Category talk:Stained glass windows of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Blurred, unsharp photos of poor quality[edit]

We wonder about so many blurred, unsharp photos of poor quality. Schnobby (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

These photos have now to be put in : Category:Stained glass windows of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres Fuzzy images. --Le Passant (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll delete those that are not usable (since they are out of project scope). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Micheletb: Out of scope candidates must not be speedied single-handedly but submitted to a regular deletion request. Please undelete them and open a deletion request using the Perform batch task function for the fuzzy image category. Even blurred photographs that will never be used for a Wikipedia article can be helpful if there exist no other photographs of an object or viewpoint. This is to be checked collaboratively, not in a rush without interaction. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you really think any file I have deleted should have been kept ? My approach there was "just do it if necesary". I have kept those where no other viewpoint or photographs were available - actually, your suggestion of batch deletion would have been inappropriate. The rest failed to "be realistically useful for an educational purpose" (as you can easely check). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Micheletb: This is not the point. The uploader was not even informed, his or her images simply gone. A regular deletion request pointing out that File:France Eure-et-Loir Chartres Cathedrale Vitraux 03.jpg is no longer necessary as we have File:Chartres - cathédrale - lancettes de la rosace ouest.jpg would have been better. Or take File:Cathedrale nd chartres eglise basse046.jpg where likewise the uploader has not been notified. You might argue that we also have File:Cathedrale nd chartres eglise basse045.jpg but in the latter description you see no hint about the artist in the description. The description of the file which you deleted so carelessly points out that this stained glass window was created by Père Couturier in 1946. As we have no freedom of panorama in France, we would have to delete both copies until 1 January 2025. I've filed a deletion request for it. So please consider Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion where you will not find out of scope as criteria. Instead, I recommend to undo the deletions, to file a regular deletion request using the batch tool (you do not have to submit the entire category, just select the photographs you have speedied before), and let it run. This notifies all uploaders and gives all the opportunity to review this. Most likely all or nearly all of them will be deleted again but then in accordance to our rules which allow all to participate including the uploaders. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that all of them would be deleted again, so the whole matter is simply a waste of time. Can you point out a single deletion that is even slightly dubious? Most of the "best ones" are the holes in User:Harmonia Amanda/gallery#Mon Aug 24 21:03:35 CEST 2009 (watch out, the page takes time to load) I was baffled to see such a good photographer could publish such poor photographs. The rest is just rubbish. Just realize that your example was one of the best (watch that one picked at random!)
As for the general case, of course "out of scope" should be proposed to deletion. But then, when the case is obvious, the usual Wikipedia rule is just "ignore the rule and do for the best" - it is not a game we should be playing "by the rules", rules are made to facilitate the decision process, not to clutter the deletion requests with trivial cases.
These ~150 photographs had been reviewed by Le Passant in january 2016, who set apart those that were to blurry to be usable. I've then reviewed all of these cases, identified the corresponding stain glass window, and checked their possible alternatives (which you can see at the deletion rhythm). There has been nothing careless about these deletions. So the whole series has actually been reviewed twice, and the 26 remaining are the only ones where some kind of marginal usage may be thought of (and they have been categorized so as to know where to use them if necessary...).
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Various sources[edit]