Commons:Deletion requests/File:1462 Christine.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 per this note in my talk page [1], it appears that this image don't show at all Christina of Saxony, but Saint Genevieve of Paris. As this image is widely used, I suggest that it is deleted, and then a redirect created to one of the other files in Category:Christina of Saxony, Queen of Denmark in art Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose conditionally (See here & below.) No reason to delete this nice little crop. We now know who this is (thank you!). The image should be name-changed accordingly, and a St. Genevieve category should be created for the rest of the paintings we have of her. If there's a way, by bot or something, where we could refer all the Christina articles to a legtimate image of her, we should use this one or one of the other versions of it, since that's the only image we have, from her lifetime, that clearly and reliably shows us what she looked like. The editor who uploaded this as "Christina [sic]" (good faith - really?) should be dragged into this and warned, in my opinion. After all these years of trying to be careful on Commons, fake identifications are very tiring to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe deletion is not needed (am I wrong?), and that it's possible to create the redirect from the old file name after this image has gotten a new one I (am I wrong?). As far as I know, a redirect will only refer a user to a new Commons image page. I don't think that automatically replaces the images in all the project articles (am I wrong?). I'm no expert on these things. Need such input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of deletion - I see no eminent reason for keeping this particular picture as a picture of Saint Genevieve of Paris when the same motive can be found in other versions, given the troubles that follows the large number of pages in various languages, that use this picture as Christina of Saxony. The question that troubled me, when I chose to replace this picture on Danish Wikipedia with another picture was: Could Christina have been the model for the picture? Christina was 45 years of age when this painting were made. The queen travled through Europe in 1504, but then returned to Denmark. Lucas Cranach the Elder wasn't employed by her father until the following year 1505 - so if this in any way should depict Christina of Saxony we have to make at least two assumptions, namely 1) That a picture of the young Christina of Saxony existed in 1505-1506 that Lucas Cranach could use for his paiting and 2) that Frederick II, The Gentle, her father, would have asked for and welcomed the depicting of his daughter from her younger days in this manner. Someone seem to have asked these questions previously, and come to the conclussion, that it was possible, but still a presumption. I looked through all the Wikipedia-pages, where this picture are/were in use and in the English Wikipedia we have changed this picture for another. In six other language versions (Hungarian, French, Spanish, German, Czech & Asturian) I've removed this picture all together in order to make it less risky to delete the file and then make a redirect to one of the other files depicting Christina of Saxony. The risk was, that the same image would show up twice on some pages after such a change - this risk is no longer eminent. Therefore I have no objections for the proposed plan for deletion of the file. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: File moved to File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - Saint Genevieve.jpg and CommonsDelinker will do a universal replace. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]