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.
Several pieces of non-free media already identify this character. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 2 May 2020 (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.
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: Embedded data was removed by Jo-Jo Eumerus. Nothing left to do here. -FASTILY 03:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Krd with the reason "implausible file size, suspect embedded data" FASTILY 07:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version that doesn't appear to contain embedded data & is smaller. It's an editorial action not an admin action so leaving this open. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)
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:Eminem - Music to Be Murdered By alt.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. Izno (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information..."
"Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included"
This alternative cover is identical to the main cover already used on the article for the album, other than a "difference in poses". There is no significant critical analysis on this alt cover that merits its inclusion. I suggest we provide a link to an external image, as is one in other album articles such as Bangerz. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 12:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the images are different enough to warrant a keep, I personally don't understand why pictures that look similar are considered for deletion, as there's seriously no point to delete something like this if it's different, might be just me , though. ~aardwolf68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aardwolf68: They're nearly identical and under fair-use, if it can be explained with text alone, it doesn't merit inclusion. Already in the infobox, I've added the caption "Standard cover. The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head." and further explanation of the alternative cover can be added to the article's body. If we'd want to keep this cover, we'd have to change the policies over at Template:Extra album cover. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 13:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and if changing up the rules so that more album covers can be labeled as the alternative ones instead of leaving them out because they're similar is the way to go, then so be it. I just believe thay articles shoild convey enough possible information for the viewer, and this album cover rule is kind of ridiculous ~aardwolf68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deluxe editions, physical editions, etc. etc. There are a lot of similar covers and we don't include all of them because they only have minor differences and take up space. That's why the rule exists. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 16:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For one, this alternate cover is only intended for official physical copies. Also, this image has already been removed from the infobox and replaced with text. If this can be done, the image probably shouldn't be included. Another thing is the file's questionable licensing. The description claims the source is Apple Music, but Music uses the standard cover art. I just fail to see why both covers should be included in the article - just the main one is fine. –ToxiBoi!(contribs) 04:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in section "Background and recording". There is sourced critical discussion of the alternative cover. A reader can't really imagine what Eminem looks like doing this pose and how it relates to the 1958 Hitchcock cover, which should also be included (see the discussion below). Text alone simply does not suffice. We don't have to shoehorn this to the alternative covers in infoboxes issue, as this is clearly about sourced critical commentary in the relevant section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, the paragraph is about critical commentary on the Hitchcock theme, not the alternative cover. The cover art is only mentioned in one sentence, and the alternative cover has been summarized in text with the sentence "The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What: I agree that the infobox sentence The alternative cover features Eminem posing with a gun and axe pointed to his head alone probably wouldn't merit the images. But roughly half of the "Background" section paragraph is about the alternative cover: The album's title and alternative cover art share the same concept as the 1958 Jeff Alexander album Alfred Hitchcock Presents Music to Be Murdered By, described by Chris Willman of Variety as "the one and only album Hitchcock ever released". Eminem tweeted an image of the 1958 album cover featuring Hitchcock holding an axe and a gun to his head and stated that his album's alternative cover was "inspired by the master, Uncle Alfred!". And it is the nature of the statement, not its length, that is of primary concern here. It impedes the reader's understanding to refer to a specific image that Eminem tweeted, without showing what it was, and say that the alternative cover "shares its concept", without showing what it means. In context, that the alternative cover was "inspired by ... Uncle Alfred" clearly means not only Hitchcock's person and appearance but the specific Hitchcock cover. If this content is due in the article, it really needs these two images to grasped by the reader. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's just one of three covers, we don't need two non-free images to cover such content. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 04:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to agree to disagree. One cover is the primary means of identification, the other two are subjects of sourced critical discussion in a way that necessitates seeing them. Use is not excessive and the purposes don't overlap. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regarding the "Minimal number of items" (#3a), I see that the physical edition's front cover is not inserted in the article. Then I see the standard (shovel and hat) cover and the alternative (axe and gun) cover used in the article. I don't see how various covers of the album "convey equivalent significant information". Sure, they show the artists holding different objects, and they identify the album. However, the various objects and the usage of them make the album covers substantially different enough from each other, at least to me.
Furthermore, the #3a criterion may not outweigh the "contextual significance" criterion. Well, the physical edition's (hat-less) cover may have lacked "contextual significance" due to insufficient coverage of the hat-less cover itself. However, if the alternative (axe and gun) image of the image were to be deleted, then the understanding of the "Hitchcock" cover would be affected as well. Not just the Hitchcock image, the understanding of the album release would be affected as well. Readers would not grasp, without using the images, how the album cover originated and derived from the old when the old album is mentioned in the album. George Ho (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and don't worry, I struck my original vote). The 3 MTBMB covers are not very different from each other. The only differences are Em's poses and clothing. Because of the minimal differences, WP:NFCC#3 applies. But even if NFCC didn't apply, this infobox documentation, the infobox we use in the article, writes in verbatim different poses doesn't warrant using a new cover. And if the image can't be included in the infobox, it can't be used at all. –ToxiBoi!(contribs) 05:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not even the main identifier of the album. The only difference is the pose (which is less than a quarter of the cover) and it could easily be described in prose. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the visual merits, the axe and gun make it slightly more than just a difference in the artist's pose. The critical commentary pushes it over the borderline for me. isento (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Visually similar, and should be kept to minimal use per WP:NFCC. I edit music articles often and we usually do not place alternate artworks that are visually similar to the original version (cross-refer to Thank U, Next and 7/27) – if there is an alternative cover (usually a deluxe edition or anything), the difference in the artworks should be written in the caption as you can see in the two examples I have given. The only time there should be an alternative album cover in the same article should be when the alternative album is actually very different from the original cover (see: Revival). Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 June 2020 (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:Bright yellow gun twelve inch.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 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.
