Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pizza Hut, The Arcade, Bedford - geograph.org.uk - 1384369.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.

File:Pizza_Hut,_The_Arcade,_Bedford_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1384369.jpg

[edit]

Poor quality - small picture of nothing in particular (Pizza Hut??) with no artistic or any other redeeming quality. Simonxag (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it illustrate this arcade? Does it illustrate the Pizza Hut? --Simonxag (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (the part that contains the Pizza Hut) and yes (the exterior from the arcade). Bear in mind one illustrative shot of any subject is rarely, if ever, sufficient to give a complete overview. Multiple angles can complement the "primary" viewpoint (if there is one).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if a news photographer delivered their editor this as a picture of a Pizza Hut, that photographer would get fired. The supposed subject is lost in a confusion of low lighting, transparencies and reflections. The image does not work as a street scene (mainly through lack of pixels) and is just going to be noise in any category. It's a distraction and a choice that needs to be backtracked from on the path to finding the useful image you need; enough of such images and a category becomes useless. --Simonxag (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a photo of a generic Pizza Hut, its a photo of this specific Pizza Hut in the centre of Bedford. Yes, its a poor image; and presumably a picture from the high street of this same shop would be superior at illustrating this particular restaurant. But even then, this one is still a supplementary image to that one. That ignores any potential value as an image of the arcade.
And "it makes the category noisy" is a problem, which the Geograph upload has made acute across the UK. The solution to that is better categorisation, not deletion. Category:Bedford, Bedfordshire contains a few hundred files, it should contain very few - 99% of those images belong in subcategories such as Category:Restaurants in Bedford, England (or something), a much more suitable place for this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorization does not solve the noise problem, if out of a handful of images of the precise subject most are poor. We need to get rid of poor images, except in those cases where there is no alternative. --Simonxag (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorization does help with the noise problem (it isn't perfect), but that's a lot better than deleting useful pictures. The most precise subject here is "The Pizza Hut restaurant in The Arcade, Bedford". For that, very limited, scope, this picture cannot be replaced by anything else on Commons. Yes, better pictures are better, but in their absence the poor pics are valuable. And even if we do have superior pictures, the lower quality images may still be useful if they depict something not in the good ones - this cannot be replaced by a decent pic of the frontage of the restaurant.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually subcategorization may make the noise problem worse. Take a category of widgets with 3 decent images. This is then swamped by Geograph images. So the images are all placed in subcategories. Now the user must check through many subcategories (Widgets in Birmingham, Widgets in Bedford etc.) before they find a decent image and will probably never get to compare all 3. For a concrete example have look at Category:Narrowboats and think how breaking it down into smaller groups is going to help or not. --Simonxag (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorisation doesn't really hurt, if its done properly. To use the narrowboat example, "narrowboats by location" is one scheme - and if the reader wants a picture of narrowboat in Cheshire helps them a lot more than the root category. But you also have narrowboats by type, ...by use, ...by canal, ...by manufacturer etc. Good subcategorisation contains a heck of lot more metadata than no subcategory. If you want a historical picture of a boat carrying coal, wading through the millions of pics of tourist boats is just as annoying. And if you want to highlight an image in a category as the best - that what Commons:Valued images is for.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the subcategories are geographical or of any other kind is irrelevant. What's more, as a user of the Commons looking through the categories I never interact with the valued image system and I don't think a more casual user will be more skilled than me. I look through a range of usable images for the one that best suits my needs. A load of duds is just going to foul up the search. --Simonxag (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Category:Ships devoid of imagery? I just want a picture of a ship dammit! Same principle applies to everything else(!) :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an issue with our category system. But if you decide on a sort of picture, or sort of ship you can set about finding what you need. The issue becomes a problem if the pool of usable ship pictures is diluted by unusable ones and a serious problem if these outnumber useful images and look good as thumbnails. --Simonxag (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks good as thumbnail, its good enough for most Wikimedia projects, our primary "customer", as Wikipedia only ever displays thumbnails, typically ~200px wide. Irredemably bad pictures can and should be deleted, but a 640x480px image is not so poor as to be useless simply because of its resolution. For use on Wikimedia projects a 640x480 image can be much better than a 10MP image - if it provides better view of the subject. If a minimum resolution requirement is part of your selection criteria, that's something Commons probably should facilitate but that is not a reason to get rid of useful, low resolution content. That's probably worth investigating further to see if it can be done - but isn't relevant here.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia displays a thumbnail of the image on a page. A larger version is immediately available by clicking on this. And I'm not disputing that very small images are sometimes useful or that some of the Geograph images are so. I think there's an underlying problem that this is the first mass upload of a collection that was created without regard to any sort of quality. --Simonxag (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about the Geograph upload aren't relevant here, and most images from that project are useful despite the low resolution. Geograph is not the only batch upload done without regards to quality - for example, the Tropenmusem upload has a lot of low res imagery. What makes Geograph different is its scale. If an image works as a 200px thumb it illustrates the article about as well as a high resolution image and it may better than the higher resolution image depending on things like composition and technical quality. Therefore, WP users benefit from having the low res imagery there as an option to choose from - its not noise. If you, personally, want an image that is at least 5 megapixels, then you should filter the imagery accordingly. If you have any suggestions on how to improve that aspect of searching Commons, make it at the village pump. That's not a reason to get rid of images that don't meet your criteria, as someone else might prefer them for their needs.
This image, is low resolution and a bad picture in other ways, but is still good enough to illustrate its subjects. It is potentially useful for an educationl purpose (I've said what it can be used for) - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about poor quality imagery generally are highly relevant here, as this is an example of a very poor quality image. I do not see that it even works as a thumbnail and I can't see it ever being useful on the Wikipedia, it is absolutely not an even passable illustration of its supposed subject. Such street scenes particularly need some detail to work;talk of 5Mb is just hyperbole. In the past we have always deleted low quality images (unless there was a particular need for them). The upload of many such images has been seen as a problem to be discouraged (the hordes of penis pictures). I've looked at the discussion of the Geograph upload: it's being done on the basis that there are many useful images included (such as the only image of a village) and the implicit understanding that the dross can be removed. --Simonxag (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a picture of the Pizza Hut, as seen from The Arcade, and a picture of the piece of The Arcade containing the Pizza Hut. It is a poor picture, but it does illustrate both of those points. It is also the only picture on Commons of both of those subjects. A good picture of the front of the Pizza Hut (if it existed) would be a much better illustration of the Pizza Hut, but this one would still complement it and would therefore still be useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep perfectly decent image, quality is easily sufficient and artistic quality is not needed for inclusion here, there is no real reason to delete this image Oxyman (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Although I might ordinarily delete this, given the length of the debate and the zero cost of keeping it, I will.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pizza_Hut,_The_Arcade,_Bedford_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1384369.jpg&oldid=52718792"