Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lazord00d

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 uploaded by Lazord00d (contribs)

All these ball-and-stick models are chemically inappropriate, because they incorrectly represent aromatic rings. They neglect the delocalization of electrons is crucial to be considered in ball-and-stick models.

--Leyo 00:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On general principle, wouldn’t it be better to tag them with {{Disputed chem}}, so they can be fixed or redone, than to delete them? Moreover the alternating-bond depiction of benzene is a well-known (albeit old-fashioned) convention, which I don’t think likely to mislead anyone who’s had the least introduction to “resonance structures” &c.—so there’s little potential of harm in the meantime. The rings are planar regardless, so there’s no misrepresentation of the atoms’ positions; in the handful of images I looked at the aromatic carbons appear equally spaced, without the ‘truncated triangle‘ effect one gets from RL ball-&-stick-type models lacking special connectors in ‘bond and a half‘ lengths.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse skeletal formulae (where the alternating-bond depiction is fine) with ball-and-stick models. --Leyo 03:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that none are deleted that are in use. And that if used perhaps replaced by a more accurate diagram, but these could just be labelled with a warning about the problem. They still represent a model of the molecules, even if it is not what a chemist thinks is right. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the fact that some of the images above are in use. It's most efficient to have them removed from the articles by bot just after deletion. It's way better to have no ball-and-stick model in an article than an inappropriate one. --Leyo 03:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After that comment I think User:Leyo should reconsider whether he should even take part in these discussions. A good quality graphic that shows alternating double and single bonds (of the same length, even!) is certainly not so wrong that we should delete articles. Having bots go around and remove all trace that we ever even tried to illustrate them is so far from what we should be doing... no. Just no. Make your better image first, then substitute it; otherwise, leave well enough alone. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“not so wrong that we should delete articles”. Please read my comment again. I have never suggested deleting articles. --Leyo 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a faulty premise in "A good quality graphic that shows alternating double and single bonds (of the same length, even!)" is a reasonable argument. I was initially drawn to this situation because of an image did not have bonds of the same length (File:MDMAPNG2.png as discussed at en:Talk:MDMA#Image in header). Rather, singles were longer than doubles (I measured the image in GIMP to confirm). It seems to be because the editor created them as single and double bonds (I regenerated that one the same way using the same software) and apparently neither he nor the software he blindly trusted recognized them as aromatic. He says he used this method throughout, so I would presume them all to be similarly incorrect until proven otherwise. DMacks (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No image is better than a bad image. These could easily be based on crystal structures and aren't. I don't know if they deserve deletion but they should definitely be removed from articles. --Ben (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misspoke. To me a "file" on Commons is a file (the image) plus annotations in regular headers; I tend to think of the combined unit as an article on Commons, but true, that's not standard usage. Some of the bonds seemed equal length to me when I looked. I still think this minor failing in an image doesn't merit deletion if there's nothing to replace with. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the features of the en.wp chemical infobox is an automatic link to a 3D rendering of the image based on the structural info in the infobox itself (the claimed origin of the ones nom'ed here). It's the same ball&stick style as the ones here, generated by the same software used by the uploader here. And it sometimes does even include the correct equal-bondlength aspect for aromatic rings. And it's also fully manipulatable (rotate, zoom) to see different perspectives (one of the complaints about some of the uploader's specific images is that their perspective obscures some atoms or other details, which contradicts his stated aim of making all atoms visible and likewise negates their stated advantage). There have been discussions about activating this feature in the drugbox too. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The models are at best non-helpful clutter and at worst incorrect and inappropriate. Please see also the discussion [1] on the same images. They should at least be removed from their respective articles. Testem (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree+Delete. They are completely inappropriate and should deleted as soon as possible. --JWBE (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Since it's easy and doesn't require much time I'll simply quote from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lazord00d_disruptive_editing

"This is fairly ridiculous. For of all, obviously these chemicals are not two dimensional, so insisting that two dimensional images are "better" for the reader than three dimensional models is backwards. Secondly, only chemists think of atoms having a location to be put into a diagram, any right thinking Heisenberg understanding physicist knows location is just a conceptualization of a much messier quantum reality. NE Ent 11:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this the content discussion is about what kind of schematic best communicates information about the molecule, not whether those schematics are perfect representations of the underlying physics. The issue at hand, though, is behavioral - selection of the images for an article is subject to consensus, and rather than working collaboratively Lazord00d continues to attack other editors and edit war. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) "

The above is an obvious admission of the personal nature of at least user "VQuakr" and several others attacks against me (for perceived "uncivil" behavior which I see as having a sense of humor in the face of rudeness from these editors which was focused on me from the very moment I contributed these images). Given that fact, I don't think it's right to delete these images at all. This is a personal battle that is attempting to be fought here, not a scientific one. I don't take the personal stuff seriously, sorry.

Lazord00d (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is cheap to call the valid criticism on your scientifically inappropriate ball-and-stick models “(personal) attacks”. --Leyo 06:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazord00d is quoting my post on WP's ANI, where his behavior (distinct from his contributions) is under discussion. Lazord00d's behavior is indeed onerous, but I am not clear on why he thinks it is relevant to this discussion about content. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that the primary motivator here has nothing to do with scientifically inappropriate models. As I've already said elsewhere, there are MANY other 3d molecular models on wikipedia that are identical to mine in terms of visible structure, but no one's jumping on their content.. and here you are nominating everything I've contributed for deletion. This is just because I won't lie down and be a good boy for you and your cohorts here. My images were almost immediately jumped upon by contributors of similar content, several of which, of course, reverted back to theirs with little explanation. There has been some support for my position as well when I did offer my explanation, stripped of my colorful nature of course.

Wasn't born yesterday... I know an old boys club when I see one. :-) It's why I haven't said a word in response to any valid criticism (and there has been some) that has been presented. It's a waste of my valuable time to work towards consensus when that's not the actual motivator of people's reactions to my input.

Lazord00d (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree & Delete. They are inappropriate and should deleted. --Jue (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my view it looks like the majority of Chemistry editors here feel that these images should be deleted.. so why are they still here? I said before you are welcome to delete them AND me any time you wish. The idea of remaining a contributing member here among this ridiculous lot of "intelligent minds" recently became a laughing stock for me since Wikipedia is a joke.. this is well known by everyone except apparently Wikipedia. You've got editors that believe in simplicity of understanding and a clean look for Wikipedia instead of a hodgepodge of images that don't match up and don't even have the correct backgrounds, and others that want each and every article to be a full textbook in the article and if you don't provide so much detail as to confuse everyone who doesn't work in the field it's a major issue. Consensus? That's hilariously impossible. This whole game is simply a source of entertainment to me now lol.

Lazord00d (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Since I just happened across it by chance and posting a link doesn't take much time or effort, here's one that supports my position, this molecule is just like mine and it's used as a reference here by a very well-known publisher of educational texts. I'll just eat my popcorn while this gets beat down and poked to death by a bunch of people with FAR greater credentials than Springer no doubt:

http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html

Lazord00d (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I am not familiar with Commons deletion criteria; is it normal to delete models such as these because they are not accurate? The portrayal of aromatic rings as a series of single and double bonds is commonly accepted in 2D schematics; less so in 3D. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anyone more familiar with Commons practices can point me to a guideline that says free images such as these should be kept even if wrong, I would be fine with reconsidering. To me, both the behavioral and content issues seem to be more of a WP problem than a Commons one, and I can empathize with any desire to keep disputes from bleeding over to here. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're still here? And I thought I was persistent. What behavioral isssues do yo speak of VQuakr? You mean where I keep rejecting your unfounded claims on the basis that you're on a personal vendetta? Oh that... well I don't go down easy and I have no idea why you'd think I would.. especially not when I believe the images I've created are just fine and can cite other references where models of the same construction are found. See my bold text @ bottom of page. Put up or shut up.

Lazord00d (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The statement that the bond style is "less accepted" would be way more awesome if there were some hard evidence outside of Wikipedia that supported it..

Lazord00d (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Springer just transcludes the applet JSmol. There is no own expertise behind that. --Leyo 13:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also cite their data (pubchem). I checked the pubchem geometric data for that compound, and although Springer is displaying it as single/double, the bond-lengths do not reflect that incorrect detail. So again, the problem with yours is at least in the factual details. As I already mentioned, WP chembox also links out to this applet, but at a cite that does not use cited data (so yours is not an improvement on that in fact or form). DMacks (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that this is not a style choice, that the bonds really are not a series of alternating single and double bonds? VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do know that the bonds are delocalized and have this whole time. What you guys consider a travesty, I consider a perfect reference for average people who don't think like us. Obviously someone at Springer felt that these models are quite sufficient (as do I). Now I've done something none of you have: cited a respected, real-world publication to back my position up. And don't tell me that no one at Springer thought about this Leyo, if you have nothing to back you up why even talk? Your participation in this discussion has already been called into question once here so far and with good reason.. Lets keep to fact shall we?

Lazord00d (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited any reliable source. As noted above, Springer is merely using the JSMol plugin on their website. Over on WP, you are the only editor promoting the use of these models in articles - there is clear consensus that none of these should be in any article. The question for this discussion is whether Commons guidelines dictate that the free but unusable, incorrect images should be deleted. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? So citing a well-known, time-proven source is "unreliable" says you? Well surely you're right and Springer hasn't a bloody clue.. Yeah ok then.. delusional much? Your statement that Springer is "merely using the JSmol plugin" without verification or analysis is pure conjecture. What are your credentials? Show me your diploma.. tell me what you've done for the world of Chemistry in comparison to Springer that makes you the higher authority.. Also, what you describe isn't "consensus", instead it's hounding me to comply with the beliefs of your select group of friends who are backing you up. If I had 50 parrots all squawking like yours I could make a bunch of noise too. Would that be a consensus also?

Lazord00d (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this has gone from nasty to nastier. I am not claiming any sort of Chemistry Cred at all - but as an anonymous user passing through, I would like to say:

 1.  Doesn't seem to me like ANY two-dimensional schematic is going to capture all the subtlety and nuance of a Real Molecule™ but 
     they all present conceptually useful information.
 2.  With basic high-school knowledge of the subject at hand, I am capable of comprehending an aromatic ring whether you draw 
     alternating single and double bonds, or a circle inside a hexagon.  And if I didn't understand aromaticity at all, it still 
     wouldn't matter which you chose.
 3.  "Ball-and-stick" is often a more intuitive and/or accessible representation of a 3-d molecule despite its physical inaccuracies, 
     especially when the representation is a static image and cannot be rotated, zoomed etc., as the substituent atoms & functional 
     groups and their relative positions and bonds are less obscured than in more 'realistic' interpretations.

But what do I know?... 50.198.218.33 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^Wow.. too bad I don't have a name to go with all that sense!! Finally.. thought people like you didn't exist on WP.

Lazord00d (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

disagree - keep images ----As far as I'm concerned, unless it can be proven beyond all shadow of doubt that this specific, exact type of model is truly "less accepted" by people around the world of all walks of life (that's our demographic, Wikipedia's public) and will by their use lead readers astray in their pursuit of knowledge of chemistry and science, then the images should remain right where they are.

Lazord00d (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address your criticism above: Springer chose a provider that may be one of the best for machine generating 3D structures of molecules. Inevitably they are not as accurate as structures that are created knowledge-based on an individual basis by chemists. PubChem as a related example is a great database, but contains several inaccurate structures (mostly 2D). --Leyo 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a truth universally acknowledged at Commons (and a source of friction with en:WP) that perfect accuracy, sourcing, lack of WP:OR and maintaining The One Truth are not requirements at Commons. Commons' scope is broader. I'm no chemist. If I was ever a physicist, I was a very bad one and it was all a long time ago. Yet I've seen plenty of textbook diagrams showing benzene in the single-double-single form. How else do I plug my Molymod set together?

Is this the only (or representative) issue here?
Is this style of representation wrong? I mean "plain, dumb wrong". I mean "phlogiston and caloric" wrong. I do not mean "We don't spell it sulphur any more" wrong.

If the representational style used here has any sort of currency, even if it's a drawing style that's laughably simplistic to the working chemists, then that's no reason to delete it.

Commons has an extremely broad educational scope. Some of us even stretch this to "useful" more than "educationally useful" (and that's without counting the sportsmen and selfies). Unless these images are so badly broken that they just have no value more than a bag of lines, there is no good reason to delete them. I'm hearing plenty of reasons to maybe not use them in WP articles on the compounds (although even then, an article on the historical development of chemical model presentation would lap them up) but we're discussing Commons issues here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that you confuse

ball-and-stick models and skeletal formulae
drawn ball-and-stick models and physical ball-and-stick models (Molymod etc.)

--Leyo 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Didn't I say as much?

Now why does that invalidate these images? I do not have the chemical knowledge or sophistication to appreciate the difference or why that makes these images so beyond the pale.

Now, to my simplistic level of understanding these images still have value for conveying structure. Why then are they so wrong? Or is Wikipedia simply not for the likes of ignorant plebs like me? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Leyo. INeverCry 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lazord00d

Files uploaded by Lazord00d (contribs)

Navigation menu

Search