Talk:Touch (Little Mix song)

Official Cover
Is there an official cover for "Touch" because recently, someone uploaded a new version of the cover (which is similar to the album cover) and it came from Facebook which is not reliable. Before that, someone upload a version of that cover (which is different) which came from "Capital FM". Is there any one of them we should use? Until then, won't change it until further notice. Thanks. Andrew (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 01:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind. Someone just changed it today. But still don't know which one is which. Andrew (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Now there's an edit-warring about this. Can we please discuss about this issue instead of edit-warring? Thanks. Andrew (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it come from an actual digital release (or the official FB page) instead of an unaffiliated website? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Well, yeah. I agree but is there another way to come to a consensus because the other user said that it's a fan made cover but the other disagree and I don't get it. That's why I want to take it up there. Andrew (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Little Mix official facebook page just posted this:  — Calvin999  09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as right now, someone changed the cover on the main page (the one from the link that you provided). Andrew (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there now. — Calvin999  21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, it has been deleted already per copyright violation. Now what can we do? Andrew (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's artwork, why is it being deleted? Artwork is fine to have because there's a specific selection criteria you can select when uploading for it. — Calvin999  09:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The file was uploaded to Commons, which doesn't allow fair use images (unlike the English Wikipedia). Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

Cover for the remix
An editor is claiming that there's no reason to include the remix cover for the song on the article, under the claim that "only one cover is necessary to convey to the reader" and that it violates rule WP:NFCC, but not taking notice that those are different versions of the song, available in different albums: the original version in Glory Days and the latter only in single version. Not to mention, the covers are nothing alike, so he can't argue similarities. And both are widely commercialized. So I believe that it is of extreme importance to keep both covers. Thank You —  Art manha  (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Requested for third opinion. —  Art manha  (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there shouldn't really be a problem with including it, but it's not totally necessary. Pinging and . Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Only include the cover of the remix in addition to the original cover if it has received third party media coverage, i.e. discussing what they are wearing and noting that it is different from the original etc. — Calvin999  09:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but what dispute have I removed exactly? I don't see the relevance of your pinging me and its attached comment. — Calvin999  22:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought that your comment was an third opinion. Never mind. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC specifically states: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", and per this, the remix cover is not required. The main single cover properly conveys significant information alone.  And per point #8, the remix cover is not required to increase a readers' understanding of the article, and its omission is not "detrimental to that understanding".  The remix was never given major exposure, aside from an issue to Spotify, and was never promoted, much unlike the album edit of the song.  Oh, and PS: I never argued "similarities" as I am being accused of.   livelikemusic    talk!  23:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, I can totally agree that this may not be necessary to have an extra cover per the WP:NFCC. Rarity dash  ( talk ) 01:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A second cover is only required if there is significant third party coverage discussing it. — Calvin999  10:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

papa najwa wara cat 2400:9800:861:C57A:B831:7194:C2F8:1045 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)