Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:Small images
I don't see the purpose of this category. There are many thousands of small images around here. If necessary they could be captured by their dimensions/resolutions or their file size. --Leyo 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose should be similary like Category:Blurred images:"The images included on this category could be candidates for deletion if an identical image with an improved quality is provided."--Wst question 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the real benefit of such a category. A small image (small in number of pixels or small in bytes) can be a good image and worthwile for Commons
- you have an example?--Wst question 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Yes, see File:Yes_check.svg of 3 kb Wouter (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- as there are large immages that are bad. I prefer more a category "bad images" for images that probably never will be used by others because of its bad quality and lacking info and the availability of better images. Blurred images can also be put in that category. Wouter (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- "bad images" OK. I agree--Wst question 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Just as a remark: The category currently contains several SVG images. --Leyo 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have thought about it. When a bad image falls in the Category:Media needing categories there is not a real problem. In fact these images remain hidden for most of the users of Commons. Yes it fills up storage place but I think that the effort in the steps to have it deleted can be better used for categorizing good images, to make nice galleries, etc.
The main problem is when there are bad images in a category or gallery. It makes it more difficult to find good images and it gives the impression that Commons contains many rubbish images. My personal approach would be when I see a bad image in a category, to check if it is used in any Wikipedia article. If not then I will put it in the category “bad images”. If there comes no reaction let’s say within a month, of somebody about putting the image in the “bad images” category, the image can be nominated for deletion automatically. The advantage is that bad images are deleted that are uploaded by users who don’t care about what they uploaded. This saves time of discussion. Wouter (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I still would delete this unneeded category. We now have the new Category:Bad images. --Leyo 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the aim of this category simply could be to know if a picture is small. Similar to the Category:Black and white photographs, that doesn't mean that the photo is bad in any way and should be deleted, but merely it's Black and white; so the user may decide what to do with the photo. If someone is searching for a small image, he could take advantage of a category Small images! --Frank C. Müller (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- See the last sentence of my first posting. --Leyo 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment A couple of points - deleting images here does not actually save any space (which is why we can undelete images quickly too). We don't delete "superseded" images either. Categories contain all revisions of images, if there is lots of poor quality or redundant images to sort through then create a gallery for that subject. There is not really any reason to delete either small images or "bad" images even if they are not used, or have been superseded. If they are so chronically bad (unfocused or extraordinarily bad quality), with no conceivable use apart from an example of bad images and we have an alternative, then yes, ok, nominate them for deletion.
- Category:Bad images is not very useful because it is so subjective, much better to categorize them in something like Category:Blurred images or Category:Small images which is somewhat more objective and a large number of people can agree what should be there. What is the criteria for putting something into Category:Bad images ? There is practically nothing in that category that I would nominate for deletion on the basis of just poor quality. There are a wealth of categories under Category:Images for cleanup, including Category:Images of low quality. Category:Bad images is too much of a scatter gun collection of images, including some images just wrongly added eg File:M0307543.gif, File:ACC_basical_SVG_tutorial.svg.
- Without some means of finding images by resolution, we do need some sort of size categories. Something like small, medium, large, extra large. Small are images most useful in icon or thumbnail uses only. Medium is anything large enough to show useful detail, mainly useful on webpages. Large suitable for printing say a 6"x4" photo. Extra large, poster printing size. These could be combined with aspect ratio categories, square, 4:3, widescreen, panorama. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Closing thread: category can be used to identify small-sized images. -- User:Docu at 10:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)