Commons:Deletion requests/File:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png

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:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png

[edit]

Low quality, very low resolution (106 × 212 pixels, file size: 28 KB). Poor color. It looks gray compared to the other images and there is no gray version of the controller -- only black, white, red purple and woodgrain, making this look like a poorly colored white image. There is a high resolution console image with controllers showing in the same Intellivision Amico section and its article already and a detailed description in the text. Daltonsatom (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons: This user has spilled over from English Wiki, where they are upset that the Gif image they inserted into the article has been removed by multiple editors (4 and counting) as overtly promotional. The image nominated is an extraction from the same gif, hence it's resolution. As the original GIF has permissions, the extraction itself is fine and is being used explicitly to illustrate the controller outside of the promotional content of the gif. All complaints about the image's quality, resolution or color stem from the fact that that is the way the GIF shows the controller. Frankly this should be speedy closed if Commons has such a criteria. There is no valid rational for deletion given, and this is spill over of a English Wiki content dispute. See w:en:Talk:Intellivision_Amico#Inclusion_of_File:Intellivision_Amico_Controller.gif -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful image, currently used in article. This is the only still image of a front-facing Intellivision Amico controller, so COM:Redundant does not apply. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding The Ferret's comment: He should listen to WP:AGF, rather than make comments like "If your negativity doesn't improve, I will improve it for you." The gif he speaks of was about first time vistors removing a gif without discussion. The gif had been approved by admin several months ago with no challenges until a bunch of guys just showed up together, one with no viewable edit history. I said I wanted the admin present to decide if it should stay or be removed. I did not complain about the admin decision to remove it. This issue, however, is about a decision by others to use a poor quality static image that is unnecessary and its discussion should be considered as WP:AGF. To tie the two together is to assume bad faith. If they really want such an image of the controller, I don't see why they can't obtain a high resolution one in the same way the console image and animated gif were obtained. WP:FILESIZE "images should be uploaded at high resolution whether or not this seems "necessary" for the use immediately contemplated‍" Daltonsatom (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is the "approval" you're referring to on the gif a VRT ticket? That just means Commons won't delete it for not having a verifiable license because you directly verified the license with a volunteer who may or may not have had the adminstrator user group on their account. Admins on English Wikipedia (who may not be the same users as Commmons admins) don't generally make "approvals" on article content, that's usually handled by editors coming to consensus via either edits or (often) discussion, and in this case I think it's clear that the consensus is not to use the gif and that the derivative png is an adequate replacement. (I, for instance, removed the gif because it read as clearly promotional to me and did not realize I was going to get pulled into a contentious discussion. When I got pinged for that discussion I civilly shared my thoughts, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.) You can't just strongarm your way into your preferred outcome by misapplying policies and processes like these. Further, referencing assuming good faith here falls apart a bit when that comment was made after a long spate of uncivil behavior (both generally and directly aimed at users who disagreed with you, which you continued after that point anyway). (ferret's remark might have been a bit WP:BITE-y but it wasn't a remark made in a vacuum.) Anyhow, to get back on the topic of the deletion nomination and not the cross-wiki content dispute, I mostly wanted to make this comment purely to notify others who may be party to this discussion that "admin approval" the nominator is referring to for the gif this image is a derivative of is probably referring to having the license verified via a VRT ticket. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Purplewowies does not understand. I worked with admins in the help section to get that image and gif approved and they discussed the value for acceptability with me. This is just a distraction by them so why do they continue to discuss it? The Ferret's reaction and Sergecross73's reaction ("There's zero rationale or support for just removing everything entirely. Please stop. Your comments are increasingly unconstructive, and more about being mad about not doing things strictly your way") seem pretty extreme to me for a disagreement about a single low res, poorly colored image and is it a coincidence they all show up at the same time and that they gang up on me? Sergecross73's and The Ferret's comments were in succession. Seems like a bit of a gangup, don't they? Again [[wikipedia:WP:AGF|assuming good faith] is reasonable and they seem to all over-react to being disagreed with after showing up as a gang out of nowhere or from the complaints of similarly pop-in editors repeatedly showing up who are affiliated with a bizarre reddit group who has been trolling the article and trying to use their reddit group posts as citations. Also, besides WP:AGF, remember: WP:FILESIZE "images should be uploaded at high resolution whether or not this seems "necessary" for the use immediately contemplated‍". I would ask why they hold so strongly to this poorly done image, if not for the reasons they're falsely accusing me of?Daltonsatom (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasoning brought forth by Pbrks (and that to some extent this is a "revenge nomination" for lack of a better turn of phrase). (Struck out comment that came across more charged than I mean it, see below. 00:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revenge? Revenge for what? Putting up a low quality off color image? If anything, it seems the other way around.Daltonsatom (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: "Revenge" might have been a charged term even though I tried to disclaim that I was using it to explain that I couldn't figure out a better concise way to phrase what I meant. I'll strike it from my !vote to make clear I wasn't going for charged and elaborate here on what I meant. Your opinion appears to have been clearly for most of the dispute that the gif should be used, whereas the alternative prior to this creation would have been no image at all. This image was in some ways a sort of compromise between the two; it's completely sufficient for its use and a higher quality image does not presently exist. In the context of this deletion discussion (which is what this page should be primarily about, not the content dispute): I don't think your nomination holds up against scrutiny of the policies you're trying to cite for its removal, and so I think your reasoning reads as if you're looking for any way you can to remove it because the discussion didn't come to the outcome you wanted. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but that is in no way true. I said I was willing to let admin decide if the gif could stay or not. Of course, I've explained that before, but you don't really care, right? So, saying that most of my dispute was that the gif should be used and now I'm "looking for any way you can to remove it because the discussion didn't come to the outcome you wanted" is pure vitriol. You are way off base and both of your statements show exaggeration to smear my character. Daltonsatom (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I was just redacting a comment and explaining my concern, but at this point I think I'll refrain from any further response other than clarifying I meant no vitriol and just let the rest of this discussion play out without my further being party to it. A bit of a WP:JUSTDROPIT directed toward myself, in a way. I hope you find what you're looking for, I guess. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            What I'm looking for? Well, if this group takeover of the article is quality driven as I am supposed to believe, then you would think one of these guys would go get a high quality image directly from Intellivision, which is how the others were obtained. Oh, and smearing my character and claiming you're not, you're either too lazy to check that you were wrong, given what I said in my previous post or you are talking vitriol. Can't just wish it away. Daltonsatom (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that The Ferret and Sergecross73 had both agreed no image for the controller was needed until Pbrks put it up and I didn't want it there. Then they decided to start attacking me for *agreeing* with their opinion!Daltonsatom (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) No, that is not what happened. (b) What does that have to do with this deletion request? – Pbrks (t • c) 00:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (a)looks like it to meDaltonsatom (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (b) the gang here wants to accuse me of some kind of revenge based subterfuge, so I'm saying I could just as easily say that you act like a group of thugs who like to show up and shoot first with accusations and criticism and tolerate no questioning or dissent. You guys really need to work on your people skills if you plan to continue staging hostile takeovers of Wikipedia articles. Maybe you're even sympathizers with that reddit troll group, given what you've been up to. That would all be speculation based on your group's behavior, of course. Could be Sergecross73 just thinks the worst of people and treat them as such and the others just enjoy the ride.Daltonsatom (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • At no point have I been hostile toward you. I removed with the gif in the article, and began a conversation once you reverted it, as is standard. I created a still upon the request of another editor (which is why you are mistaken on the above point (a)). I lightened said image after you pointed out it was darker than it should be. I disagreed with this deletion request and gave a clear reasoning. Lastly, I pointed out that you were mistaken in regards to Wikipedia and Commons policies. Never once have I done any of this with any aggression. The same cannot be said about your responses. I will follow suit with Purplewowies, bow out here, and let the deletion request run its course. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        How about claiming I had a COI from the beginning without even talking to me or checking to see that I have explained I don't have one in the past? That does make you look a little suspicious of being aligned with the reddit group as they like to try to get me out of the way using that, just like you guys. In fact, the Reddit group trolls are the only ones who have ever started that claim in the past year, making you look especially suspicious in joining that group. Maybe you're complicit or maybe just an unwitting patsy. Like Sergecross73 basically saying that not letting the reddit group post poor citations makes me look like a COI. If you look at talk policies, it says the same policies apply there as in the article, regardless of whether most people read it or not. The Ferret seemed quick to try to reverse removal of a poorly cited Reddit group troll rant. It also seemed like Sergecross73 assumed I was responsible for the page and thought I was telling him I was not a COI in order to stop him from changing the page which would both be untrue.Daltonsatom (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, since I've seen Daltonsatom misquote me repeatedly on this. I agree with removal of the Gif. The still image is fine. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never misquoted The Ferret. I only quoted him once in my initial reply to him and it was verbatim. He may mean I misunderstood his phrase "The still image we have would seem to be sufficient." as I assumed he meant the console image since "the still image" is singular.Daltonsatom (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the image. It's licensed appropriately, and quite useful. No better alternative for a front-facing image of the controller exists. TarkusAB (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - image source licensing is VRT verified, and the image itself is useful for illustrating the controller. Although a higher resolution image would be nice, the resolution is sufficient. -Whpq (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion and withdrawal of the nomination by the OP. --De728631 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Intellivision_Amico_Controller_(extracted).png&oldid=629137274"