Commons:Deletion requests/Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21)

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.

Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21)

[edit]

Low resoluted, low quality, noisy images which show content we alread have (All images have at least one reason to delete them). I would have speedy deleted all really bad images (like Masturbation on a beachball8.jpg) but Lx 121 contacted me because I closed some deletion requests with the same content before 7 days were over. If I find some more images I will add them with a note if the deletion request is not closed already.
I suggested on Commons_talk:Project_scope#images_of_the_male_genitalia that the community may can/should think of minum standards for images which show the male genitalia because we have enough good ones and my credo is that we don't need a deletion request for every low resoluted webcam-dick. If you have any idea share it!
If you think that one (or more) files should be kept please include an information about which image you are talking about.
--D-Kuru (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please mark the images with {{Delete}} and notify the uploaders.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both ✓ Done However, I did not created a redirect from every files deletion page because this would be waste of time. A link to that page is included. --D-Kuru (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as of the time i am writing this, there are still some "broken" nominations, i haven't backtraced all the individual noms to verify if every uploader has been notified or not, but there are still messy loose ends in this nom. Lx 121 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's not the worst image. I included the image because it's low resoluted and (if you have a look at the foreskin) a bit blurred. A human penis.jpg and 0136.JPG could be used instead but they are a bit noisy. However, MalePenis.jpg and RelaxedPenis.JPG can be used instead of Uncircpn.jpg. However, do you would keep all images? --D-Kuru (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. I simply don't trust that you have thought this through when you nominate an image that clearly meets the requirements of Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, and still argue in favor of deleting it. --Kjetil_r 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it should; & this is good (& very convenient! lol) example of one reason why doing bulk-deletion noms like this is a bad idea. Lx 121 (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep

i don't really feel like going thru this nom item-by-item, so i'll just disagree with the whole thing, as being the wrong way to handle such discussions,

"commons is not censored" comes to mind too.

there is no valid basis for grouping these files together as a mass nom; they don't come from the same user, they don't have identical or related problems, they don't all fit into the exact same category placements; they're all just "dirty pictures", & the nominator (as they stated in the discussion above) simply can't be bothered doing the work properly, for indivudual noms.

the nominating admin even plans to add more items, on a "keep-adding-stuff-till-the-nom-is-closed" basis!

this is inappropriate behavior, especially coming from an admin, & it completely disregards commons policies & established practices for deletion procedures.

we don't allow users to pile up all-in-one bulk-deletion noms, like filling a garbage can, & there are good reasons why we don't.

it's messy & disruptive;

it's hard to make sure that all the details have been done right (in this case, they weren't),

& it wastes a lot of time for users who are interested/involved, trying to untangle a mess of unrelated items.

if we get in the habit of doing bulk-nominations like this, a lot of stuff is going to get lost (& broken) in the shuffle, & a lot of users won't want to bother dealing with having to try & untangle it all.

& if users are allowed to "just keep adding nominations" until the deletion "discussion" is closed, then the chaos gets considerably worse!

commons has established procedures for handling deletion nominations, & this doesn't follow them

as re d-kuru's comments mentioning me, i noted that this admin is in the practice of treating deletion noms of "dirty pictures" as "speedy", when that is clearly not commons policy. i requested that the admin stop doing this, as it clearly violates commons policy,

User_talk:D-Kuru#deletion_procedures

(included in the conversation are links to the relevant comons policies)

i assume that all of this, & the proposed policy changes are a result of our interactions.

as stated on the "scope" talk page, i do not think that we should create a new policy @ commons, allowing admins to "speedy" files, on the basis of a "minimum standard" rule.

my reasons for disagreeing with d-kuru about that are included at the talk page mentioned above

(Commons_talk:Project_scope#images_of_the_male_genitalia)

(it's late here, & this is a rough draft; i'll proofread it after i've slept, & make any necessary fixes then, my apologies for any errors, or anything that's badly phrased)

Lx 121 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


for that matter, we (also) already have a whole system for dealing with quality standards of media files & related issues @ commons, located as a part of the commons maintenance schema here: Category:Quality_assurance

the nominating admin is completely disregaring that (or perhaps unaware of it?)

Lx 121 (talk)

@ Lx 121:
"there is no valid basis for grouping these files together as a mass nom [...] [1]they don't have identical or related problems, [2]they don't all fit into the exact same category placements" ]1[ You are wrong. They are related because they deal with the same kind of insufficiency (It doesn't matter if you call them "problems" or may something else); ]2[ There is no need to fall into the exact same category placements. If you mass nominate FOP violating images you (from my point of view) can collect the images from (e.g.) the US and (e.g.) Japan in one deletion request
"the nominating admin even plans to add more items, on a "keep-adding-stuff-till-the-nom-is-closed" basis!" I should have added that I planed to add a picture in case I missed one (compared to an image which got uploaded recently) and only in the first ~24 to ~35 hours after I've created the del request.
"it wastes a lot of time for users who are interested/involved, trying to untangle a mess of unrelated items" I don't understand what you are talking about... About which "mess of unrelated items" are you talking about.
"for that matter, we (also) already [...] Category:Quality_assurance" Actually this category is just to collect the images but I don't think that there are many user out there who e.g. add descriptions to images they find there. {{Low quality}} is also not really more than just a tag which tells everybody who wants to know it that this image will probably not be a featured picture. I was/am "completely disregaring that" because it does not really work.
However, I outsourced the images to their own deletion request...
PS: Technical note: If you use <br/> or <br> you can jump to the next line and the comment gets shorter
--D-Kuru (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourced: All Images are outsourced to their own deletion requests (see list below). All images which are still nominated for deletion got an update of their deletion notification on their talk page. All images which are in use in an article in a project by Wikimedia are listed at the bottom. Files which are used on Commons in a gallery or on a page whichs shows the images uploaded by a user are not included. Images like Masturbation10.jpg and Testicles-1.jpg are in use but their usage is may be disputed: Masturbation10.jpg for example is currently used on it:Utente:Ghia/Sandbox3 and on it:Utente:Uahlim and the descrition says "Questo utente si fa le seghe..." which would be ruffly translated "This user is jerking off". --D-Kuru (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image Deletion request
in use
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_the_male_genitalia_(2009-12-21)&oldid=33512097"