Commons talk:Deletion policy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Deletion policy.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2

Clarification

Can I ask for this page to be edited for a few points?

• I would request clarification for points that editors need to follow, vs. points that all users, including administrators, need to follow. For instance, the statements that certain deletions require discussions; I would assume those applies to all users, but I may be wrong. Perhaps this clarity wasn't needed before, but a recent discussion has prompted a need for real clarity. As an example, do the steps at COM:Redundant apply to administrators, or are they able to simply delete images they find to be overly redundant?
• Would it be beneficial to specifically clarify some topics that are not acceptable as reasons to delete? These could include inaccurate descriptions or filenames (which are easily adjusted) and the idea that a category is "too large". These again came up as points that one user found as the primary reasons to wish images' deletions, and are not valid. This could be a start, and prevent people with issues managing files from simply deleting them outright. See also for instance policies with lists of how not to apply them: Non-criteria (WP:SPEEDY), What harassment is not, What is not original research. ɱ (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I posted to that discussion. About categories being too large: we do have at least one deletion policy based on that: COM:Nudity#New uploads. At least de facto, we also have a similar policy in regard to portraits: if they are of non-notable individuals, they have to meet a rather high standard of quality and/or have some other interesting aspect (such as striking clothing, being a stock photo of someone doing something in particular, etc.) to be kept. I can't think of other categories in which otherwise in-scope photos that are not of absolutely unusable quality are normally deleted just because the category is numerous, but those existing guidelines point the way to others that could be decided on through discussion and consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The nudity policy's paragraph here could be tweaked and applied to clarify COM:Redundant. An image or video of decent quality which does provide additional useful information, e.g. about the background and age of the individual or relevant vital statistics, might indeed be useful. Likewise, a file that is sufficiently different from existing files should generally be kept. A new file of decent quality may mean that a similar poor image or video can be deleted.. ɱ (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

For instances like the ones in my recent discussion, relating to buildings, there really is no limit to the usefulness of additional photos. Different photos will have different lighting, resolution, focus, and will be taken at different times of day, seasons, and years, meaning the buildings will show at different ages, with different maintenance levels, and in different changing surroundings. All of these variables have their uses in commonscats and Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard disagree there. If you want a comparable sitituation chekout the various "all stamps of the Soviet Union" categories that currently exit. In the categories are multiple images the same stamps where the only difference between a lot of them is essentially a slight tweak in the hue or whatever. While in the meantime it makes the categories essentially unusable and it massively scues any search done for images of stamps toward most of the results being for stamps of the Soviet Union. It's totally unmanagable. There's nothing inherent to the purpose of Commons to give people every possible image of a subject either. If they want an image of a building, stamp, or whatever that is slightly lighter then there's Photoshop. Or at least upload a new version of the original image, but even then it's not really the purpose of the project or at all workable. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about image effects at all. I agree that "slight tweak in the hue" is not permissible. My actual proposal is to clarify as a reason not to delete being: "category is too large". "Too large" is not an issue warranting deletions, though redundant files that bloat a category actually may very well warrant them. (in other words, the category size is a result of the problem, not the root of the problem, and category size in of itself is not problematic to warrant deletions.) ɱ (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You brought up lighting, resolution, and focus. To me those are effects. Regardless though, I think we should have the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject and then leave it at that. At the end of the day the difference between a 300 dpi or 600 dpi image is negligible. There's nothing you can do with a 300 DPI image that you can't with one that's 600 DPI. Both probably work perfectly fine for Wikipedia and there's zero reason we would need the same image in both resolutions anyway. Otherwise it just leads to people throwing tantrums if someone uploads a better version of an image and nominates theirs for deletion because it's inferior. Like with the stamps, I have a ton of stamps from the Soviet Union that I create much better versions then we currently have from, but the person who uploaded most of the current images thinks multiple images of the same stamp in different resolutions is fine, and will throw a fit if I upload better versions and nominate theirs for deletion. So why would I bother? I'm not going to take the time to create a superior scan of a stamp if it's not going to replace the inferior quality ones though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Category is too large" IMO is often a reason for creating subcategories - for example if the category is a notable building, one might create a separate category for the interior, views of the front, views of back, or if there are some significant details, etc. Mediocre or poor quality photos that essentially duplicate views shown in higher quality photos, IMO, (with a few exceptions) are more likely to be a minor problem than something requiring immediate drastic attention, and listing for deletion discussion generally seems preferable to unilateral deletion. (What may seem to me to be just another mediocre photo of a building may have some compensating significance to someone more familiar with the subject, eg "Hey, that's the only photo we have after the old steeple was hit by lightning and before the new one replaced it!") -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Nudity is indeed an unusual case - mostly for cultural reasons - with "penis selfies" being the most frequent problem. That human anatomy and sexuality are within project scope does not seem to me to be an invitation for everyone with a penis to take (generally poorly lit and badly composed) photo of their genitalia, but some other people seem not to understand the distinction - either that, or they just like showing photos of their genitalia and mistakenly think Commons is an appropriate place for that. It's an unfortunate cultural quirk, and we should recognize that - which is why we do not get similarly numerous (usually poor quality) snapshots of people's little toes or accumulations of dust in the corners of rooms. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Adamant1, I'd like you to clarify what you mean by "I think we should have the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject and then leave it at that." I hope you're not suggesting that when we vote at COM:VIC on which image is best in scope that the rest of the images in scope should then be summarily deleted. That would suck! And it is certainly not Commons policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree. I have a hard time thinking of subjects where a single image is inherently more informative than multiple good images. (If there are any such cases, I would think they would be exceedingly rare.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. It depends on the circumstances, the subject depicted in the photographs, and what metric we are using to determine what makes something the "best" image. Obviously that doesn't mean we should delete everything that isn't a Valued image. But for something like say most of the images in Category:2018 National Antique Oldsmobile Club National Meet for example, there's no reason to keep the duplicates. Seriously, what purpose does it serve to have both 1950_Oldsmobile_88_"Woody"_Wagon,_Shoreview,_MN_(42215142845).jpg and File:1950_Oldsmobile_88_"Woody"_Wagon,_Shoreview,_MN_(43069630132).jpg? Just decide which image is "better" and delete the inferior one. Same goes for this image and this one. How exactly is it more informative to have duplicate images of that car instead of just a single image? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

For the second pair, you linked the same file twice. For the first pair, one photo is brighter and the other doesn't have a person in it, so I would oppose deleting either one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I fixed the link. They should be different images now. As to the first two, cool you oppose deleting them. That answer the question of what having both more useful or informative then only have a single image. I don't think just because one image has 2 inches of the back of someone's arm in the foreground means it's any more or less informative then the image that doesn't. Same goes for the difference in lighting. If one of them is to dark to use, then keep the one that isn't. Otherwise, the differences are superficial and uninformative at best. The only extra information we are getting from having both is that the photographer thought the first image wasn't good enough. So they took another one. That's essentially it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Almost identical photos taken same concurrently from the same viewpoint. The statement "the best (whatever that means) possible image of a particular subject" might be construed to mean something like only the best image of a 1950 Oldsmobile 88 "Woody" Wagon - whereas I'd say different examples of the different vehicles of that model, as well as photos of an individual example taken from different angles (front, back, left side, etc), would all be useful. I would have taken multiple photos of that vehicle - but from different angles, showing different sides of the car! Yes, near duplicates taken from essentially identical locations don't seem too useful to me. If I were photographing and took more than one near identical to make sure I got the shot, I would have generally kept the best and deleted the others. But different photographers make different choices. If I don't see the near dupes as particularly useful, neither do I see them as harmful. If one or the other of those two sets were listed for deletion, I'd have no opinion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think w:WP:SHED is a good reason to not delete either of them. Ultimately, deleting an image doesn't save any space, and no significant harm comes from having both images. Sure, it might have been better to just have one of them to avoid clutter, but choosing which one is better is hard and potentially controversial, so it's just not worth the effort to decide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it causes harm in a single instance either, but nothing does. The problem is that it just doesn't scale. Especially when there's multiple metrics for what supposedly makes something a unique, separate image from the "original." There's other examples where it's like 5 "duplicate" images of the same automobile from essentially the same perspective. There's got to be a point where it's needlessly excessive to have multiple images of the same object from similar perspectives regardless of it causes harm or not. Not that I'm advocating for having those or any other "duplicate" images deleted. I just think there should be reasonable standards for when they are allowed and when they aren't so it doesn't become an issue in the first place, or at least not more so then it is already. People are already prone to have a tolerance for sorting through a bunch of cruft to find what they are looking for without us adding to it by expecting them to sort through images that are only superficially different at best, if not the same in a lot of cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the tedious work of deciding which ones are redundant, especially if it needs to be discussed – or checked, if you don't trust the nominator, and often you shouldn't trust them on seeing small but important differences. The short-term solution is to create galleries with the best images. In a longer run we might get tools that find similar images, so that you don't have to look through all of them yourself. –LPfi (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree deciding which ones are redundant is tedious work. Especially considering the high amount of obfuscation that would likely be involved. I don't think the work shouldn't be done just because a small group of people have nothing better to do then make everything on here a super tedious, up-hill battle though. I guess it could be solved through making the "good" ones quality images or something, but that just seems like a temporary workaround to something that needs a more long-term solution then nominating random files to be quality images just so they are easier to organize. Same goes for tools that find similar images. It's a good idea, but doesn't actually solve the issue. Especially considering those tools don't even exist yet and probably never will. No one is clamoring to change how categories work or wants to create a new way to organize files either. Otherwise I'd probably have a different position. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)