Commons:Deletion requests/File:NagasakibombEdit.jpeg
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 image contains huge amounts of what's pretty univerally agreed to be inappropriate manipulation. Perhaps the easiest to direct you to is this: Open this file and File:Nagasakibomb.jpg at full resolution in different browser tabs. Scroll to the lower right hand corner. Flip between the two. You will notice that, among other things, a cloud gains a hole when you flip to this edit. There are much worse problems elsewhere in the image.
This edit is, quite simply, far too sloppy to ever be suitable for Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use. Anyway, buth links seem to be identical. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the link in Adam's request. mixpix (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now. Dust specks and scratches were removed. Should be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's far more than that. No attempt was made to match colour, so the image changes significanty around a former dust speck. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now. Dust specks and scratches were removed. Should be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the link in Adam's request. mixpix (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Adam is right about the lower right corner phenomena, so I'll trust his judgement about the rest of the picture. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)- Keep – as an example of how *not* to repair a historical image. It needs a prominent note to that effect on the description page; I wouldn't ever want to see it in a Wikipedia article and wiki editors should be cautioned that it isn't an accurate reproduction of the original image. However there are those who would prefer a "cleaned up" version regardless of these inaccuracies, for non-encyclopedic use. After all, it's not as if the editor painted Mickey Mouse ears on it, these are very localised edits. --mixpix (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly considered Mickey Mouse ears, but decided against it at the last minute. upstateNYer 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
