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.
This picture is terrible. The trachea is too long. The main bronchi are too short. The left and right bronchial trees should not be mirror images. The lobes are incorrectly represented. The bronchi should become narrower as they divide, not develop a sort of bizarre bronchiectasis. The picture should never have been made. It is a disgrace that the picture has reached "featured status". If the picture is indeed "considered one of the finest images", then it is an indictment of extremely low quality throughout Wikimedia Commons. Axl (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that each objects in a SVG can, in a sense, be considered to be on different layers and are totally independent from each other? That is precisely why vector graphics are preferred. Wikimedia projects never work in a way that goes "if it's wrong, delete the whole thing". If it's wrong, anybody can fix it, and thus voting Keep as not a valid reason for deletion. Featured status might use a reconsidering though. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, is inaccurate, but is widely used, and was selected as the the Picture of the day and the Picture of the year in 2007 (that means wide concensus decided the high quality of this graphic). The File talk page should be a better place to discusse its inaccurances. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's wrong, anybody can fix it'" – asahiko. No-one will fix it. I flagged a sister image in 2009 for deletion. The image was kept and no-one has fixed it.
"... was selected as the the Picture of the day and the Picture of the year in 2007." – Amitie 10g. That's because the people who voted, as well as the designer of the image, know nothing about the anatomy of the bronchial tree. Axl (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Speedy keep per previous discussion. No newer and stronger reasons for deletion. Still in use, Picture of the day and candidate for Picture of the year. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I'm sorry to see bureaucracy trumping common sense here. If "This image contains multiple inaccuracies and is making people dumber" is not a valid deletion rationale under Commons policy, then that's a problem with policy, not with the nomination. Obviously the best possible outcome would be for someone to fix the image, but that requires considerable knowledge, skill, and time, so if that's not going to happen very quickly then deletion is vastly preferable to continuing to spread false information. That the picture is widely in use does not avert these concerns, but amplifies them. That this is a Featured Picture is irrelevant: here is the Featured Picture discussion, and it contains no endorsement of the accuracy of the image, and it occurred before these concerns were raised. I truly hope the incredible contempt shown on this page for the accuracy of what we provide the public is not reflective of the general attitude at Commons. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unbelievable - it's a pretty inaccurate anatomical graphic. Who cares what happened 10 years ago? How many people voted there, and what were their medical qualifications? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The overriding policy is Commons:Project scope where it is clearly stated that 'The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all ... The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".' It must be obvious that an image which inaccurately represents human anatomy to the extent that this does is not providing knowledge, and is neither instructional nor informative. There can be no conceivable grounds for continuing to host an image that runs counter to the fundamental aim of Commons. The fact that such a blatantly inaccurate image is widely used and is providing so much misinformation is a powerful reason to delete, not to keep. Mere hand-waving about "it should be fixed" doesn't cut it unless the advocates of that strategy are prepared to do the job themselves, and I don't see any volunteers from among the editors pleading keep. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. No one is citing sources. Off-wiki credentials are not a consideration on-wiki. An acceptable rationale for deleting would be citing a source or linking to a correct image, even if non-free. That has not been done in this case.
The artistic expectation is that this image should approximate what is used in reliable sources. Nominator Axl says that this image from cancer.gov is good but the nominated image is bad. I am unable to see what Axl and others are seeing. To me, the pictures are almost the same, and I am fairly confident that the one called bad is derived from the one called good, because they are very similar and even the pointers for the parts are placed identically. The people voting for delete are acting as if there is an outstanding difference that is so obvious that it can be assumed that everyone will immediately see it, but I cannot see it.
The intense language putting down everyone who does not see the difference is not advancing the conversation. "Eyesore", "blatantly inaccurate", "unbelievable", "irresponsible", "horribly incorrect", "incredible contempt" - none of this is helpful, and none of this creates a friendly environment for someone to ask, "what's wrong with the picture"? The original complaint is "The trachea is too long. The main bronchi are too short. The left and right bronchial trees should not be mirror images. The lobes are incorrectly represented. The bronchi should become narrower as they divide, not develop a sort of bizarre bronchiectasis. The picture should never have been made". I do not know what any of you are using for comparison except the cancer.gov image. If that is the image for comparison, I do not think it is foolish to ask what is wrong with it when the good and bad images look so similar. With the pictures side by side it is hard for me to see how Axl's critique applies to one but not the other.
Images are not routinely deleted from Commons for being low quality. If that were to happen, the image would need a minimal critique, and not a piling on of unsubstantiated opinion. I do not expect a lot but I expect more substance than strong words.
There is value in the file placement in about 20 language Wikipedias and in about 50 articles. If the file can be updated, then automatically the image is updated in all those places. If the file is deleted the bots will remove the file and all the article placement will be lost. It would be irresponsible to delete this image without considering whether it can be fixed because that also removes all the file placement.
It is good that the image creator was contacted at User_talk:Rastrojo#File:Diagrama_de_los_pulmones.svg_2 but I do not see any criticism here which could be presented as instructions to an illustrator for changing the image. Consensus on the attributes of an acceptable image would be helpful for an artist, and that consensus is not present. This conversation is not showing the gratitude that I would expect the Wikipedia community to give to volunteers who create illustrations explicitly for Wikipedia. Perhaps WikiProject Medicine should have conduct guidelines to suggest how to politely frame requests to artists on Commons. The person who made this is an admin and bureaucrat in addition to an illustrator and I am sure they mean well and solicited whatever expert review they could recruit. Some of the conversation here seems to accuse the illustrator as if they were a terrorist trying to subvert the encyclopedia to kill people with disproportionate illustrations. Draft a request for an illustrator's revision.
This is not urgent. This has been in circulation for 10 years and it can be discussed for some days longer.
Sorry for the intense language. My frustration was absolutely not with the image creator, but with the dismissing of important concerns about accuracy for spurious reasons. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are not human lungs. The fact that the two sides of the bronchi are mirror images is a clear give away. Could this be a non human set of lungs? It should definitely be removed from any page that claims it is human. And should at least lose its FA status until we figure out what species this is supposed to be and someone concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluerasberry if you look at the good image from the NIH you will notice that the patients right side (images left side) the first divide comes off at a steeper angle than on the left (picture right).
This has many many important clinical implications. You will also notice the difference in proportion between the lungs and the trachea between the two images. Our image is clip art while the NIH is an anatomical representation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not relevant to a deletion discussion. I have given solid policy-based reasons that have not been addressed, and I have made no appeal to authority. I find it unlikely that anyone is unable to follow Axl's criticism: "The trachea is too long. The main bronchi are too short. The left and right bronchial trees should not be mirror images. The lobes are incorrectly represented. The bronchi should become narrower as they divide, not develop a sort of bizarre bronchiectasis." Nobody is doubting the good intentions of the original uploader, but good intentions do nothing to ameliorate the inaccuracies of the resulting image. I'm afraid that "If the file can be updated, then ..." is not a convincing argument. I've seen a lot of comments saying that all we need to do is fix the problems, but that applies to any issue, and in the absence of anybody doing anything about it, the necessity to delete misleading, uneducational images remains. If those wishing to see the image kept can't be bothered to follow their own advice within the timespan of this DR, then it needs to be deleted to prevent further misinformation from being spread. --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Commons Please ping when you are considering medical images for FA so we can provide a review of accuracy. We are happy to weigh in to verify that they are indeed educational. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as somebody should have told you at the last DR, a misleading file being widely in use is a very good reason to delete, not keep. Most of us don't want to spread false information. As for "just fix it", why don't you "just fix it", if you think that's such a simple job? --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that someone could provide better guidance than " the correct instruction is 'get the length of the trachea right'". I appreciate the conversation and am ready to acknowledge that you have understanding that I do not. I wish that in return you would acknowledge my utter ignorance and at least wish me good luck in finding an acceptable image model or instructions to use as a basis for a request. Blue Rasberry (talk)00:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would fix the issues I could support keeping. Frank Netter is always an amazing source. I think we get them is the 2030s and than all these problems will be resolved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS you say "I find it unlikely that anyone is unable to follow Axl's criticism". Since it is easy enough to follow, can I have your advance commitment that if an artist follows these instructions then you will approve of the image? This is all Axl's comments and one from James.
The trachea is too long. - shorten trachea
The main bronchi are too short. - lengthen main bronchi
The left and right bronchial trees should not be mirror images, and ''the patients right side (images left side) the first divide comes off at a steeper angle than on the left (picture right) - make one side different by changing the angle of the bronchial trees
The lobes are incorrectly represented. - no change requested
The bronchi should become narrower as they divide, not develop a sort of bizarre bronchiectasis. - make bronchi fatter at start
@Bluerasberry: You seriously think that to fix a problem like "The trachea is too long", the only instruction required is "shorten trachea"? No, the correct instruction is "get the length of the trachea right". Now, if this putative artist manages to get the proportions right, along with getting the angles of the divides correct on the two sides, sorting out a closer representation of the lobes and accurately showing how bronchi change as they divide, before this DR concludes, then I'll withdraw my objection to keeping. May I assume that you will reciprocate by withdrawing your objection to deletion if that job is not done by then? --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier to replace this image with an edited version of the image from cancer.gov in which the text labels are replaced by numerals? Existing image captions would not need to be altered and all accuracy concerns would be resolved. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed replacement image
Here's what I mean. The numbers here match the numbers in the disputed image. Of course a prettier vector version would be preferable, but for now, overwriting the disputed image with this would allow us all to move on. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with simply overwriting is that one of the images is a vector graphic and the other isn't. It would be far superior to delete the poor quality image and run a bot to replace all its uses. CFCF (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CFCF - replacing all instances of use with a superior image is best, whether with bot or ~1 hour of tedious manual work.
If that is not possible, then I agree with Adrian - moving file names around to replace the image with a different image not derived from the vector image is best. Instead of overwriting the vector image with a different image is against Commons policy so we should not do that, but I can imagine renaming the vector image then giving another image the vector image's old name.
I am still confused about what makes an acceptable image. RexxS above is so concerned about trachea length in the vector image, but the trachea is exactly the same length in the cancer.gov graphic so I do not understand how anyone could find that acceptable in comparison. RexxS, I do not think that saying "get the length of the trachea right" conveys any information that can get a response. The length seems good enough for cancer.gov and no one seems willing to provide a better example image so I fail to see a problem. As you ask, yes, I will withdraw my objection to deletion if (1) someone drafts artist instructions and provides an acceptable sample image and (2) Commons is unable to recruit an artist to make corrections in a timely manner.
I do not think it is reasonable for WhatamIdoing to ask the artist whether the image can be improved when the artist copied many aspects of the cancer.gov image. The trachea length, for example, is the same in both images. It is reasonable to ask if artists can do particular things but ambiguous criticism calling for improvement is no more constructive here than in Wikipedia articles. Commons has a request queue for changes and I think they would appreciate a direct request that has consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To Bluerasberry:-
1. Do you want a source that says "that image on Wikimedia Commons is a poor representation"? As you know, I have already provided a link to a better image. Although even that image isn't perfect. (Actually I think that the trachea is still not correct in the NIH image.) A Google image search for "trachea lungs" shows a range of diagrams—almost all of them are better than the Wikimedia Commons image. Interestingly, the trachea length (compared to lung height) is also inconsistent. I have not been able to find a reference for the lung height, possibly because lung height changes with breathing. Trachea length is about four and a half inches (11.25 cm) according to Snell's Clinical Anatomy.
2. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see the errors that I pointed out. I suppose that would really need to point these out in person. I hope that you can at least see that the left and right bronchial trees in the NIH image are not mirror images?
3. I would perhaps be less scathing if these problems had been fixed when I highlighted them in 2009, and again in 2010. This was on a background of a group of ignorant (albeit well-meaning) amateurs who promoted the image to featured status.
4. I am not asking for deletion due to "low quality". (Ironically, the NIH image could be characterized as "low quality"—it is low resolution and has an ugly pixellated font.) I am asking for deletion because it is incorrect. I have given a list of errors. What level of "substantiation" are you expecting?
5. These files have not been fixed in the seven years since first flagged. I am confident that no-one is going to fix them. The image author(s) aren't going to do it.
6. I am not going to draft a request for an illustrator's revision. There are so many errors with this picture that the whole thing needs to be started from scratch.
7. I don't mind leaving the discussion open for a few more days. Actually this is the most progress I have made with this matter. (Thank you, WikiProject Medicine!) However I hope you realise that the presence of the image in the various wikis continues to promote incorrect information. This sort of thing gives the wikis a reputation for unreliability. Axl (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Axl I confirm that I see some problems with the image, like for example the mirror image problem, but I do not know how serious to take that matter or how to represent it visually. In the cancer.gov image one lung looks more polished and in more direct light than the other, and when one lung is more in the shade than the other that seems like artistic license to me than something which has to be conveyed.
Overall, I do not think that you are making a reasonable request.
Suppose that an artist made an exact copy of the cancer.gov image. In that case, there are still serious protests, because now even you say that the trachea in that image is the wrong length. I am unwilling to accept criticism that cannot be used to improve the subject matter. When you say, "the image is bad", but you do not either describe what an acceptable image is or present an example of what you would accept, I think it is fair to strike you entire comment as unclear.
I am unwilling to accept your link to a Google image search as actionable criticism. Instead, I would ask that you select an image that you would accept, and commit to something like "if we had an image like this, and especially note these points..., then I would accept it." I feel like you are presuming a lot of understanding in everyone and I am being entirely honest when I say that I really do not see the problem. I do not think I am asking too much for someone to identify an image which is 100% acceptable, but tell me if I am. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Suppose that an artist made an exact copy of the cancer.gov image." Then I would not have raised multiple complaints over the years. I do not consider the trachea length alone to be a "serious protest".
I am not interested in giving "actionable criticism". No-one has ever been interested in taking action based on my criticisms. I have no faith in the Wikimedia Commons process, such as it is. I would be happy to see the images deleted from the wikis and replaced with a blank space – that would be an improvement.
"I am unwilling to accept criticism that cannot be used to improve the subject matter." I suppose that you believe my criticism cannot be used to improve the subject matter. Okay. We are at an impasse. Axl (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Axl Perhaps we are at an impasse but I am still going to try to work with others to get the information needed to identify a good image. I wish for a little more than what you are offering, but you raised an issue and recruited participants to discuss and I appreciate the value in that. Thanks for sharing your 2009 and 2010 deletion discussions. I can recognize that this has been a multi-year concern for you. I do not expect that you sympathize with my position, because you can act and feel however you choose, but I wish you could have a little compassion for Commons. I think you bottled up some frustration by having failed requests in those years, but one-line deletion requests in Commons for problems typically are not appreciated and I find it challenging to appreciate your current request. I do not know if you can relate, but a one-line deletion request with no explanation on Commons has about the same weight as the same request for a paragraph in Wikipedia - there is an expectation of an explanation. Do what you will but personally, I find some conversations useful.
I am sure you realize that the non-Wikipedia world feels that Wikipedia's existence is dangerous. We tolerate a lot of C-class medical articles and instead of deleting them until they are GA or FA, we improve them. No one routinely deletes poorly compiled paragraphs containing good parts just because of omissions or challenges. Overall, I feel like you and some of the other people here have higher expectations of Commons volunteers than any of you would place on professional paid illustrators. RexxS above is very concerned about the trachea and now you are here saying it is no big deal. I might be unreasonable to be asking for illustrator guidance, or I might just be poorly communicating, but I wish that it were possible to make a comprehensible request to get the right image. I feel like from the start of this conversation there was more negativity put into it than there needed to be, but regardless, I am willing to tolerate whatever happens and give this a go. Thanks for what you have provided to this point. It was helpful and I will do what I can. Blue Rasberry (talk)00:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, yes I am concerned about the length of the trachea in the image relative to the size of the lungs. In normal humans, the top of the trachea is roughly level with the sixth cervical vertebra and it divides somewhere around the level of the fourth or fifth thoracic vertebra. That's about four inches - the width of your hand if you need a simple comparison, while the lungs are much taller than that. Take a look at File:Lungs diagram detailed.svg for a better idea of the relative proportions as I understand them. --RexxS (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS Okay, thanks, I see the correct length. I can understand that this picture has that part right, and both the cancer.gov image and the image proposed for deletion have this part incorrect.
I do not want to get so off track, and I do not expect you to educate me on every part of this, but could I have your guess without an explanation of how many serious problems exist with this new image you provided? Could it alone be used as the basis for developing a replacement image, or are there serious problems with this?
I know almost nothing about this so just stop me if I am mistaken, but above in the conversation James said, "the patients right side (images left side) the first divide comes off at a steeper angle than on the left (picture right)" and you said "getting the angles of the divides correct on the two sides". In this image you provided it looks like the angle from the vertical is the same on both sides, so there is a mirror image problem here again. Can you give an opinion about whether this image also has that problem, or can you please just advise me that might not have sensitivity to recognize it as correct? In the cancer.gov image, for example, it is easier for me to see a difference in angle that I am not seeing here.
In the end I am hoping to be able to list whatever ought to be considered to select the right image, and perhaps which aspects of which images are suitable to use as models. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)00:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"We tolerate a lot of C-class medical articles and instead of deleting them until they are GA or FA, we improve them. No one routinely deletes poorly compiled paragraphs containing good parts just because of omissions or challenges." This analogy doesn't work here. When an article has individual sentences that are inaccurate and uncorrectable, we delete those sentences, retaining the article's good parts. But there's no way to delete parts of this image without rendering the entire image unusable. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming to terms with how many changes are needed. This is a layered image. Any individual layer could be changed. Acceptable alternatives seem to be those with less detail, and I feel that it is comparable that in Wikipedia longer paragraphs with more statements are more likely to contain a mistake. I am coming to see that there are more problems here than initially raised. Let me think more rather than just quitting before the conversation ends. Blue Rasberry (talk)23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the myriad of issues that Axl has already pointed out there are a number of additional issues with the image that make it horrible and unsalvagable. Just to give you a scope of the issues with this image and an indication of why it will not be fixed, and why having an inaccurate image (reported as such in 2007) on Commons is damaging:
The cardiac notch is incorrectly presented
the angle after the carina is wrong on both sides
the oblique fissure is entirely missing on the left lung
the horizontal fissure is entirely missing on the right lung
lobes are incorrect on both lungs
alveolar vessles are oddly represented as if they only flow to central alveoles
the bronchi have a very weird division with long winding branches distally
The bronchi divide too soon
the bronchi do not split up after lobulation
both veins and arteries to the alveoles appear to have some weird varices
"pink" odd structure sticking out of the bronchiole — is it also a bronchiole or is it a chondroblastoma based on having the same color as the cartilage?
thyroid cartilage is severely malformed
Why is tracheal and bronchial cartilage one color, and bronchiolar cartilage another color?
Why is bronchiolar soft tissue the same color as tracheal cartilage?
Where is the cricoid cartilage? Is that just a gap?
Where is the epiglottis? (Clearly visible in the cancer.org image above the hyoid)
CFCF These are a lot more problems than initially raised, and if an acceptable image is only one that has all of these things correct and this image fails on all these criteria, then I think that establishes an argument for deletion. Most of what you mention here are not labeled as features on either the cancer.gov or this image, so I never imagined that these things needed to be in place.
If I may, I have some follow up questions -
You listed a lot of problems. Consider again the cancer.gov image - are you able to say how many of these shortcomings are present in that image? 0? 3-4? More than that? Just count, no explanation.
Rexx presented File:Lungs diagram detailed.svg. How many of these shortcomings are present in that image? Again, just count.
Without being too much of a burden, can you point to any image - even nonfree elsewhere online - which you would call an ideal model image for developing a replacement image? Is the image which Rexx supplied ideal to recommend as a basis for developing a replacement?
I am curious about whether the norm is no problems, a few problems, or many problems for any such image. I hope you understand that it is challenging for me to recognize any of these problems, so I depend on others. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)00:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the problems I've listed are based on comparisons between the cancer.gov image and the one up for deletion.
0(—1) The cancer.gov potentially fails on issue #13, but I can give that this choice is for clarity. Tracheal/bronchial cartilage is purple, while bronchiolar is white — but this I feel is simply because the contrast between brown and purple would be too small.
That image is as far as I'm concerned very good (close to ideal). It could definitely be made to fit as a replacement, but lacking a similar svg with the close-up of the bronchioles/alveoles it cannot currently be combined with anything to constitute a full replacement to overwrite this file with.
I uploaded a number of images from Category:CNX Anatomy & Physiology that can be found under Category:Lungs that I find are much better. They are however not svgs, and while more accurate some of them also have odd artistic choices. I can do a more thorough search soon (quite busy until the 10th).
The image here has too many problems to anticipate it being corrected; only a replacement image will work.
Adrian J. Hunter proposed a replacement image File:Illu bronchi lungs numerical labels.jpg. RexxS and Axl say that there is a serious problem with the trachea, and I am not sure whether that is tolerable, but if this image can be accepted then I would support its use in an exchange with this image.
I am not ready at this time to support a deletion without a plan for replacing the image in so many places. I do not feel that anyone calling for deletion has addressed how problematic it can be to track where deleted images used to be when a replacement later becomes available.
I also am not eager to delete this image at all. I am not ready to agree that a non-expert can easily come to know which details are necessary in a diagram of this sort. It has not be easy to extract details about what is and is not acceptable in this conversation, and if this image is deleted, the the context of this conversation pointing out what is not acceptable is lost. I would be agree to deprecate, remove, and label this image as unusable or to be avoided. I do not think it is normal in Wikimedia projects to erase the memory of attempts to learn from mistakes.
Here are my questions for now -
To what extent is replacement with File:Illu bronchi lungs numerical labels.jpg an acceptable compromise to address the problem for now, until a better image is found or developed?
I see value in keeping this image because this is the record of identified mistakes. Instead of deletion, to what extent is deprecation and removal from Wikimedia reader space acceptable?
"am I right in saying that the yellow bronchi should be in front of the blue bronchi," – CFCF. I suppose that the yellow bronchi represent the right middle lobe. (It is unclear from the picture where the yellow bronchi arise from.) The right middle lobe bronchus should arise from the lateral part of the right bronchus intermedius. There should be a short length of bronchus [bronchus intermedius] on the right after the right upper lobe bronchus branches off. The end of the bronchus intermedius divides into the right middle lobe bronchus (laterally) and the right lower lobe bronchus (inferiorly).
As an aside, it looks like a couple of the lateral branches of the yellow (right middle lobe?) bronchus may be going beyond the limit of the right middle lobe. Also, I think that the trachea may be a little too short.
I recommend Netter Illustrations – Respiratory System, page 16, to give a good idea of the bronchi and bronchopulmonary segments. Axl (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys think it is appropriate, should I copy-paste these (copyrighted) images as "fair use" somewhere for you to see? Axl (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1, I've shortened the trachea on the proposed replacement image I provided above. I modelled the ratios of the vertical distances between the bottom of the left lung, the top of the left lung, and the top of the left side of the thyroid cartilage (the thing with the M-shaped upper bound) on File:Lungs_diagram_detailed.svg (the "Potential svg replacement" in this section). The proportions look different, but I think that's just because the trachea is narrower and the thymus is visible in the image I edited. It's not perfect, but at least it's not grossly out.
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.
As you can see from the discussion at "en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Wikimedia_Commons", all uses of this image in article namespace across all projects have already been replaced with "File:Illu bronchi lungs numerical labels.jpg". The previous deletion request was closed as keep citing wide usage, but that certainly is not the case anymore. (So no speedy keep, please.) Meanwhile, especially after the previous DR which raised numerous constructive points in how it could be improved, my opinion is similar in principle with what Adrian J. Hunter mentioned in the previous DR, that this "should not be completely expunged from Commons now that it's been the subject of so much discussion". it should be Keep specifically to benefit from earlier discussions. This belongs to the Commons:Graphic Lab to be fixed, not deleted. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing of the sort even if I agree with the removal. We've previously established that it is far too inaccurate to be fixed at the graphics lab. CFCF (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who replaced the image in all mainspaces. The only exception was the one WhatamIdoing linked above, which I'd forgotten I was unable to replace for some technical reason, and which CFCF has now replaced. I made all the other replacements on 11 Jan (4.3 days ago), and based on "File usage on other wikis" at the image description page, none have been reverted. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per COM:EDUSE. We know there are decent alternatives, probably many. So why keep it? Who will coordinate the correct medical details with the specialists at Commons:Graphic Lab, and why bother? This is potentially dangerous, at least to the exam prospects of medical students. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COM:EDUSE cannot be violated when an image is kept on the grounds that it is being used at any Wikipedia (or other project), even if you think that they should be using some other image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, if it promotes a false understanding we can't just let it be because it is fancy enough that people misinterpret it to be accurate and chose to include it in an article. The fact that we are unable to constantly monitor the image's use is an argument in favor of deleting it. CFCF (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the previous closure by Yann, I wondered if he was trolling us, or just has no common sense.
Given the rigid enforcement of COM:INUSE, I can only assume that the policy is intended to be a replacement for common sense.
Of the Wikimedia Commons editors, only Bluerasberry has shown any inclination to improve the situation. Kudos to Bluerasberry for his attempt at collaboration.
I have previously deleted the offending images from en.wikipedia. I do not have an established reputation in the other wikis, so I have not attempted to delete the images there. (I am aware that other editors have now replaced those images.)
Given the general intransigence of Wikimedia Commons, I have no intention of attempting to collaborate with them again, either now or in the future.
My thanks to CFCF and the WikiProject Medicine crowd for attempting to fix the problem.
I am unsure if "No personal attacks" applies here on Wikimedia Commons. In case it does apply, I shall refrain from further comment. Axl (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Prior keeps were correct. File is not in use anymore, therefore deleted now for scope reasons. Personal attacks do not help anyone's point. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not a valid reason for deletion. Featured status might use a reconsidering though. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Strong delete. I'm sorry to see bureaucracy trumping common sense here. If "This image contains multiple inaccuracies and is making people dumber" is not a valid deletion rationale under Commons policy, then that's a problem with policy, not with the nomination. Obviously the best possible outcome would be for someone to fix the image, but that requires considerable knowledge, skill, and time, so if that's not going to happen very quickly then deletion is vastly preferable to continuing to spread false information. That the picture is widely in use does not avert these concerns, but amplifies them. That this is a Featured Picture is irrelevant: here is the Featured Picture discussion, and it contains no endorsement of the accuracy of the image, and it occurred before these concerns were raised. I truly hope the incredible contempt shown on this page for the accuracy of what we provide the public is not reflective of the general attitude at Commons. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
