Category talk:Bad images
Why this category?
[edit]When a bad image falls in the Category:Media needing categories there is not a real problem. In fact these images remain hidden for most of the users of Commons. Yes it fills up storage place but I think that the effort in the steps to have it deleted can be better used for categorizing good images, to make nice galleries, etc.
The main problem is when there are bad images in a category or gallery. It makes it more difficult to find good images and it gives the impression that Commons contains many rubbish images. My personal approach would be when I see a bad image in a category, to check if it is used in any Wikipedia article. If not then I will put it in the category “Bad images”. If there comes no reaction let’s say within a month, of somebody about putting the image in the “bad images” category, the image can be nominated for deletion. The advantage is that bad images are deleted that are uploaded by users who don’t care about what they uploaded. This saves time of discussion. Wouter (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would strongly prefer the other categories being preserved until deletion, if the image is going to be deleted. There may for example be an image of birds, where the birds are blurry, but the background is the only image we have of a certain bird mountain. Then the emage is redundant as an image of a bird, but not necessarily of other features.
- Removing images from categories where the image indeed is redundant (perhaps even if subcategories were created) is ok for me, but I think that is controverisal.