Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have eitherfree content ornon-free content usage concerns.Files that have been listed here for more than7 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 thenon-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 todeletion review.
For concerns not listed below,if a deletion isuncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
Forspeedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of thespeedy deletion templates. See thecriteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free withoutrationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of fileexcluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia,not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or{{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
Forblatant copyright infringements, usespeedy deletion by tagging the file{{db-f9}}.
If a file islisted as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by aVRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable undercriterion G8; use{{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable undercriterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use{{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file isappropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to theWikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible forspeedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
Ifyou are the uploader of the image, tag it with{{db-author}}.
Instructions for listing files for discussion
UseTwinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use{{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may usethis tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add{{Ffd|log=2025 October 26}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using{{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use{{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding{{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2025 October 26}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably inbold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet thethreshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using{{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as afreely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is:too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
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 its copyright status, then please start a new thread atMedia Copyright Questions.
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 thatpolling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determiningconsensus is throughediting and discussion,notvoting. Although editors occasionally usestraw 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 morebinding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved toWikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding'''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. SeeWikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
This is a secondary image but it has the incorrect rationale saying it is at "the top of the article" to be used as the primary image. The two images are quite similar, so much so that the second one is not needed to understand the topic.Binksternet (talk)19:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since a stand-alone articlecould be written about this particular cover version the song, perWP:NSONG, but the only reason there isn't a separate article is because relevant content regarding all cover versions of the same song is being incorporated into a single article for encyclopedic reasons, a non-free image of the cover version's cover art is allowed since there is significant independent coverage, charting, etc. perWP:COVERSONG andWP:NFC#cite_note-3.
Being charted in only the US isn't enough to justify usage of this plain CD portion, and readers would still see the song as one of Pink Floyd's songs, regardless of any other subsequent singer or band, like Korn.
relevant content regarding all cover versions of the same song is being incorporated into a single article for encyclopedic reasons. Those cover versions aren't the main topic; it's the original, iconic Pink Floyd version. If we interchange "notability" with justification for non-free content use, the lines between the two would be too blurred with irreparable damage, wouldn't it?George Ho (talk)18:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy & guidance is to include notable cover versions in the original's article, and if the cover versioncould have had it's own article (e.g. covered independently of the original,along with charting, like the Korn version), then including the single cover art is allowed.
It seems that for song and album covers, notabilityis the justification for non-free content. Otherwise, we'd have to justify the use ofall cover art, even ones that aren't significant to the work - e.g. generic, insignificant covers, of which there are many. I think that's the can of worms we don't want to open. ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 18:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Widgetkid:The policy & guidance is to include notable cover versions in the original's article. That's not exactly what Marchjuly said; that's notwhat policies exactly say either. Rather the policy depends on every case.
notabilityis the justification for non-free content. Not all articles about notable events include non-free content especially in lead sections, ya know.MOS:IMAGEREL tells us how to decide especially for readers to see; so doesMOS:LEADIMAGE, which says:Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.George Ho (talk)00:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Widgetkid: Not all "notable" topics can have a longstanding article (WP:N). Even presumably meriting an article under certain conditionsis not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Well, the existing notability guidelines donot limit thecontent of an article or list, though notability iscommonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists.
Do you disagree that the Korn versioncould have it's own article based on the coverage & charting (if it wasn't a cover)? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 17:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho, now we're getting somewhere! Your issue is with whether the cover warrants it's own section/article, not the non-free art. I have moved the bit of unique info about the Korn version to the section with other minor covers. I think that renders the discussion about the art moot. :) ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue is with whether the cover warrants it's own section/article, not the non-free art. Enough jumping into conclusions and downplaying my actual rationale for nominating this cover art. The necessity of the cover art is the issue, not the whole section itself. Oh, and speaking of the whole section, perhaps (duplicating) the chatting info may be necessary especially to make accessibility easier for readers.George Ho (talk)19:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It if the version had its own article, I would've redirected/merged the page to Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (Korn album), which also mentions the version as a (promo) single release.
Why does the terrible version of a cover song warrant a section just to show chart info easily available elsewhere? ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊 19:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reinserted the Billboard charts but in prose instead as requested. Now may you please change your vote since you removed it from the article?George Ho (talk)20:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No justification for why the work of this local government (not the federal government) should be public domain. No indication of the source of the satellite image.GMGtalk19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This map was created by Metro Nashville Government as part of a report mandated by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, submitted to the state and onward to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report was prepared solely to satisfy the federal government's demand for it and bears no copyright notice. As such, the work is deemed a US Government document made by its "employee" (the local government) and is therefore non-copyrightable. I would affirm its use on that basis.Eagledj (talk)21:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the use of "employee" here is in a pretty everyday run-of-the-mill sense. It wouldn't for example even cover someone who was a volunteer or an independent contractor. For this to be owned by the federal government there would need to be some kind of agreement transferring intellectual property rights.GMGtalk12:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other file instead after targeting links to this page. This one is used on way more pages and has a file name which matches the Commons one nominated for deletion.IronGargoyle (talk)01:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is date important? Mismatching file names on upload is problematic because it damages local English Wikipedia pages where the uploader did not think to replace all the given images uses. Obviously this is getting taken care of because I caught it, but this mismatch of file names should not be encouraged. We certainly should not delete the file with the most commonly used name.IronGargoyle (talk)11:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any technicalities going on here. I have no idea which would be better to be honest. As long as a copy of the file gets saved I don't particularly care if its the file I uploaded myself. I am unable to upload the file here in the English main space with the same name as the nominated file as in the Wikicommons hence the discrepancy on the namesHariboneagle927 (talk)12:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hariboneagle927: That's interesting. Does it actually prevent you from uploading with the same name, or does it just give you a warning? I have always been able to override the warning, but that could possibly be because of the admin toolkit.IronGargoyle (talk)17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument you've made didn't preventother images from being deleted, did it? Neither the template nor{{Non-free use rationale album cover}} currently addresses a cover art's compliance with NFCC. I'm not re-discussing front covers generally (i.e. the issue raised in another) but rather specifically this specific cover.
In this case, one of the songs by the Mamas and the Papas, an American band, was a hit in not just North America but also the UK and some other Commonwealth nations... and Italy. The West German sleeve is used because you assumed readers wouldn't understand the song without the cover art, right? Nevertheless, the American release, like many other vinyl singles in the pre-CD or pre-digital era, didn't use a picture sleeve initially. Record labels, like Dunhill Records, must chosen generic sleeves probably to cut costs, leaving customers into using vinyl side labels to identify songs they sought for. The American market has been one of largest music markets, hasn't it?George Ho (talk)18:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace - use US single instead. I've already uploaded one. I don't see why this needs to be up for discussion at all. The band is from the US - so use the US single's image.
I checked the years above, and it wasn't. In the future though please remember the burden of proof is on you if you want to transfer to Commons. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)16:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. The parent articleKSBZ does not mention this particular logo except in the caption.Ixfd64 (talk)20:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it should be moved to Commons, I wouldkeep for now. The image doesn't actually violate theWP:NFCC policy - in fact, quite the opposite is the case, as the image falls under{{PD-text}}. However, it can be deleted once the transfer to Commonsdoes take place. –Epicgenius (talk)15:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the logo on Wikipedia is actually outdated. The NPG has a different logo now (still PD for simplicity). I've uploaded ithere. ―Howard •🌽3319:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within the article this is used. There is commentary about Aero being a mascot for Sunsoft and how the presence of Aero was greater than other games presented, but this copywritten images has not content that applies to this as it simply says how Aero is part of the Sunsoft logo. The commentary in the article does not justify its use.Andrzejbanas (talk)19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any picture of a nuclear explosion, as we previously had, will suffice to illustrate the idea of nuclear war being a commonly predicted component of WWIII. I fail to see howthis work in particular is essential to displaying that, especially since it isn't subject to critical commentary in the article (nor should it be).Cremastra (talk·contribs)23:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. All that a picture of a nuclear test illustrates, is a nuclear test. I believe this image, from a notable artist of the period, and as an imaginary depiction of an event highly related to World War III, is uniquely suited to this imaginary topic. It depicts a concern of the period being the devastation to civilians in a war, and destruction of New York, as a metaphor for the United States, and historical cities all around the world. While the work need not be directly referenced, the fear of devastation of cities as an emergent aspect of warfare, especially following World War II, should be a subject of the article. I am welcome to suggestions of alternative free or non-free works which similarly illustrate these themes, but I do not believe the article should use an image of a nuclear test or an image of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of this file.Doeze (talk)00:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain whythis particular artistic work has to be used, especially since it dates to 1948, just three years after the end of the Second World War. Furthermore, this particular painting has no especial contextual significance. It is not a very famous work universally associated with the threat of world war three.
An image of an atomic bomb test is clearly just an image of an atomic bomb explosion. That's what the reader sees; the context is not important. They all act as perfectly acceptable free equivalents.
Again, why wasthis painting in particular selected? It has no stronger link than any other painting and is not subject to any critical commentary.
I agree it's not famous or universally associated. But this is a reasonably famous author compared to similar depictions. And it is more associated with nuclear warfare and warfare on cities than a test photograph is. A test photograph necessarily shows a test area, typically very sparse and unpopulated, and quite likely readers see this difference, that the image is not a direct depiction. I thought to use this image partially based on this blog post:https://doomsdaymachines.net/p/the-perfect-horror-of-chesley-bonestells. Would you consider a paragraph-sized section in the article citing this being appropriate? I think the final section on imaginaries of kiloton versus megaton attacks would be particularly relevant.Doeze (talk)02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly not a reason to delete the file. But, the license tag could probably be changed out and the file could be transferred to Commons. When I uploaded this in 2020, I though maybe the layered lettering might just barely be copyrightable. In light ofthe 2022 decision on theCyberpunk 2077 logo, however, I think the bar is pretty high for lettering to be copyrightable. A PD-textlogo tag is probably fine here. –IagoQnsi (talk)00:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this file "original enough" to label it as copyrighted? Note that the Mexico City Metro logos areregistered at the Mexican copyright institution. However, three logos are at Commons as simple shapes:the Olympic rings,the Red Cross logo, anda crescent moon. The most relevant entry in the Mexican law indicates that copyrights shall not apply to: "Letters, digits or isolated colors, unless their stylization is such that they become original drawings".
If the copyright was registered in Mexico, then it can't be moved to Commons as it is non-free in its home country. A combination of simple shapes can cross the threshold of originality in the United States, though I'm not sure that's the case here.{{PD-textlogo-USonly}} might be the way to go.✗plicit23:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cover photo is credited to Carol T. Danvers on theback flap of the book. According to thisC-SPAN entry, she was working as a photographer for the White House. Therefore I believe this file is in the public domain, should be deleted from local hosting on enwiki, and a higher quality version should be uploaded Commons with the license tagsc:Template:PD-USGov-POTUS andc:Template:PD-textlogo. ―Howard •🌽3319:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:NFCCP #3aMinimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is already one album cover used and this one conveys no significant information.estar8806 (talk)★00:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:NFCCP #3aMinimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Just a cropped version of the main cover. No significant difference requiring a second non-free image.estar8806 (talk)★00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This file is claimed to be "fair use" rationale due to its threshold of originality. However, the logo was created in 1969, so we have to verify its copyright status of the logo, because the US Copyright Act of 1909 require the use of copyright notice on published works released prior to 1978 (specifically for works created before December 31, 1977). If this logo have a copyright notice, we can maintain "fair use" license as currently does, but if this logo was published without copyright notice, then it should be relicensed as{{PD-US-no notice}} and moved to Commons.103.111.102.118 (talk)04:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to indicate that this photo is the uploader's "own work" or that it has otherwise been released as licensed. An attempt to sort things out was made on the uploader's user talk page atUser talk:Nadezhda Bravo Cladera#File:Elsa Sucre mayo de 1971.jpeg a week ago, but no response has yet been received. The description the uploader provided for the file states, "The photographer of Elsa Cladera de Bravo was taken during a teachers' congress in Sucre, Bolivia in May 1971. The photographer was kept by Elsa and after her death it came into my possession", but there's nothing about who might've taken the photo. Since the person who takes a photo is typically considered to be the copyright holder of the photo, and it's almost certain that this particular photo was taken by someone other than the subject of the photoElsa Cladera de Bravo, it's really hard to assess the copyright status of the photo.
While it's true perc:COM:Bolivia that Bolivian copyright law allows copyright protection for anonymous works for 50 years after publication/creation, the photo would've still been considered protected under US copyright law on January 1, 1996 (Bolivia'sURAA date) because the photo didn't enter into the public domain under Bolivian copyright law until January 1, 2022 (assuming the 1971 date in the file's description is accurate); so, its copyright under US copyright law would've been extended for 95 years after first publication (i.e. until January 1, 2067) under US copyright law . This means, at least in my opinion, there's no real way the either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can host this image as licensed withoutWP:VRT verification of copyright holderWP:CONSENT. Relicensing the photo as non-free content might be possible, but there are potentialWP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#4 andWP:NFCC#9 issues with doing that given that there are several images of to Elsa Cladera de Bravo uploaded to Commons (by the same uploader) which appear to be licensed acceptably. --Marchjuly (talk)07:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a speedy, but I don't know how to do that. Orphaned non-free image that has been replaced and should now be deleted. Pls and TYjengod (talk)00:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
We have to verify the copyright status of this logo, as it was published in 1947. If the copyright has expired, it is in the public domain and it can be exported to Commons.
If the logo did not have a copyright tag in 1947, then it's{{PD-US-no notice}}.
If the logo's copyright was not renewed, then it's{{PD-US-not renewed}}.
If either of the above conditions are met, this logo will be tagged with the corresponding PD-US tag and be eligible to be moved to Commons. Otherwise, it will remain here as fair use for now.RaptorsFan2019 (talk)15:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the file for deletion with the rationale of "same as above but it's the coat of arms" and directly above is "no source, likely not real, and copyrighted in Cuba per..." --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦»02:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, I didn’t realize that’s what I said, that was my mistake.
The coat of arms alone is free in the United States (which was why I uploaded onto here), although it’s copyrighted in Cuba. The coat of arms is real per source I mentioned above.
PerWP:NFCCP 3aMultiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. I last proposed this file for deletion six months ago, and that discussion was closed as no consensus with the file's uploader being the only participant and !voting to keep on the grounds that this cover was the subject of critical commentary referenced in the article and its omission would harm the topic at hand. There is no critical commentary in the article about this specific cover, only a description of the cover. This therefore does not satisfy free-use requirements.estar8806 (talk)★03:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep,WP:NFCC says that any additional cover arts should be subject to commentary and should not be explainable in words. This cover art is subject to extensive commentary, the description of what's in the cover art is difficult to portray. The nominator would be good to rememberWP:OTHERSTUFF is NOT a valid reason for deletion. Each case of artwork being considered under NFCC should be considered on its own merits. The nomination tries to discredit a previous discussion which voted tonot delete the artwork, not understanding that the discussion reviewer takes the merits of the arguments,not the person who uploaded the cover or the deletion nominator. The cover has been discussed and its content, including the imagery is subject to extensive coverage which proves a single cover cannot convey the same information as the two cover arts depict different things. Overall, the nominator seems to have disagreed with the original decision, but instead of offering a new reason for deletion, has simply brought the same original basis for nomination for deletion and then tried to bring other stuff into it.>>Lil-unique1(talk) —21:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the commentary? The entirety of the article's content relating to the alternate cover is as follows:An alternate cover image for the vinyl release features Beyoncé atop the same horse, but "wearing a white cowboy hat with a silver headpiece that hides her hair" and "sparkling silver chains that drape her arms and legs, as white, feathery poofs hang along the body of the horse". Behind her lies Luca Giordano's 1690 painting La Conversion de Saint Paul, depicting the Conversion of Paul the Apostle. This is not commentary, this is a description of the image.
The only reason I felt it necessary to characterize you as the nominator given the fact that you're claiming there is critical commentary when there evidentlyis none. As a violation of NFCCP 3a, this also fails NFCCP8:Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. How would the omission of an alternate image barely mentioned in the article be a detriment to the readers' understanding? And if we're going to talkartistic content, this is hardly different than the main cover. That's precisely why I referenced the Cowboy Carter image: the alternate cover was substantially different, but was still deleted. Two images being differentdoes not equal critical commentary or necessity for understanding. All this is to say, there is no merit to keep this image.
You're also incorrect regarding the last discussion. It did not vote to not delete the artwork but was closed asno consensus, meaning it can be renominated at any time. I don't have to have a new reason for deletion because there was no consensus that it should be kept in the first place. Not to mention thatthere are no votes in discussions.--estar8806 (talk)★22:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This CNBC-e Business magazine cover is a notable media reference recognizing the unusually high number of Üsküdar American Academy alumnae in executive roles. At a time when women’s representation in top management was only beginning to rise in Turkey, an internationally affiliated outlet like CNBC-e highlighting this as a distinct achievement underscores the school’s (originally a women’s institution) influence in the business world and is therefore contextually relevant to the article.Ua1876 (talk)00:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize until just now that it's used in two articles. Just now, also using another portion of the Canadian single in the other article. --George Ho (talk)07:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why else you thought so other than the "cover arts look better and more complete" argument. The cover art was distributed to the German/Austrian single. Canada is geographically larger than Germany (well, two Germanys combined at the time) and Austria and was the singer's home country. Well, the American single release didn't use a picture sleeve, but the United States has been one of largest markets of the music industry... and Canada's neighboring country.
Deleting both side labels of the Canadian (or American if that were displayed instead) single release would make readers wrongly assume which releases were important at the time and that the single cover art is the most important portion just because they have appealed the masses better. Also, we might be hindering readers' understanding of the historical context of how single releases, like those of "Old Man", were manufactured and then distributed long beforecassette singles and thenCD singles arrived in stores.George Ho (talk)00:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. LikeBlack Dog by Led Zeppelin features the French Single cover, even though the band is English. You can find it onDiscogs, seenhere. IMO, the country doesn't matter, but rather the content. It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles since most of them are either 1). Lost to time (with only the LP remaining) or 2). Generic covers based on the record label.Yoshiman6464♫🥚00:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single's image is for visualization purposes, and seeing the single's cover is more important than just seeing a plain CD. What you said sounds as if the side labels failWP:NFC#CS because it normally discourages using more than oneprominent aspect of the subject, right?
With all due respect, regardless of which portion to use, be it a plain vinyl record or a picture sleeve, the right... or an importantrelease matters more. (Portion ≠ release.) Also, a release can be a "prominent aspect" that a reader would realize and have sought for. (Shall I explain further why video game community has preferred displaying English-language cover arts, likeSuper Mario World? Well, Japanese editions ofFinal Fantasy IV andTales of Eternia are unique cases for you to study.)
Also, various single releases of "Old Man" didn't use one universal single cover art (discogs). Unsure why you've thought the German/Austrian single is the most important out of all initial single releases to display, and unsure why we must compare "Old Man" to a Led Zeppelin song.
It's useful in seeing the cover art of these singles. If we encourage the practice that a cover art is more "important" than a right release, then... Well, I don't know how else to argue without committing a fallacy. How about "we may be either misleading readers and editors into making wrong assumptions or rewriting history" or...?George Ho (talk)01:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if charted in multiple countries and de-PRODded, I'm still unconvinced that the cover art (of the 2004 remix) is necessary andcontextually significant to the previously recorded song. How omitting this image would impact the understanding of the topic in question is beyond me.George Ho (talk)01:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 "===October 26===" 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.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b17%2523File%253ATron.Ares%2b%2528soundtrack%2529.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-20251017134300-File%3aTron.Ares_(soundtrack).jpg){kind=link}
_logo.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b22%2523File%253AMillie%2526%252339%253Bs%2bBook%2b%2528book%2bcover%2529.png%255D%255D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b24%2523File%253AAyo%2bEdebiri%2bas%2bChef%2bSydney%2bAdamu%2bin%2bthe%2b%2526%252334%253BGoodbye%2526%252334%253B%2bepisode%2bof%2bseason%2bfour%2bof%2bThe%2bBear%2b%2528TV%2bseries%2529.jpeg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpeg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpeg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete%26amp%3bwpReason%3d%255B%255BWikipedia%253AFiles%2bfor%2bdiscussion%252F2025%2bOctober%2b13%2523File%253AOld%2bMan%2b%2528Neil%2bYoung%2bsingle%2b-%2bcover%2bart%2529.jpg%255D%255D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
