Commons:Deletion requests/File:First Upper Canada Parliament, destroyed in the war of 1812.gif

‎File:First Upper Canada Parliament, destroyed in the war of 1812.gif: + comment
← Older revision
Revision as of 18:20, 20 March 2013
Line 17:
Line 17:
 

 

 
::::I repeat: "If you perceive these to be different, by all means retain them both". You are entitled to your interpetation, but I don't care. I was trying to do some housekeeping and cleanup redundancy, because of the obvious duplication. The evangalical hysterical ranting manner that you use to pursue this trivial matter is quite amusing. [[User:Secondarywaltz|Secondarywaltz]] ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|talk]]) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::I repeat: "If you perceive these to be different, by all means retain them both". You are entitled to your interpetation, but I don't care. I was trying to do some housekeeping and cleanup redundancy, because of the obvious duplication. The evangalical hysterical ranting manner that you use to pursue this trivial matter is quite amusing. [[User:Secondarywaltz|Secondarywaltz]] ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|talk]]) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
−
*{{vk}} These are duplicates. To the extent this one looks different, it is due to the fact that it is such poor quality and low resolution. Secondarywaltz's original tagging was fair and reasonable, and the {{tl|duplicate}} tag was appropriate.

Having said that, Geo was perfectly entitled to disagree (which Secondarywaltz quite obviously doesn't dispute). The initial uploading of this image onto the Commons was very much welcome, despite its low quality and resolution, because at the time it was the only image we had of the subject. Happily, Geo has since uploaded two better quality images of the subject, one a duplicate of this one.

While it is not unusual for us to keep two versions of the same image, even duplicates (e.g. sepia and B&W versions of the same historic photo, uploaded from different sources), that practice usually doesn't kick in where one version is of such low quality as to be out of scope. However, this particular image cannot be deleted due to [[COM:SCOPE]] as it is used for the time being on Wikipedia. Moreover, I have seen instances where we defer to "keep" simply where a long-time Commons contributor thinks it is important to keep an image.

Normally, I would recommend that Secondarywaltz take the issue up at Wikipedia, and see about getting consensus for replacing instances of this poor quality version with one of the better images uploaded by Geo. However, Secondarywaltz obviously never anticipated spending this much time and energy on what he reasonably perceived as a clean-up exercise. So, I suspect we will just keep this image for the time being, unless factors change. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
+
*{{vk}} These are duplicates. To the extent this one looks different, it is due to the fact that it is such poor quality and low resolution. Secondarywaltz's original tagging was fair and reasonable, and the {{tl|duplicate}} tag was appropriate.

Having said that, Geo was perfectly entitled to disagree (which Secondarywaltz quite obviously doesn't dispute). The initial uploading of this image onto the Commons was very much welcome, despite its low quality and resolution, because at the time it was the only image we had of the subject. Happily, Geo has since uploaded two better quality images of the subject, one a duplicate of this one.

While it is not unusual for us to keep two versions of the same image, even duplicates (e.g. sepia and B&W versions of the same historic photo, uploaded from different sources), that practice usually doesn't kick in where one version is of such low quality as to be out of scope. However, this particular image cannot be deleted due to [[COM:SCOPE]] as it is used for the time being on Wikipedia. Moreover, I have seen instances where we defer to "keep" simply where a long-time Commons contributor thinks it is important to keep an image.

Normally, I would recommend that Secondarywaltz take the issue up at Wikipedia, and see about getting consensus for replacing instances of this poor quality version with one of the better images uploaded by Geo. However, Secondarywaltz obviously never anticipated spending this much time and energy on what he reasonably perceived as a clean-up exercise, and I do not think he would be interested. So, I suspect we will just keep this image for the time being, unless factors change. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:First_Upper_Canada_Parliament,_destroyed_in_the_war_of_1812.gif&diff=92958442&oldid=92958299