Commons:Deletion requests/Fake pictures of chemical elements

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Fake pictures of chemical elements|year=2024|month=November|day=22}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Fake pictures of chemical elements|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Fake pictures of chemical elements}} at the end of today's log.
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.

Fake pictures of chemical elements

[edit]

I believe these images should be deleted because they are pure speculations. Although their captions admit that, the images are being inserted into science articles assuming that they adequately illustrate color and other features of the elements. They do not (or at least there is no evidence they do). Bright blue Md is just likely wrong, so as fume-like francium (why fuming? looks like a joke actually). Curium is simply red-painted gadolinium. Artist impression might be acceptable if either (i) nobody has seen the object or (ii) the artist accurately followed the known description - neither is the case here. No slight to the uploader - he had provided lots of useful images otherwise. Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the Wikipedias that use it to sort out. There is no reason why they should be deleted here. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought nobody had ever seen mendelevium, nobelium or lawrencium in such quantities? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, unencyclopedic --Kyknos (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, however, create placeholder image going "Element has not been isolated in macroscopic quantities." or "No image of this element is available." --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (changing vote). These images are obviously in wide use. Deleting them would probably cause a lot of problems over several wikis. These images exist simply because it's very difficult to see such elements, even if they might be wrong; however, since deleting these pictures would probably cause many problems for several wikis, it might be best to keep them for now until similar discussions appear on those wikis.
  • Comment: Added more images from en.wikipedia.
    I have added three more images of the same series kindly linked by Lanthanum-138. Materialscientist (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, unencyclopedic fakes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Commons not Wikipedia. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only  Delete File:Fluorine.jpg, conserv other pictures, it is possible to warn about this fact in articles like here Frakir (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete File:Fluorine.jpg? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No,  Delete ALL, we donna need fake images (e. g. "Of course this is no promethium, but it could look like that."). --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not equal delete. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all. In general it serves no encyclopediac purpose to say "it might look like this if you believe some artist's imagination" for an actual real-world entity that nobody has made an actual free picture for. It does a dis-service to readers to suggest that its appearance is more factually established than it is, and at least some of images are disputed based on actual science reasoning. "Here is a known fake image of this thing" just doesn't seem worthwhile. Rather, some could be photographed and just haven't been (we don't draw stick-figures if a living person doesn't have a free image provided), and others either can't or haven't yet been available in sufficient quantity--that latter actually might be an interesting factoid to put in the articles. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Commons not Wikipedia. This is for the Wikipedias that use this to fix up. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepThere is no such place as Camelot, no such creature as the Loch Ness monster or such a being as Thor, and if they did exist we could not possibly know how they look like, yet still we have images on these topics. "But science is not fiction" you might argue, well yes but that hasn't stopped us from speculating on making educated guesses on how extra solar planets may look like nor of the external appearance of dinosaurs. I concede that the way the images are being used on wikipedia may be misleading; there is nothing in the en wiki article Lanthanide for example to indicate that the image of Promethium is pure conjecture. Only by clicking on the image itself does this fact reveal itself, something that not all readers will do. However this is a problem for wikipedia not Commons.--KTo288 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another look at the Lanthanide article and noticed User:Lanthanum-138's last edit to the page, marking the image as an artist's impression puts to rest most if not all of my unease with its use there, if it can be done for this article why not elsewhere?--KTo288 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note in general, but DR here should not be seen as a way to circumvent or avoid proper discussion at local projects.--KTo288 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be Bold then and edit those wikipedias in which you think it has been mistakenly used. Do not use DR procedures here to short-circuit the consensus of editors on a local project.--KTo288 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be simple enough to rename these inline with File:Protactinium imitation.jpg or under a new scheme e.g. File:Artist's impression of Protactinium.jpg etc. A request can be added at the village pump for users to add additional descriptions in other languages.--KTo288 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, but I did not give my priority: I personally don't see why fake element pictures make sense in an encyclopedia, I'd therefore go for deletion. If anyone sees any use, I'd be of course fine if they'd rename the pictures. --S nova (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(A) It doesn't matter whether we think they make sense in an encyclopedia. Someone working on the encyclopedias thinks it does. (B) Commons is not an encyclopedia. We do not delete files because they can't be used in an encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"seem to stem" ... or maybe not? This is an interpretation on your part. I'd say most "delete" votes represent the opinion of other Commons users, so do the "keep" votes. Let's respect this, please. --S nova (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the people who ignore the fact that policy clearly says that being used on a Wikimedia project means, by definition, that they are usable for educational purposes?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the people who have expressed their opinion on this page. --S nova (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted: All pictures are out of projekt scope, because they transport misleading informations with faked elements. For this reason also the statement is wrong, that "the pictures must be kept, because they are in use". When such "immitations" (Fakes) transport a wrong picture and thus give the reader a wrong understanding of the topic, they are wronlgy placed in the articles and have to be deleted. --Ra'ike T C 12:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fake_pictures_of_chemical_elements&oldid=51605506"