Commons:Deletion requests/File:Explicit wmf.OGG
This falls under "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". Specifically, it is in every way inferior to a userpage gallery of the images listed below. Lumping the photos into a video collection by zooming and panning with Picasa brings them up to 26.5 MB with no increase in quality or artistic value, and arguably misrepresents the files by cropping, separates them from any easy way to read associated documentation or to see what projects they are in use under. Some user page galleries may be banned from Commons under Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories, but they are in all ways preferable to this video, which does not add so much as a line of text, and to which other editors can't add anything new without burdening the servers with another 30 MB or so for every revision. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Over 20 Mb for this bad porn? We need to contact youporn. Plus per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep - is simply a simply generated slideshow using free content, uploaded to seek collaboration on the production of a voiceover script to raise awareness and discuss issues relating to the hosting of sexually explicit material on wmf projects. Could those considering deletion possibly indicate whether or not they feel hosting such 'meta' discussion is appropriate for commons, or perhaps such sort of 'inward facing' material should be restricted here, maybe to be hosted on meta instead? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon, if you want to see something like that, go to youporn or related sites. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete only possible use is for soapboxing about pornography on commons. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- is soapboxing the synonymous with taking a position in a meta discussion? ;-) - Would a presentation intended to advocate a position within a meta discussion be 'within scope' for hosting here on commons? - sort of like a video version of a user 'essay'. Truth is, I'm making (slow) progress in collaboration on the voiceover script for this presentation, which I sincerely believe raises some important issues which are vital for both the wmf and the wmf projects communities (including commons) to grapple with. The presentation is intended to be both fun and serious at the same time - if you've got any ideas for how to improve it, flick me a note and let's do it :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have made your position clear many times. Please don't use commons as a repository of materials used in your soapboxing. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- well yeah - but all this presentation is is a combination of materials already on commons, no? - There's an important point underneath all this, Enric - you seem to be advocating deletion based on who uploaded it, and why - does that really make sense to you? Privatemusings (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I advocate deletion because the only possible use of the combination is for soapboxing about nude images in commons. It doesn't matter whose soapboxing it is, or who created the compilation, or who uploaded it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- well yeah - but all this presentation is is a combination of materials already on commons, no? - There's an important point underneath all this, Enric - you seem to be advocating deletion based on who uploaded it, and why - does that really make sense to you? Privatemusings (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have made your position clear many times. Please don't use commons as a repository of materials used in your soapboxing. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral On one hand, I believe that we should be able to upload things for user essays and discussion about Commons. On the other, it's very much the wrong format, even if we don't support any presentation formats. It's a huge awkward file that would be almost as well supported by a gallery, which would be a lot more easy to edit and a lot better connected to the history, description, and external usages of the files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The file adds nothing to the individual files, and furthermore doesn't seemed to be really needed anymore since the dispute calmed down a while ago DieBuche (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)