Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:RCE suggested: Bed

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:RCE suggested: Bed

Out of scope. Low quality photographs (in terms of vagueness + composition) + I have no idea how these three images would be reusable.

• File:Verplaatsbare bedstede nr. I -22 fotonr. 40 - Haarzuilens - 20456748 - RCE.jpg
• File:Vm. bedstede - IJzendijke - 20505794 - RCE.jpg
• File:Vm. bedstede - IJzendijke - 20505795 - RCE.jpg

JopkeB (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. Abysmal image quality; I can't even tell what I'm looking at in the first photo. There's quality issues throughout many of the RCE uploads; this may be worth a larger cleanup. Search for the phrase "Deze afbeelding hebben wij helaas alleen in deze lage resolutie" ("Unfortunately, we only have this image in this low resolution") to find additional examples. Omphalographer (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But:

1. A few years ago I have nominated one of them for deletion (not one of these three), referring to a better photo that was from a later date. But it was kept because a little detail of the building was on the old photo, but not anymore on the new photo (due to wear (slijtage)) and for that reason the old photo was kept.
2. I myself have used one (File:Ankerbalk V - Winterswijk - 20467477 - RCE.jpg) in two gallery pages because I could not find a photo that shows better what I would like to show.
3. RCE has removed many of them from their website, because I cannot find them anymore there. I guess Commons is still the only place to keep them. But on the other hand, that is not one of the scopes of Commons, so it is no reason for keeping them on Commons if they are not reusable for educational purposes.

So I have made Category:Low quality images of the Netherlands and put them there if I am annoyed enough.

Sometimes, like for these three, I nominate them for deletion because I have really no idea how they are reusable. JopkeB (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep sure, crap quality, but the only photos we have and part of a collection. How does hiding these images from normal users make Commons a better place? Do tag them with {{Low quality}}. That's a {{Negative boosted template}} which will push it down on the search results so you have less chance of encountering them. Multichill (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  User:Multichill That might be true, but the question here is: How are they reusable? That is the scope of Commons, not whether they are part of a collection. JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  • @JopkeB and Omphalographer: I created {{RCE-higher-resolution}} some time ago and tagged RCE images with them to get the higher resolution versions. That seems to be impossible for these. How about I create {{RCE-low-resultion}} with some info and inclusion of {{Low quality}} and replace it with that one? Multichill (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Multichill:

    1. How does Commons get the higher-resolution versions? Who is going to do that?
    2. What would be the purpose of {{RCE-low-resultion}}, what problem would it solve? Your information is not enough for me to understand that.

    JopkeB (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)