Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21

File:Hirakud in stamp.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, with no prejudice to restoration if someone wants to create a non-free claim for this image -FASTILY 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hirakud in stamp.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similar to what I posted below, shouldn't we wait until the Commons DR has been resolved and then figure out what do with this. This one might be harder to justify as non-free use per WP:NFCC#8 given that it's being used as in a section about the stamp in the dam's article, but none of that will matter if the file is kept on Commons. The Commons file c:File:Hirakud in stamp.JPG is currently being shadowed by the local version which is not a good thing and two of the same files aren't really needed; so this one should be deleted if the Commons file is kept. For some unexplained reason the same editor uploaded the file to Commons and then uploaded this one to Wikipedia the very next day; I'm assuming that was just some misunderstanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:I Need You - Euclid Beach Band.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: no consensus. ✗plicit 13:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid Beach Band's cover recording of I Need You (Frankie Valli song) performed so-so or not well in one country. Rather it peaked at #81 on Billboard Hot 100. Furthermore, the critical commentary isn't sufficient enough to justify using the cover art of a less successful release. The 3T and Michael Jackson cover recording was more successful overseas. The infobox about the 3T/Jackson recording should be the main infobox, and its cover art should be the lead image. Meanwhile, I may want to restructure the whole article to make it more about 3T's version than any other unless otherwise. George Ho (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George, I would strongly oppose such a move, not only because of the precedence of the original hit single itself, but also because the inclusion of the picture sleeve lends greater historical perspective to the article. Without a visual anchor, that fact might otherwise be too easily overlooked from a few words of text alone. That demarcation is helpful not only for fans of the American version from the 1970s, particularly Eric Carmen fans such as myself, but also for fans of the 3T version, many if not most of whom would likely be unaware of the Euclid Beach Band's prior accomplishment. Furthermore, the U.S. is by far the largest nation in which the song made its mark, and 3T's cover never charted at all in North America. So feel free to expand or modify the article as you see fit, but please retain the EBB's picture sleeve if only to preserve transoceanic balance. Thank you. - JGabbard (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a visual anchor, that fact might otherwise be too easily overlooked from a few words of text alone. What? A cover art isn't necessary just to understand (or identify) what the article says about the lesser-known cover recording, is it? Readers would already see without the cover art that the cover recording wasn't successful. Also, the American band Euclid Beach Band wasn't successful, anyways, especially in the US. Furthermore, the picture sleeve was of a Dutch release. The US release (45cat, ebay) didn't use a picture sleeve, by any means. George Ho (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, cover art is not essential to notice the fact that a prior hit, an American hit, occurred, but it does draw attention to the fact, which is an important thing to know about the song's history, especially in light of 3T's failure to chart (or lack of release) in the U.S.

While their success was limited, the Euclid Beach Band maintains a substantial cult following in America, especially in the Cleveland, Ohio region, where a prior song had reached #1 and also became their first national hit. So "I Need You" was actually the band's second American chart entry.

I was unaware of either the source of the picture sleeve or the fact that there was a Dutch release, but find it quite interesting and would be curious to know whether the EBB might have reached the Dutch charts. Either way, its modest appearance on the American charts, its only North American entry from either incarnation of the song, is still significant and should not be minimized. - JGabbard (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to point #1, I think neither WP:NFCC#8 nor WP:NFC#CS finds draw[ing] attention to the fact necessary, and I think deleting the Dutch picture sleeve wouldn't affect the understanding of the song. 3T's cover may not have charted in the US, but it was still a hit (esp. overseas). On to #2, the understanding of (the cult following of) the band doesn't change how readers understand the song itself. Oh, BTW, am gonna soon use songwriter's name for the article title. On to #3, unfortunately, EBB version's mere modest (or less than that) peak on the charts doesn't make a song notable. If not for 3T, I would have redirected the page somewhere, like one of Frankie Valli's albums or the EBB page. Indeed, I tried finding reliable sources significantly covering the recording, but this book is all that I can find. Furthermore, I searched for the recording's overseas chart performance but found none. Billboard is all that I can find. George Ho (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, found another source, but it says that the recording was successful in Atlanta airplay merely. Then it says that the band's eponymous album was also a hit. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while the band hails from Ohio, they did enjoy enough additional success elsewhere to launch them onto the national charts twice. I do not oppose your suggested retitling of the song as probably more appropriate. And again, while retaining the picture sleeve for the original charting version may not be essential, it is still helpful to preserve balance in the article, since the U.S. is the largest nation in which the song has charted, and that being other than the 3T version, which is all but unknown in North America. You might also consider that American charts, at least in the '70s, carried more influence and weight than all international music charts combined. Finally, the fact that there were two '70s versions of the song, and its more recent incarnation was nearly 20 years later, also calls for a modicum of balance in the article and fully justifies the retention of the EBB sleeve to represent that. - JGabbard (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find third-party sources discussing the original Frankie Valli version, unfortunately. Moving on, the song is not as well known as a few other songs by 3T. I still disagree with the attempt to emphasize the lesser known '70s versions, no matter how influential the US charts were. I think preserving the picture sleeve is rather more like trying to treat both the more obscure EBB version and the (almost forgotten?) 3T hit version more equally in the name of "balance". Even if that's "balance", how about the way reliable sources are used? As is, the article in context still trivially mentions two prior obscure versions. Even when the article quality is improved, the article still (to me) wouldn't emphasize them very much.

The US chart itself didn't make the EBB version a "hit". Rather the way the version performed wasn't the way the songs from 1979 performed at the time, like Bad Girls (Donna Summer song) and other songs at 1979 in music#Biggest hit singles. BTW, I thought about comparing this to (They Long to Be) Close to You and Take Me in Your Arms (Rock Me a Little While) and other songs, but that would be arguing "Other stuff exists". George Ho (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but because of the massive size of the American market, reaching #81 on the US Billboard Hot 100 at the very minimum reflects the equivalent popularity of a Top 40 hit in the UK or a Top 10 hit in a smaller European nation. However, the intent is not make a point for equivalence as such, but to reflect the primacy, chronology, and complementary geography of the EBB version. - JGabbard (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the massive size of the American market, the song had neither been a longtime hit nor made a lasting impact for years, especially (since its first-run performance) in 1970s. It never had gone international until 1996 when 3T recorded it. Well, I've not yet seen sources describing or covering its impact compared to other songs. BTW, what about avoiding bias per WP:NPOVHOW and avoiding too much weight per WP:PROPORTION? How do you think the policy would handle emphasis toward the primacy, chronology, and complementary geography of the EBB version, which I think is very minimal in context based on (usage of) sources? What about the policy's handling of the emphasis toward the 3T version? Based on where the conversation is heading, I guess we can interpret the policy differently, right?

If we're gonna keep the EBB infobox per some kind of interpretation on NPOV policy, then the picture sleeve should be IMO replaced with a side label of the US single release. However, another interpretation would say that the infobox and the image of the EBB version weigh more than the context and that the infobox and the image are unnecessary. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, per all policies cited above, I certainly would concur that the 3T version should receive the bulk of emphasis and coverage in the article. I contend only that the EBB version is noteworthy enough to merit its own infobox, because of how far removed it is both in time and geography from the 3T version, in addition to the fact that it charted in the world's largest music market. It therefore should not be completely minimized and overshadowed. And while a side label would fit the bill, those have been consistently shown to elicit significantly less interest than a picture sleeve when both are available, regardless of the nation of origin. - JGabbard (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To you the EBB infobox and image are needed. However, I think the infobox and the image of the EBB release outbalance the overall content, which is against WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE, and presentation-wise gives readers the wrong impression (before reading the article) that the EBB version is just as prominent as the 3T version context-wise, which the article doesn't otherwise (to me). Eliminating the infobox and the image of the EBB version (to me) doesn't make that version completely minimized and overshadowed. The EBB version already has been minimized (unsure about being overshadowed) for years because very few sources cover the '70s versions and have done very little to make the version prominent and/or significant. We can't keep the image and the infobox just to retain the article's current weight toward the EBB version, regardless of how the sources cover it.

BTW, for the song article and the image's compliance with NFCC, I'm unsure how relevant comparisons between US charts and overseas ones are to this discussion. However, I don't think sizes of music markets matter as much as amount of nations receiving a version, does it? Using the size of a market to give one version more weight than the sources have done is not something that I would do, especially when it's against WP:core content policies. George Ho (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would disagree with you at nearly every turn, and would emphasize one other point of significance for EBB's version, which neither Valli's nor 3T's possess: Theirs was produced by the songwriter, Eric Carmen, after whom the article is now titled, making it both the consummate and standard version among the three. He is a figure who looms much larger in the States (and elsewhere) than his one-hit wonder status in the UK would indicate, and fans looking up his works[1] would expect to see a greater acknowledgment than just an incidental word of passing mention. Removal of EBB's infobox would eliminate that salient fact (in addition to label, genre, etc.), and I therefore strongly oppose it. From an American point of view, your proposal would be a complete slight to Carmen, and would present the topic from a skewed POV. The Jackson family cannot usurp any part of Carmen's seminal work on this song, regardless of how successful their version was, and what you propose is not what Americans looking up this song will want to see, nor should they see. It would be analogous to minimizing the Dolly Parton lede section on "I Will Always Love You" by replacing her infobox and image with Whitney Houston's, which would be entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Houston later having the hit of the decade, or even the century, is irrelevant to Parton's rightful legacy, be that as producer-songwriter or singer-songwriter, regardless of how small her own hit may have been (US #53, 1982). And the case here is quite similar. 3T just does not belong at the top of the page. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK George, and move on to other articles more worthy of your attention. - JGabbard (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you'd mention Americans. What about non-Americans (or those living outside America)? And "I Will Always Love You" isn't a good comparison. Try "The Only Way Is Up", whose lead image I nominated months ago. Its cover version was more successful, while original didn't do well. Both images are still there, especially after the FFD listing. And I've been told over and over to "drop the stick". Well, since I'm unable to change your views, let's wait for either others to chime in or the results, shan't we? George Ho (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Linda mccartney with camera photograph.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 ⚡ 01:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Linda McCartney article contains three free images of her already. "While there exists a free image of Linda in her latter years, it does not reflect on her public visibility as wife to Paul McCartney in her hey-day" is a strange rationale, since the photo does not obviously "reflect on her public visibility as wife to Paul McCartney". "This photo also demonstrates Linda's known career as a photographer, which free images do not show" is an invalid rationale, since there is no need for a picture of Linda McCartney holding a camera to be included in order for the reader to understand she was a photographer. This is a purely decorative image, failing WP:NFCC #1 and #8 FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the time this was added, there were only two other images - the blurry shot of her and the one her performing with Paul. Neither gave a good profile image of her alone at that point. The one now being used in the infobox with the bow in her hair is new since then and is clearly fine for a profile picture to not require the non-free at this point. --Masem (t) 13:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps this now redundant since the uploader has also !voted "delete", but I don't think really meets WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. One thing that mind meet NFCC#8, however, would be one of her photos. She was a quite well-known photographer and seems to have taken the photos of lots of bands and individuals over her career. Perhaps there's one particular photo of hers that received some coverage in reliable sources and could used as an overall representation of her work as a photographer. If as the article states, she was the first woman who took a photo that appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, then that might be one whose non-free use could be justified. I mean according to this and this, she recieved quite a bit of aclaim as a photographer that wasn't only due to who she married. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Royal Caribbean Group logo.svg

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: Procedural close, not actionable. If there is a concern with the Commons copy, then nominate it for DR please. -FASTILY 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this is PD for simplicity reasons made on the Commons file seems reasonable for a company mainly operating in the USA, unless the crown icon is too complex and/or would be copyrighted by Liberian standards [which is where the company is incorporated] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's not clear what you're asking. Are proposing that the file be converted to {{PD-logo}}? That seems reasonable, but there's nothing in c:COM:Liberia about the country's TOO. Maybe it would be better to convert this to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead since it does seem this would "PD-logo" in the US. The file seems fine as non-free, but changing it "PD-ineligible-USonly" would make it easier to use since it would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC; this is something that is often done when a logo is "PD-logo" in the US, but might not be "PD-logo" in its country of origin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if we can delete the local copy if the Commons file is judged to meet their inclusion criteria. From what I've seen Commons is not keen to delete logos unless they clearly meet TOO standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might've meant to post that Commons is not keen to delete logos unless they clearly do not meet TOO standards. Anyway, there's no information provided on the Liberian TOO. One possible thing that could be done is to ask about c:File:Royal Caribbean Group logo.svg at c:COM:VPC to see what others think. If the rough consensus is that it's OK, then perhaps this local file can be deleted. If someone feels that the logo is too close to call, they might start a DR about it. Leaving the file as is or maybe converting to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} might be the safe thing to do until the Commons file is sorted out. If the Commons file ends up deleted, then nothing more needs to be done here; if the Commons file is kept, then this local file can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant to say "Commons is not keen to delete logos unless they clearly do not meet TOO standards. " and I am not sure that a VPC discussion is likely to yield a different outcome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Flora Hayes 1965.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, with no prejudice to restoration if someone wants to create a non-free claim for this image -FASTILY 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flora Hayes 1965.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't we wait until the Commns DR is resolved before deciding what to do here? If, by chance, the file is kept, then there would probably be no need for this local version to be kept per WP:F10. On the other hand, if the Commons file is deleted, then perhaps this local file could be converted to non-free use and relicensed as {{non-free biog pic}}. There is another image of Hayes from Commons being used in Flora Kaai Hayes which means WP:FREER comes into to play, but that might be something still worth discussing. The fact that Commons won't be able to kept the file as fair use per c:COM:FAIR doesn't aotumatically mean that way can't alocal non-free version can't be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.