Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dave-landry-datawheel

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.

Files uploaded by Dave-landry-datawheel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:California Product Exports (2020).svg

Long file list. ~

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The tree maps are educationally useless because they do not display properly. This website shows that these images are intended to be interactive, as that is the only way the multitude of tiny squares can be brought to life. Instead, the interactive files have been uploaded as a non-interactive image, which is educationally useless because it is filled with empty squares and cut-off words. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grand Rapids, Mi Product Exports (2020).svg—that one is legible. None of the squares are so small as as to be illegible. Rather than blanket delete them all, someone should do a quick audit to see if they all suffer from the same issues and list any others that are useful. Imzadi 1979 → 15:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. This is a WP:TRAINWRECK of a nomination. The nomination includes multiple types of visualizations, including treemaps, bar charts, and maps (there's even a logo in there). Some of them render better than others as static images, but many of the ones I spot checked are easily legible. There's no good way to evaluate so many images in a single nomination. - Eureka Lott 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I did a quick sampling, and found that none of the images other than "Exports ..." had boxes too small to be labeled, and even the exports images with such tiny boxes also had lots of legible boxes, which necessarily covered the vast majority of the exports, so were quite valuable. 73.181.131.10 17:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every export/treemap is useless. Readers deserve better than a chart where 60 percent of the information is valuable. Every single one of them is flawed. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (Pinged over from enwiki.) I agree with Eureka Lott; I originally followed a non-objectionable image over, and found many others that are non-objectionable and display just fine. If there is a more specific rationale for removal, it could be used to audit and propose for deletion a subset of these SVGs. Suriname0 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I followed a notification from enwiki, and found the image in question to be both useful and legible. This mass deletion seems both unnecessary and inadvisable.Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notified on enwiki, and the one I noticed - Cook Islands Product Exports (2019).svg - is a useful high-level summary and seems perfectly useable. If there's no IP issue here, there seems no reason for deletion. Let users decide what is useful, rather than mass-deleting images which are obviously widely-used.--IdiotSavant (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Start over per w:WP:TRAINWRECK according to EurekaLott comment. I am amazed that an admin could make this kind of bulk deletion request of different types of images. Wasting the time of so many people. I am particularly bugged by the throwing in of the 7 quality US SVG maps into this bulk request. Find "United States map of" in the list. These are SVG maps where the source code is valid. I hope these excellent maps are updated with more recent data. I haven't thought about whether the other types of images should be deleted or not. Separate by image type, and start over with one deletion request per image type. There was a discussion about some of these images back in 2018. See:
w:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 227#Some cool images. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the trainwreck argument is probably going to win the day, but I do think there needs to be some discussion of the utility of an image like File:Cincinnati, Oh Product Exports (2020).svg. Many of the sections are not labeled and therefore not informative or educational. The methodology used to create these is also unclear. I already got one of these images deleted a year and a half ago via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alaska Product Exports (2020).svg because it was clearly wildly inaccurate. I think this was a well-intentioned project that didn't quite work out.
Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all
As per other’s comments. 98.213.225.105 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start over and separate this nomination by type of visualisation per Timeshifter. By my rough estimate 1500-2500 of these files should ultimately be deleted for the reasons stated by Magnolia677 and Beeblebrox. Alalch E. (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I am astonished that such a bulk deletion request could be made and strongly disagree with the opinion that they "are educationally useless because they do not display properly." Firstly, that does not justify mass deletion from commons and if it is such a problem then it is the prerogative of the user of said image, such as on Wikipedia, not to use it, it is not the place for Commons to police what is "educational content." As a Wikipedia editor I find this nomination somewhat alarming as the nomination almost seems arbitrary to me and the justification irrelevant to the mandate Commons has. Secondly, whilst it is true that these images should, where possible, be improved and are initially designed with more interactivity in mind; it is obvious from the design constraints of summarizing complex data visualizations into simple static images that it might not always be practicable. It seems somewhat unrealistic and unreasonable to penalise an image for not accomplishing what might be impossible or impracticable. Thirdly, even if we ignore this it is still useful, as I can personally attest, to have these graphs aviable to 'summarize' a complex phenomenon like international trade.--Discott (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Too many files to be handled in one sitting. Some images are actually in-use and the risk of deleting such a file is too big if handled in bulk. The images in question are visualizations, including treemaps, bar charts, maps, and logos, and some of them render better than others as static images. The nomination includes over 2,800 files, and some users have argued that it is not possible to evaluate so many images in a single nomination. Some users have also argued that some of the images are useful and legible, while others are educationally useless due to their inability to display properly. One user has suggested that the images be separated by image type, and one deletion request be made per image type. Another user has suggested that examples of the images with errors be provided for discussion. No user except the nominator has argued to delete all files, hence each file needs to be evalutated by the closing admin, which is way too hard in one request. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Dave-landry-datawheel&oldid=760645840"