Talk:Starstruck (Years & Years song)

Alternative cover of Kylie Minogue remix should be included
Ss112 removed the alternative album cover stating that it is not significantly different from the original. However, the inclusion of a new artist and their name for the re-release with said artist is quite significant. I believe the alternative cover should be included.

Even the guidance for an album's infobox makes this matter quite simple to resolve. It states all of the following about alternative covers:
 * If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template.
 * Crackin. Let's go on.


 * However, per WP:NFCC use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * The original cover cannot convey equivalent significant information (the addition of a new artist).


 * An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.
 * Significantly different? Check. There's a new artist, so their photo and name have been added to the redesigned cover art--seems quite significant. Widely distributed? Check.


 * Also, an alternative cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
 * Here I don't think the cover passes this criterion, but it doesn't need to. It's also early days. The alternativee cover is being used by media outlets, such as NME, Official Charts , Gay Times , and others.


 * Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included.
 * Colouring is different and there is added text--not significant alone. However, an entirely different photo was added to the cover art to distinguish its release from the original that introduces a brand new artist to the track. While the aesthetic is similar, the cover is not "essentially similar" because there are two artists, not one, making the song a duet, not a solo.

(as the original uploader of the album cover), (another editor working on this article), and others, what do you think about the alternative cover meeting the criteria as laid out above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoestringnomad (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Can" be added using this template doesn't mean should. You left this part of Template:Infobox album out: "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included." That negates your points about the colour and addition of some text being significant enough changes to justify inclusion. Regardless, you haven't explained how this cover cannot be sufficiently explained in prose, when it can be. "The artwork for the remix version is the same as the original with the addition of an image of Minogue and the background is tinted pink instead of red." There—we don't need a copyrighted cover for this purpose when it can definitely be explained in words and its exclusion is not detrimental to a reader's understanding (WP:NFCC). A change of colour and an addition of a smaller picture of a co-lead artist is not significantly different, and is by all definitions essentially similar. It retains the same layout as the original cover. It's not a totally different design—the text and original elements picture of Olly Alexander are still present.
 * This is really coming down to one's definition of "significantly different". This has not "replaced the original". The original is still in use. I assure you, if this were put to a discussion at FfD, this would not hold up and would be deleted. It happens all the time. If there is a consensus here and it falls on the side of inclusion, I will nominate this for deletion there so we can see what others who aren't Minogue fans and have a vested interest in the inclusion of a single cover with her face on it think. That being said, pinging as this might interest them as an editor who has edited Minogue topics.  Ss   112   19:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't misrepresent my argument. I 'did include and respond to, "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc., should not be included." Please read arguments before responding to them.
 * And where are you getting this requirement that something "cannot be sufficiently explained in prose" anyways? Please cite a policy.
 * Also, why did you push WP:BRD if you state, "If there is a consensus here and it falls on the side of inclusion, I will nominate this for deletion there so we can see what others who aren't Minogue fans and have a vested interest in the inclusion of a single cover with her face on it think."? Speak plainly and honestly so dialogue can be the same.
 * Finally, I don't know that the people I pinged ARE Minogue fans and neither do you. I included them for the reasons stated. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't know that those users are Minogue fans and neither do I? That's funny, because I've actually clicked on KHBritish and Felipeedit's user pages previously, and they both have userboxes that show they are fans of Minogue. You can now say that that's irrelevant, but your point that we don't know that they are fans is unequivocally wrong.
 * I'm sorry that you find it hard to understand that citing BRD at you was so you would not edit war over the inclusion of the cover on the actual article, and that my saying I will open a discussion at FfD if this discussion you have now started falls on the side of inclusion are two separate things said at two different times. They're not mutually exclusive and I have no idea why you think they are.
 * I should not find it surprising given your argument to include this insignificant cover that you don't appear to be adequately versed with all of Wikipedia's text on non-free use of media and that you wish for me to cite every guideline to you. WP:FUR states that all use of non-free media should answer "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text". It just so goes in discussions on this very topic by experienced editors that this has been especially required for additional images: why should we include additional copyrighted media when the difference between the covers can adequately be conveyed in properly sourced text, and the additional cover's exclusion is not detrimental to a reader's understanding because it is very similar? You have presented no convincing reasons to the contrary and I suspect that's because there are none.
 * I'm not going to be engaging in a back and forth with you. I have no interest in rehashing the same points again and again. By all means, you can continue to respond to me with dot-point comebacks if you wish. But until there is clear consensus, the article should not have the alternate cover restored to it. I've said what I need to say. Thank you.  Ss  112   20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't feel the need to check out other editors' profiles to prove a point. Glad you have that covered. So I'm guessing we should remove alternative covers from other singles, like, Say So (Doja Cat song), since it can be clearly stated in prose that there was a remixed version without the alternative cover. But couldn't the existence of a single itself be described through "properly sourced text"? Why bother at all with covers? If you don't want to back-and-forth, that's cool. I'm happy to do so.
 * I also don't appreciate the tone you've struck and then scrubbed, as shown in your edits here. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As a person who has never heard a Years & Years song or a Kylie Minogue song, the alternative cover does not need to be included. I envisioned Ss112's description of the alternative cover, and when I looked at the cover, it was pretty similar to what I had expected. I envisioned a light pink background with the yellow things in the middle (instead of the magenta colour that is on the cover), but I got everything else right. As long as we specify that the alternative cover background is magenta ("The artwork for the remix version is the same as the original with the addition of an image of Minogue, and the background is tinted magenta instead of red."), I don't see why adding the cover is necessary. If there is a consensus here and it falls on the side of inclusion, I will nominate this for deletion there so we can see what others who aren't Minogue fans and have a vested interest in the inclusion of a single cover with her face on it think – I wonder if we could do an RfC instead. This would allow as many neutral opinions as possible to be shared, without the short time limit of one week. An RfC introduction is also required to be neutral, which sets a better precedent for both keep and delete !voters to feel like their voice will be heard. If we did an FfD (when you have already made it clear that, if we take this article to FfD, it will be deleted), that might make keep !voters not want to post their comments, as they might feel like their comments will be disregarded (since you're so sure the file will be deleted). Just an idea, I don't feel strongly either way. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * D🐶ggy54321, you can describe a lot with words, so where does one draw the line? I like this example from The Beatles: With the Beatles. It has three covers, and two use the exact same photographs. The issue with Starstruck is that a totally different artist has been added and it has been re-released, so the separate cover art that was created for it makes sense to include. Doesn't that seem significantly different? And certainly more significant than a regional release using the same photos. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You draw the line when it makes sense. Sure, a picture is worth a thousand words, but when the pictures are not in the public domain (non-free), the thousand words is sometimes better. Neither of the alternative Beatles covers should be included, as they are all basically the same. Yes, there's a different pose and a different text colour on one and credits on the other, but they can both easily be described in prose. An example of an alternative cover that is appropriate to use is the Nicki Minaj "Say So" remix cover. The original cover features Doja Cat in a pink room, looking onto a balcony, and there are two silver balloons that are also there. "Doja Cat: Say So" is written in pink. The Nicki Minaj remix cover is digital (already very different, a picture and a drawing) that has red, orange, yellow, green and purple stripes with sparkles. "Doja Cat, Nicki Minaj: Say So" is written in yellow. The only similarities are the font and the "Doja Cat" and "Say So" writing. An example of an alternative cover that would not be appropriate to use is the "Say So" original mix featuring Nicki Minaj cover, as it is essentially the same as the remix cover, just with a different colour scheme (red, orange, and three shades of green instead of the Skittles colours). For comparison purposes, the original "Starstruck" cover features a picture of Olly Alexander coming out of a yellow 8-point star against a red background, with the words "Starstruck" (in black) and "Years & Years" (in yellow) in the top left corner. The Minogue remix cover features pictures of Alexander and Minogue coming out of a yellow 8-point star against a magenta background, with the words "Starstruck" (in black), "Years & Years" (in grey), and "Kylie" (in yellow) in the top left corner. I bolded all the things that were different. It's essentially the same picture. The only differences are the fact that Minogue is included, the background colour has changed, and text was added/recoloured. Apologies for the extra long response. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Reinstate the cover the nominate for deletion. That's the easiest way to resolve this. My gut instinct is it won't be notable for inclusion. The song achieved notoriety before the remix was released. If the song has been released as part of an album then remixed for its single release id be persuaded otherwise but I don't think not including the remix cover is detrimental to the article. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)