Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2008 in Thailand

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.

Files in Category:2008 in Thailand

[edit]

OOS personal images of someone's family vacation to Thailand that were imported from Flickr.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Some of these, like File:Spires (2288176268).jpg and File:Bangkok Panorama (2287990977).jpg, seem like they could potentially be in scope. I agree that most are OOS personal photos, though. Omphalographer (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with those two images, or really any others, being kept if they are potentially in scope. I'm just never sure where the line is and some clearly aren't. So I thought it would be easier to nominate them as a batch and let other people decide which particular images from the group might be educational or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily have an issue with keeping a few of the images you mentioned, but with File:After the wedding (2297683606).jpg in particular the background is blurry and saying it's in scope because of the "motif" when you can't even make out the details because of it seems a little questionable. Although really the same goes for rest of the images you listed. What educational value is anyone suppose to take away from the image of a banana cooking in coconut milk? Regardless, I've been multiple times now that I can't upload random images from family vacations over the years because they aren't in scope. So I don't see why these images would be any different. Except somehow it's cool because they imported from Flickr instead of uploaded by an actual contributor. I can guarantee that if I uploaded most of these images under the guise that I just wanted to use Commons to host personal images of my trips to Hawaii or wherever that they would be deleted as OOS on sight though. Oh, but hey, one of these images has rocks in the background. So lets just keep all of them on principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think showing the process of cooking is not in scope? Well it clearly is. My remarks stand, and those are just the photos I looked at at the beginning of the list. I haven't even looked at any of the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Showing "the process" of cooking is in scope. A random image of a banana in a pot deviod of context or any other images related to the process of what exactly is being cooked doesn't show "the cooking process" though. Regardless, I think you'd see that a lot of the other images are pretty medicore quailty and aren't educationally meaningful if you look through them. I'm fine with removing the image of the banana in the pot from the nomination if its inclusion triggers you that much, but its extremely bad faithed and unfair to me to act like the whole thing is invalid just because you only looked at the first two images and thought they shouldn't have been included. A good portion of them clearly don't belong here regardless. I guess I could renominate them seperately later, but I'm sure there'd just be complaining about how they should be kept because they were already nominated for deletion recently if I did. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you count only two images that I mentioned? And what is this about "triggered"? I'm just saying it's an overbroad deletion request. If all these images are deleted, it won't change my life, but I don't believe in nominating a whole bunch of images, at least some of which are IMO clearly in scope, just because they were shot in 2008 as vacation pics and therefore are not professional-quality 2023 digital images. Your last sentence suggests that you think I'm operating in bad faith. I've made my points and see no reason to continue this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I meant to say "the two images you looked at that might be in scope." I just didn't phrase it well. Sorry. Anyway, it's fine if you think it's an overbroad request. But it the images are part of a series of family photos from a vacation and the guidelines are clear that such images are OOS. Even if a few might be in retrospect. But I didn't know that at the time and I certainly don't think they are myself. So it seemed worth nominating them all for deletion in the same DR at the time. Although I'll at least grant you that it probably would have been better to nominate them in smaller sets. All it takes is one image that's even slightly ambiguous for someone to claim the whole DR is spurious though. But I'll probably split the images up into smaller DRs next time anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this image is high quality and in scope huh? Same goes for this one to I guess. A fuzzy image of a non-notable person holding a beer is totally high quality and in scope. Sure. And as to your claim that my comment about nominating the images in a batch sounds inherently disruptive, Commons:Disruptive editing says "creating multiple deletion requests when it could've been opened as a single request containing multiple files instead." My bad for being disruptive by following the guidelines though. I can guarantee people like you would have made the same argument if this was split into multiple deletion requests. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the guidelines do not say: "as to save your time, check a couple images and then nominate for deletion the whole category without checking the rest". If you wanted to do a mass deletion req, you should have first checked all the images and then selected those that deserved to be deleted (excluding the ones which should had not). So yes, disruptive and not following guidelines. Going to ignore the "I can guarantee people like you would have made the same argument if this was split into multiple deletion requests" because arguably it does not make sense. Cavarrone (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Which is why I didn't just check a couple of then nominate for deletion the whole category without checking the rest to save time like your claiming I did. I actually checked every images before I nominated them for deletion. Some of them are clearly low quality and not in scope. The others at least IMO are borderline, which is why I nominated them for deletion along with the rest. The whole point in this is to have people discuss if particular images are in scope, of good enough quality to be included on Commons, and some probably will be. That's finee. I'm more then willing to remove whatever images from the DR that you or anyone else thinks shouldn't have been included. But just because some happen to be in scope after we discussed doesn't mean I would have known it at the time or that the hole DR is totally meritless. Let alone does it justify your comment on in the ANU complaint. All you had to do was say which images you thought were in scope without making it personal and I would have been totally fine removing those images from the deletion request. Heck, I'd also be fine having this procedurally closed and re-nominating some of the more obviously bad images for deletion. It's ridiculous to treat me like I'm just here to play the “Deletion discussion: The Game” or whatever when your the one who made the personal, bad faithed comments to start with and haven't even given me the chance to deal with the images that you think shouldn't have been included. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: procedurally kept per nominator's request. Requests like this should be narrow. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:2008 in Thailand

[edit]

These images are low quality travel shots and selfies from someone's wedding trip to Thailand that were imported from Flickr. So they should be deleted as OOS per COM:PERSONAL "private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on" are not realistically educational.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I must have accidentally added it. It's been removed regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:2008_in_Thailand&oldid=825045430"