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

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.

File:First Upper Canada Parliament, destroyed in the war of 1812.gif

[edit]

A speedy was placed on this image, claiming it was an "exact duplicate" of File:First Upper Canada Parliament, destroyed in the war of 1812 -b.jpg. I removed the speedy, changing this to regular deletion discussion. Either one of the images is based on the other, or they are both based on an earlier sketch. They are not duplicates. I looked, for years, for an image of these historic building. I looked in vain. Now that we have found some I see no reason why we shouldn't maintain multiple versions. Granted, one is of a higher quality than the other, but when the building is as historic as this, I think it is worth keeping them both. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously an inferior version and copy of the exactly the same original. The buildings are exactly the same, the trees are exactly the same, the stick people are the same. What is different? This version should be removed solely on the grounds of its poor quality and could also have been tagged as being "Out of scope". To me this is simple house keeping. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior? Yes. Duplicate? No.
A week or two ago I uploaded some images of the Category:Sherbourne Blockhouse, Toronto. It was the last of seven blockhouses, built after the Upper Canada Rebellion, to guard the approaches to Toronto, in case there were another rebellion. They were soon abandoned, and by the time the Sherbourned Blockhouse was the last one, it was apparently considered a romantic ruin that amateur artists used to sketch. About a dozen of those sketches and paintings survived. And, I found a scholarly work was written, comparing those surviving versions,and trying to confirm who made them, and which copies and which were drawn in situ. Several of them were taken from exactly the same outlooks -- because they were the most convenient outlooks. I think all of those images would be in scope. The same would apply to the first Parliament buildings. I think it would apply even more strongly to the first Parliament buildings, as those images were far more historic.
How are these two images different? The two images are completely different at the stroke level. While you are correct, that the pair of figures in the foreground are similar, they are not identical. In the other image you can see the rightmost figure has a walking stick or cane. The other image also has 3 figures using the walkway between the two buildings.
Just as with the Sherbourne Blockhouse scholars would be interested in a complete collection of the surviving images, so they can write about their provenance and historical accuracy. That puts all images in scope, even one much cruder than this.
{{Duplicate}} is only supposed to be used on "exact duplicates".
If the building displayed was not a historic image, I would agree that the other image had more artistic merit, and that an argument could be made it should be kept, due to artistic merit. But it is the historic merit that counts here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF do some other images have to do with this? Everything you say about them are true, but totally irrelevant. The differences between these images under discussion that you have cited are only because of the poor quality of this one. As I have said, all I was doing was a little housekeeping. If you perceive these to be different, by all means retain them both, with my condolences. This is not really "historical", it's "hysterical". Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please. Are you acknowledging that the images were not "exact duplicates", ineligible for speedy deletion as duplicative? You wrote above that the image could have been nominated for speedy deletion as being "out of scope". However, since three wikipedia article use(d) this image: Ontario Legislative Building, Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada, List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto, will you acknowledge that all images that are in use are automatically in scope?

    As to what the blockhouse images have to do with this image -- it is another building where we keep every image, not just the best image, due to the historical value of all the images.

    WRT your "hysterical" comment, could you confine yourself to policy-compliant comments? Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep 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 {{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. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as per the request of the uploader, who perceives differences between the two versions. Replace all useage of this inferior one. I cannot do that myself, because it would be considered a conflict of interest. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call for closure please. Nominator has agreed to keep the image, and I changed the three instances where it was used on en.wiki to use one of the newer, superior images. Geo Swan (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close for a keep (because you would like to keep the image) or close for a delete (because you've removed the impediment to deleting it due to COM:SCOPE)? I think at this point we'll simply defer to your wishes, Geo. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Rather than simply close this as a delete, in deference to George's passion for this image, I'll add my two cents. As far as I can tell, the two images are scans of the same drawing. If you change the mode of the larger image to B&W and resample it down by a factor of four to the same size as the subject, you are left with an image that is virtually identical to the subject image. The differences noted above are simply sampling artifacts. The scale of the drawing is approximately 2.5 inches per pixel, so that the missing cane would be less than half a pixel wide and therefore does not appear. The people on the walk between the buildings are there in the subject image, but not recognizable as people -- their torsos are only ten pixels wide in the larger image so that when you cut that by a factor of four, you have only two or three pixels left. A person two pixels wide doesn't look very much like a human. I see no reason to keep a much inferior copy of the same original. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Duplicate file with no particular additional value over its dupe. James F. (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:First_Upper_Canada_Parliament,_destroyed_in_the_war_of_1812.gif&oldid=454716323"