Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Low quality male human genitalia pictures

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.

Low resolution files in Category:Low quality male human genitalia pictures

Generally COM:PENIS: These are all images approximately at, or below, 640x480 in resolution and depict male penises that are claimed to depict merely penises being measured, circumcised penises, uncircumcised penises, "normal" penises, large penises, small penises, erect penises, flaccid penises, penises without pubic hair, pre-ejaculate, unremarkable piercings, or unremarkable sex toys, and are because of this redundant to the large number of male genital images we have on Commons.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escribo en español porque no me expreso con corrección en inglés. Pido disculpas por ello.

Keep File:Sex Hygiene 3.png. Se trata de una imagen de la película Higiene sexual (Sex Hygiene, 1942), dirigida por John Ford. Es una película producida por el Ejército de los Estados Unidos dirigida a la educación sexual de los militares. La película, y la imagen, tienen interés por la persona de su director. Se encuentra en el dominio público. Si alguien puede subir una versión más nítida de la imagen, me parece muy bien; pero no considero correcto el borrado. La imagen es importante por razones históricas, artísticas y didácticas.--Chamarasca (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - File:Circpn - circumcised penis.jpg, File:Circumcised flaccid human penis.jpg, File:Ejaculation after footjob.jpg, File:High and loose.jpg, File:Penis with scrotum.jpg and File:Surface Bar Penis.jpg are all in use. File:Penis .jpg is in use on eight different projects! File:Pre-ejaculatory fluid, preseminal fluid, Cowper's fluid.jpg was kept at DR. The nominator should check these things. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which should be in use and have no realistic educational use given their horribly low resolution and quality. Way to pass the buck, Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  See COM:INUSE - It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but in a way it's quite hypocritical : if we keep a file only because it's in use whereas it can easily be replace by a better file, then it would mean that the file could be deleted later if it's not used anymore ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, emphasis on "at a later date". If you take an identical photo in 2000 using a 640*480 camera and in 2016 with a 20MP DSLR, you're quite right there would be little point keeping the original. But if in the intervening years you haven't replaced the image, then you don't delete it. We do not editorialise on other projects and we never delete files that are in use on actual articles unless they are in some manner copyright violations or otherwise illegal to host. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do not editorialise on other projects > that's quite nonsense ! It means that Commons users are not Wikipedia nor other Wikimedia projects users. And it means that you juste have to user a crap file on a talk page or user profile to keep it undeleted ! Now I know what to do : if I consider a file can lead to a DR and if I want to keep it, I just need to use it somewhere to save it. Complete hypocrisy ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That is generally considered to not be acceptable. As for Commons users not being users of other projects, we're mostly not. Sure I use enwp, but I don't use frwp, dewp, wikiquote, etc. Other people will use frwp but not enwp, etc. The point is that (eg) I, as someone who does not use Hebrew wikipedia, should not take it upon myself to determine that the images they have chosen to use are not acceptable. We all have one and only one wiki in common, and that's Commons. Admins must behave in their admin actions as agnostic on other projects' content. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is generally considered to not be acceptable > what are you talking about ? The fact that someone could use a file to prevent it from being deleted ? And how would you know that he uses the file for that purpose ? Oh, and what about a file that has been used and then replaced by another file ? Would it be fair to consider that we could delete it just because it's not in use when the DR is launched ? That "in use so don't delete" rule is just stupid, it doesn't make any sense. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:Sex Hygiene 3.png (extract from movie Sex Hygiene). We may also Keep 4 other files : File:Ejaculation after footjob.jpg (interesting POV of footjob with ejaculation - no real equivalent even if the resolution is quite bad), File:Testicles of an adult male.jpg, File:Penis .jpg and File:Pre-ejaculatory fluid, preseminal fluid, Cowper's fluid.jpg (small resolution but not so bad as far as quality is concerned). But Delete the rest per nom : very bad quality for most of them and we always have better equivalents. Those that are in use can easily be replaced by better files. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We really don't need eight billion dick pics on Commons, this seems like an appropriate opportunity for some housecleaning, focusing on the low resolution members of our collection. I am happy to assist in the replacement of any files still in use with better options as part of this project.--Milowent (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: are you just aware of the specificity of File:Sex Hygiene 3.png ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anatomical images should be sourced to reliable medical journals. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfan00 IMG: are you just aware of the specificity of File:Sex Hygiene 3.png ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am now, That image appears to be sourced to a US Gov film ( and so would meet the reliable source test), so could be retained provided more context is given in it's description, I would also suggest that depending on context it may be possible to get a better quality capture of the relevant frame. However the image is not currently in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfan00 IMG: It's an extract from a movie that has its article on several Wikipedias. The fact that it's not in use doesn't mean that it's useless. And as long as no better capture is uploaded, we need to keep it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It could be used tomorrow. And it could be used by some people in other places out of Wikimedia proyects.--Chamarasca (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any picture could be used tomorrow. Sri Lanka could change its flag to a collage of penis pictures tomorrow. But we have so many dick pics, we will never run out. If folks want to save File:Sex Hygiene 3.png, I won't oppose keeping that one as a special case.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think we can live without this image. The video source, available at the Internet Archive appears to be around 320x240 (which indicates this is an upscale), and moreover is at 25 fps... which is unexpected for a US film. This strongly indicates that it underwent at least one pulldown process, probably two: a 2:3 pulldown when it was converted from film to video by someone in the US, and a 2:2 pulldown when converted from the resulting 29.97 fps video to 25 fps for PAL. These processes produce acceptable motion imagery, but individual frames are usually mutilated. Then, when converted from an interlaced video source to progressive scan digital video, it would have been deinterlaced, which would still leave artifacts. This image is just mutilated beyond use. I'd have no objection to the video source being on Commons (it's surprising that it isn't!) but this particular image serves no realistic educational purpose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, you could cross out File:Sex Hygiene 3.png in that long list.--Chamarasca (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. For any film, we would accept any capture without wondering if a particular capture is useful nor that we could see it in a video that we could upload. We have no reason to deal with this file differently just because it's considered as a bad quality picture of a penis ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All except those: (i) in use on other projects or (ii) previously kept at DR deleted per COM:PENIS. WJBscribe (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Low quality male human genitalia pictures

Low resolution files in Category:Low quality male human genitalia pictures

Navigation menu

Search