Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Worst images
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As discussion on the talk page and at COM:VPR shows, this is a bad idea which falls outside of COM:SCOPE as it does not aim to improve Commons content. A WikiProject on "bad images" might make sense if the aim was to identify images not worth keeping, and nominating them for deletion and/or replacing any uses. Some sort of "do this, don't do that" photography/design guide could also be helpful. This "worst images" gallery is not. Rd232 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, you actually admitted that don't do that may be appropriate. Should such "don't do" be illustrated indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Don't do" may be illustrated, but only if it is accompanied by do that. Good examples would be images that have been improved through processing (before and after) or similar images where the other one is clearly better, for reasons clearly explained to the reader. This completely different from your "worst" concept. Rd232 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, you actually admitted that don't do that may be appropriate. Should such "don't do" be illustrated indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. An image is either in scope, or out of scope. If it is in scope, there can be worse images that are in scope. If it is out of scope, it is to be deleted. Maybe you can use a scanned drawing to show how it is worse than an SVG of the same thing (in a constructive text on what it is better to do, not what not to), but not on a page with such a name. --AVRS (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does COM:SCOPE say something about quality? Certainly, bad images clearly out of the scope have to be deleted, but what about images theoretically in scope, but those use is impractical? Such as File:TRIANGULO OBTUSANGULO.JPG and similar crappy drawings. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- If there is a better alternative, that file is covered by Commons:SCOPE#Examples: “not realistically useful for an educational purpose”, “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.” --AVRS (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does COM:SCOPE say something about quality? Certainly, bad images clearly out of the scope have to be deleted, but what about images theoretically in scope, but those use is impractical? Such as File:TRIANGULO OBTUSANGULO.JPG and similar crappy drawings. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete If you make galleries of bad images (claiming that they are bad), people might stop uploading images because they are afraid of having them added to that gallery. Instead, propose bad images for deletion as out of scope (unless they are in use). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- One may stop uploading, contributing or do something else useful because s/he's afraid or disaffected of something rather arbitrary. For example, many users detest images of genitalia, and I hate JPEG images with solidly filled forms and Spanish inscriptions. So what? See comments about "the scope" above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Images with Spanish labels are very much in scope. (Translations are always good of course.) Rd232 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I said about a certain kind of JPEG drawings, any experienced Commons-surfer should understood. You may read again what I wrote. Key words: "quality" and "impractical". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Images with Spanish labels are very much in scope. (Translations are always good of course.) Rd232 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- One may stop uploading, contributing or do something else useful because s/he's afraid or disaffected of something rather arbitrary. For example, many users detest images of genitalia, and I hate JPEG images with solidly filled forms and Spanish inscriptions. So what? See comments about "the scope" above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This page seems to have be made to point finger and laugh, rather than something constructive. DarkoNeko 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. This edit seems to confirm DarkoNeko's analysis of the page's purpose. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus for deletion. Purpose of the page has not been explicited, nor its usefulness for the project demonstrated. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)