Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 November 20

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'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:In-Q-Tel logo in color (2021).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fixinghealthcaredaily (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Overlapping ellipses and text aren't past TOO/US JayCubby 00:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 06:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Taylor Swift - Opalite (audio snippet).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nielsoncaetanosalmeron (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Too high of a quality for non-free audio; .ogg tends to have a higher quality than .mp3. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Changed to quality to a lower bitrate (64 kbps). Nielsoncaetanosalmeron (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 04:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2025 November 27. ✗plicit 14:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:M by Judi Dench.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Dead Or Alive - Brand New Lover.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dawnseeker2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

pointless, the audio snippet is not used for commentary and is placed directly under the YouTube link to the full song. Cavarrone 10:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:MS-DOS Executive, Windows 1.04.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Coldacid (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Simple textual layout possibly below TOO JayCubby 13:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly}} ✗plicit 00:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris Saint-Germain F.C..svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Maybe this could be Public Domain, or more likely PD-US. The only maybe copyrightable element is the fleur de lis, and the New Orleans Saints couldn't copyright theirs. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. See meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging for further information. ✗plicit 00:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Mahsa Amini skull CT scan September 2022.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rolf h nelson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Diagnostic medical images created solely through a machine (X-rays, so likely also CT/MRI) are PD-US JayCubby 21:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. there is nothing remotely creative on these medical images. This is PD. Bedivere (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep in the song article only. ✗plicit 00:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Shirley Bassey - Diamonds are Forever.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Leafy46 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

sample of title theme not contextually significant to the whole film soundtrack. moved caption into prose George Ho (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Creator comment: Would the sample work better if it were moved to the page of the film itself? It is the title track of a film in a series very much known for its title themes. Leafy46 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Info about the eponymous theme song in Diamonds Are Forever (film)#Music is barebones. Also, there's already a film poster, and the sample (of the theme song) wouldn't improve much understanding about the whole film, anyways. Best not to put it anywhere in the whole project, IMO. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC); edited, 02:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Per updates made by Widgetkid, backing down on the omission suggestion for now. Honestly, didn't think a song article was worth creating at first, but... George Ho (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That's... a really aggressive comment, but okay. I respect your opinion on the matter. For the record, I think that there may be enough information around the song to put together an article for the song (between its charting, its sample in Diamonds from Sierra Leone, and its rankings in bond themes), but I'm also not interested in doing that. Leafy46 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, but... I have created a long-overdue article for the song itself, where the composition and audio elements are discussed. Recommend removing from the soundtrack article and leaving on song article. @Leafy46, aggressive is how the @George Ho do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 😂

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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'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 00:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:MKW Cow Concept Sketch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Captain Galaxy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. as File:MKW Cow render.png suffices. Also arguably fails WP:NFCC#8, as a second image doesn't significantly enhance the article, even though this specific sketch is mentioned in the text. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep. It's not uncommon to use concept art to illustrate the growth and development of a character, and in this case, it also provides an image of the Cow driving, which the lead image does not. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Creator keep: I disagree that the file fails WP:NFCC#3a as it is the art itself that is the focal point of the given section of the article as it is tied to the Cow's development as a playable character, rather than that being a simple depiction of the character. This is further proven to be the case by the nominator as to mention the fact that the article's text mentions the concept art in-question. It has contextual significance to the actual article, ergo, it shouldn't violate WP:NFCC#8 either. CaptainGalaxy 17:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It is virtually identical to the final render besides the vehicle, so it doesn't show how the character changed from the concept art to final phase, like, say, Gordon Freeman's article. It seems like it's just there to add flavor, which is not how non-free copyrighted images should be used. If showing how the cow drives is an issue, the main image can be swapped with one showing the cow driving a kart rather than just standing there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – It seems like it's just there to add flavor. Not really. Sure, this Cow character is non-playable, and showing Cow driving is... well, hardly surprising. However, the infobox image is a three-dimensional artwork, and this nominated image uses two dimensions. Hard to visualize how Cow would appear in flat drawings without this image, honestly. Compare this with "The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour". George Ho (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Even if you consider going from 2D to 3D a huge change, which I don't, there is still the issue of NFCC #8 which is whether it "significantly" increases readers' understanding. Given that the designs are nearly identical, the only possible thing you could argue in this instance is that it shows how Cow drives the vehicle, but that is doable with a replacement of the original 3D image if it is strictly necessary (which I also do not believe either). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  On the basis of NFCC #8, the art not only has the added benefit of depicting the cow driving, but as I stated in my last comment, this image does hold significant relevance to the Cow's development as a playable character. It is the image itself that is intrinsically tied to the character's development. It was not there to simply add flavour, it was there to demonstrate what it was that triggered the developers to have the idea to not only convert the Cow into a playable racer, but create an entirely new mechanic; which I do not believe could be justified simply with text. And I would also agree with George Ho above that the dimensions of the artwork changing to also be a factor. That being said, on the notion that we could just have the Cow driving in the infobox, me and a couple other editors attempted to do this off-wiki. However, since there isn't an official render of the Cow driving provided by Nintendo, all we are left is in-game screenshots, which we agreed just ended up becoming too busy for an infobox image. I think how the article handles the two images is perfectly fine as is. CaptainGalaxy 11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I do not think a screenshot like this one, properly cropped, would be unsuitable as the main image, if as you claim showing the Cow riding a bike is highly important. It's still clearly visible - any concerns about the background being there or not are just second fiddle to the information it depicts to the reader. It proves that the drawing is not required to depict the cow riding something. I also think that with enough time in Photoshop it could be cropped out entirely, even though that isn't strictly necessary.

  I do think the argument that the image itself compelled Cow's addition to the game is a more convincing one, but at the same time I do think that "the Cow driving a truck" is something that can be reasonably extrapolated from an image of Cow driving a different vehicle. It would essentially have to depict something that the reader could not form a mental image of without additional imagery, so I'm still unconvinced myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for the late response. I had considered the image at the time of writing the article but inevitably decided against using it due to the aforementioned to the aformentioned background, which I found somewhat harder to crop (not out of my realm of possibility though). However, the other render provided a simpler cropping process and was much cleaner to use, as I found the in-game select screen render more appropriate for the infobox image. The concept art then provides two functions as I believe the artwork is connected to the Cow's development, which is inline with other concept art images on VGC articles. CaptainGalaxy 00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Zxcvbnm. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Per @Cukie Gherkin. Shows character development over time.

 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.