting the image would detriment understanding of the song. Reading the article, I couldn't find content that makes the song harder to understand without the sheet music.
The free image ( File:Youll never get to heaven dionne warwick US single.png) doesn't have to comply with NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" part. Sure, it may not be the cover art, and it may not be a sheet music, but it's should be a more suitable replacement if the "irreplaceable" image I'm nominating is deemed NFCC-noncompliant. Even "irreplaceable" images may still fail NFCC. George Ho ( talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The source video at the 0:06 mark has a few frames that consist only of text and a completely black background. I believe that would fall under the ToO. Ixfd64 ( talk) 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
My speedy deletion request was challenged with this rationale: The sleeve and the actual record are two different images and the sleeve is not replaceable with the record itself.
The matter isn't the visual difference between the sleeve and the record. Speaking of sleeve, this cover art is of a German release (
45cat,
discogs). Of course, I challenged the image's "irreplaceability", but that's because "rfu"-tagged files have two days before deletion.
The bigger matter than the image's (supposed) "(ir)replaceability" is its " contextual significance" to the American pop(?) song " You'll Never Get to Heaven (If You Break My Heart)", sung multiple times. Per WP:NFC#CS, that depends on "due weight" and 'balance" of the song article. So far, I couldn't see free text having difficulty to describe the song without this image, and I haven't seen any content justifying use of this image. Furthermore, the whole image itself is just clouds in various colors with stripes, artist name, and song title. Also, the US release didn't use a picture sleeve.
The NFCC doesn't apply to the free image File:Youll never get to heaven the stylistics US single variant A.png in the way it does to this nominated image. In other words, the free image doesn't have to comply with the "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho ( talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Using two cover art not compliant with WP:NFCC#3a. Preferring other cover art... George Ho ( talk) 08:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Oops, accidentally used FFD rather than PROD. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 27 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 27 – ( new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{ subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===April 27===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.
Skip to table of contents ·
Skip to current discussions ·
Purge this page |
Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What not to list here
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Instructions for listing files for discussion Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones. If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used. If you have general questions about a file and/or it's copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to
Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons'''
, you can move it there yourself. See
Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
For older nominations, see the archives.
Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.
Although Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear is currently protected by copyright, and although it won't be protected by copyright until 2101 or later, try to avoid using fair use images if there are free copyrighted images, currently in Commons has a Buzz Lightyear statue in Shanghai, China, which is considered a freely licensed image for FoP reasons. The image of the statue is also close in size to the fair use image. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 09:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ TechnoSquirrel69 with the reason: "My concerns that got this file deleted previously still exist. This cover art seems to a represent a single, not the album." Fastily 06:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Non-free book cover being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Nori Bunasawa#Career. Non-free book covers are generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the books they represent, but there use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such critical commentary of the cover anywhere in the article (simply mentioning the book by name isn't sufficient) and the cover is also being used in a gallery of images which is not allowed per WP:NFG. For reference, I prodded the file for deletion here, but it was subsequently WP:DEPRODed by the uploader here without any explanation why; so, I'm bringing its non-free use up for further discussion here at FFD. Marchjuly ( talk) 12:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
skeptical about the sample's contextual significance to the whole album, even with a caption and an inline reference. furthermore, role to drive a reader into listening the whole track/recording already fulfilled by free text. furthermore, the album cover art already tells readers what to expect from the album itself. George Ho ( talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is necessary to meet the "Contextual significance" requirement for use of non-free content: 1) the item [song or portion of] is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or 2) where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article".
A comic depiction of the character is already in the infobox. Having another one violates purpose of use ( WP:NFCC#8) and maybe also minimal use (NFCC#3). Neocorelight ( Talk) 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This cover art fails WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) because the Saudi Arabian release contains a simple cover art design (see here). The Saudi cover art should be uploaded to Commons unless it is determined to be protected under Saudi Arabian copyright law, in which case it should be uploaded locally on Wikipedia as {{ PD-USonly}}. JohnCWiesenthal ( talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Unused file Sangjinhwa ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. It's unclear if this seal is old enough to qualify for PD status. ✗ plicit 05:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
De-PRODding rationale was this: Music sample should NOT be deleted as it is necessary to understand the article.
Unfortunately, necessity rationale doesn't absolve the sample's potential failure to prove why omitting the sample harms the understanding of the whole song, the omission one part of
WP:NFCC#8. The song was initially a composition, but then lyrics were added in another recording.
The whole sample is just music with one spoken line, and its role is the same as what free text already does: drive readers into seeking and then listening (versions of) the whole song. Furthermore, it doesn't fully represent (what) the whole song/composition (is about) and (how) the whole song/composition (had been done). George Ho ( talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Namibian team, it is the logo of the Namibia Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the New Zealand team, it is the logo of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Seychelles team, it is the logo of the Seychelles Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the Vanuatu team, it is the logo of the Vanuatu Commonwealth Games Association (which doesn't have an article), and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged with {{ PD-USGov}}. Actually a work of the Utah DMV. https://dmv.utah.gov/plates says "Copyright © 2024 State of Utah - All rights reserved." See also https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/utah/ ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 00:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Some more copyrightable Utah license plates; see above. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 01:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Does not pass WP:NFCC: not required to understand the topic, not discussed critically, purely used as decoration, and the differences between this and the standard cover can be adequately described in text. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The file is located on Commons but it has not been deleted because uploader added a {{ Keep local}}. The file is not used on the front page or heavily used so the only reason for the Keep local is that the uploader found it easier to monitor files when they are local.
Sadly the uploader User:Spinningspark is deceased since more than a year ago so he can no longer monitor the files even if they are local. So the reason for the keep local is no longer there.
Files with a keep local can’t be deleted per CSD F8 but should be nominated for deletion. Per a few old discussion from September 23, 2020, October 1, 2020 and October 14, 2020 files can be deleted even if it has a keep local if uploader is no longer active and there is no other reason to keep it.
Spinningspark have uploaded more files with a keep local and many of those are most likely on Commons. If this file is deleted the question is if a FFD is needed for every single file of if there is a better way. MGA73 ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Now PD on Commons: c:File:Elsie-Driggs.jpg. Yann ( talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No real reason for this file on the article. Riley's Headquarters is barely shown in the image and the character is well depicted by the infobox image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that this is not a recent rendering which attracts new copyright. Also consider this brief discussion at the media copyright questions noticeboard. Felix QW ( talk) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Superseded by File:SierraOnLine-Box-KingsQuest1.jpg, which is under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Image taken from
hitparade.ch was considered "irreplaceable" when my speedy deletion request was challenged with this rationale: The sleeve and the actual record are two different images and the sleeve is not replaceable with the record itself.
Sure, the sleeve and actual record are two different items with different visuals, but upon further research, turns out the portion is not of a sleeve.
Indeed, when I requested speedy deletion, I just assumed it's a picture sleeve. I bet the one who challenged the request thought so as well. Actually, this is the front cover of a sheet music from overseas: ebay (1), ebay (2), abebooks. None of single releases use this image: discogs, 45cat. Not even the US release uses a picture sleeve. Unsure why hitparade.ch cropped the front cover and has posed it as a "cover art".
Of course, some editors would use a sheet music especially for the Beatles songs. This image, like any other sheet music or picture sleeve, uses an image of a singer and the song title. I'm more concerned about its ability to be contextually significant to the whole song You'll Never Get to Heaven (If You Break My Heart), especially if the image were to be omitted from this project. Furthermore, sheet musics have no longer been common since vinyl singles had been popular at the time.
Per WP:NFC#CS, justification for using the image depends on "due weight" and "balance", despite two common circumstances often used to prevent deletions of certain images. In this case, I've yet to see proof that the sheet music (or the image pretending to be a "cover art") is contextually significant to the song and that omitting the image would detriment understanding of the song. Reading the article, I couldn't find content that makes the song harder to understand without the sheet music.
The free image ( File:Youll never get to heaven dionne warwick US single.png) doesn't have to comply with NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" part. Sure, it may not be the cover art, and it may not be a sheet music, but it's should be a more suitable replacement if the "irreplaceable" image I'm nominating is deemed NFCC-noncompliant. Even "irreplaceable" images may still fail NFCC. George Ho ( talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The source video at the 0:06 mark has a few frames that consist only of text and a completely black background. I believe that would fall under the ToO. Ixfd64 ( talk) 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
My speedy deletion request was challenged with this rationale: The sleeve and the actual record are two different images and the sleeve is not replaceable with the record itself.
The matter isn't the visual difference between the sleeve and the record. Speaking of sleeve, this cover art is of a German release (
45cat,
discogs). Of course, I challenged the image's "irreplaceability", but that's because "rfu"-tagged files have two days before deletion.
The bigger matter than the image's (supposed) "(ir)replaceability" is its " contextual significance" to the American pop(?) song " You'll Never Get to Heaven (If You Break My Heart)", sung multiple times. Per WP:NFC#CS, that depends on "due weight" and 'balance" of the song article. So far, I couldn't see free text having difficulty to describe the song without this image, and I haven't seen any content justifying use of this image. Furthermore, the whole image itself is just clouds in various colors with stripes, artist name, and song title. Also, the US release didn't use a picture sleeve.
The NFCC doesn't apply to the free image File:Youll never get to heaven the stylistics US single variant A.png in the way it does to this nominated image. In other words, the free image doesn't have to comply with the "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho ( talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Using two cover art not compliant with WP:NFCC#3a. Preferring other cover art... George Ho ( talk) 08:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Oops, accidentally used FFD rather than PROD. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Today is April 27 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 27 – ( new nomination)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{ subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===April 27===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.