File talk:Garment1.jpg

This image was nominated for deletion on Dec 16, 2006. The decision was to keep. -Nv8200p talk 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garment1.jpg (talk | delete)[edit]

Uploaded by Duke53 (notify | contribs). Orphan, obsolete. Originally this exact image was uploaded under a different filename (Image:Garment.jpg), which is used on Temple garment and Undergarment. The photo was controversial for various reasons (see Talk:Temple garment for the discussion), but was also regarded as having illustrative value that warranted its place on Wikipedia in the absence of a better alternative. Five days ago, I provided an alternative: I digitally altered the photo per its GFDL license and replaced the original file (Image:Garment.jpg) in order to remove the unencyclopedic aspects of the original while preserving its informativeness. User:Duke53, the original contributor of the photo and only editor so far to object to the new version, has re-uploaded the original under the name of Image:Garment1.jpg and linked to it from his user page to illustrate his contention that the new version is no improvement. However, no article uses his re-uploaded version or is likely to, because a version exists that most editors involved in the original discussion agree is more encyclopedic and equally informative. Also, the original photo can be reached via the image history of Image:Garment.jpg. Thus the re-uploaded image is both obsolete and orphaned, and should be deleted on these grounds. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that anybody would like this image deleted is for censorship purposes. I use this image as a tool on my own user page to show that the 'newer' version of the image is really no improvement on this one. If you care to check, you can see that alanyst and I have not seen eye-to-eye on much; I consider this an attempt to promote a pro-mormon POV once again, this time in the form of censorship of an innocent image. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is not censorship. The orphaned status and obsolescence of the image are sufficient grounds for deletion, and POV has nothing to do with it. Assume good faith. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as someone who has no invested interest in this image (or the LDS area) I think this image can go. After reading the article talk page (especially archive 2) I can see this image caused quite an issue about being included. While the replacement may not provide any further encylopedic information, it does attempt to address some of the issues raised in the discussion (privacy of models and removal of very busy background). It appears that the concensus of the editors at the article page prefer the replacement; that concensus should be respected. I might suggest that the orginal could be moved to commons in order not to lose this free image.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From wikipedia: "Obsolescence is when a person or object is no longer wanted even though it is still in good working order". This item is still wanted, by me, for use as a tool on my user page; editors should always be able to compare the two images, rather than have to take other editors 'word' for how the two images compare. It isn't as if Wikipedia will suffer a huge loss of server space by having this image remain. Assume good faith :) ... I certainly wish you'd follow your own advice; just saying it and not following it could be misconstrued as hypocrisy. This is an attempt at censorship, short and sweet. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of where your comments about AGF are targeted - also I do not under stand what advice you are suggesting I should take? In regards to it being about censorship, I disagree - all that was removed from the image was the model's neck, arms, legs and the very patterned background. The main content of the image still exists.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the wrong definition of obsolescence here, since Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion defines "obsolete" for us as it relates to rationales for image deletion. That is the definition I am using in my comments on this page. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm completely unconvinced by the adding it to a user page solely for the purpose of making it not an orphan thing. HOWEVER, because the new image is a derivative of this one, this one really needs to be retained for history purposes in case, 5 years down the line, questions about authorship arise. Besides, the "floating garment" version looks rather odd and it's distinctly possible (Wikipedia:no binding decisions and all that) that some time down the line, it may be decided that the original is better. It's not like we're talking about a jpg vs an svg - we're talking about two images where it's debatable which is better. BigDT 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, keep in mind that it can always be uploaded to Commons. Even if on enWiki, the editors don't want to use it, it's an image of obvious encyclopedic use and uploading it to Commons will allow other Wikipedias to use it. BigDT 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I have no problem with it being uploaded to Commons. Also, since the "floating garment" version replaced the original image at Image:Garment.jpg, the version with the models and garish wallpaper can still be retrieved via that image's revision history. (See [1].) I think that might satisfy your concerns about preserving the record, even if Image:Garment1.jpg gets deleted. And if at some point the community consensus decides that the original version is better than the "floating garment" version (or whatever alternative might in the future supersede it), then let it be restored from the revision history. But so far the consensus is for the altered version, and as the file we're talking about deleting duplicates revisions in the other image's history and is orphaned, I think it should be deleted. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons BigDT mentioned, specifically from the historical perspective of the new one is a derivative of this one being considered for deletion. Hence it should not be deleted at all. Mathmo ^Talk 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for time being - Although I believe that in many cases, encyclopedic images linked to user pages are acceptable as secondary references - as this has been a disputed and controversial image, a wait period should ensue, and more than likely, unless the image is being used to provoke or used in an un-wiki-civility-like way, it should remain. -Visorstuff 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]