File talk:DNA orbit animated small.gif

Why this image should not be deleted as a duplicate

copied from User_talk:Rlevse#Image:DNA_orbit_animated_small.gif. --Dietzel65 (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

"Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif in original size

Image:DNA orbit animated.gif downsized

Hi there, if I got this right you are in the process of deleting Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif, or at least replacing it in articles with Image:DNA orbit animated.gif. If you are not responsible, maybe you can point out who is. Anyway, the replacement is a bad idea. Sure, the one is just a smaller version of the other. But it is much smaller also in terms of file size: 2.93 MB compared to 659 KB. When we had the big version in the German DNA article, some people complained that loading would be very slow. Not everyone has a high speed connection to the internet. This does make a difference for many people. Just down-scaling the image via the Wiki-Software ("182px" in the image description) is not an option, because the result looks horrible compared to the small image, see right. What would be the next step? --Dietzel65 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons policy is not to keep dupes. They are both gifs of the same thing and the small one is of much poorer quality. As I do understand your concern, I'll ask someone else who has worked this area more than I about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a policy that says not to keep duplicates. The deletion guidelines says that exact duplicates and scaled-down versions can be deleted, not that they can not be kept. This file is not just a scaled-down version, the speed of the animation is different, and the images clearly look different when viewed at the same size. Commons policy is to host images that are used by Wikimedia project, so in this case the "poorer quality" image has to be kept since German Wikipedia want to use it. The relevant guidelines are at Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates, the only valid speedy deletions for duplicates are "in category duplicates, exact duplicate" and "in category duplicates, scaled-down version". The next section Commons:Deletion guidelines#Redundant/bad quality implies that "in category duplicates, not exact duplicate" is not valid for speedy deletion, those images should use ordinary Deletion requests. /Ö 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the small one is of much poorer quality." Poorer quality for what purpose? For the purpose we need it for, the smaller version is of better quality. That's the whole point. Don't you agree that the left of the two images looks better than the right one? Personally, I would mind it less if you would delete the big version. It would still be a pitty, though. For other purposes the bigger version may be better. In short, these images are not the same. If some policy should really request to delete one of them (which does not seem to be the case according to Ö), it is a stupid policy that should be changed. --Dietzel65 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been a good idea to also remove it from the respective lists. Now User:Zirland has deleted it. I'll ask him for restoration on his discussion page. Maybe you can also undelete it yourself? --Dietzel65 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The dupe list is clean User:OsamaK/dupes. It looks like the file wasn't even tagged this time, he just deleted it. Ask him first, let me know if there's a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image is back now. Thanks to whoever did it. I will copy this discussion to the discussion page of the image, this may help to avoid a rerun. --Dietzel65 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)