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.
Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams|year=2024|month=July|day=26}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams}} at the end of today's log.
These schematic diagrams are a welcome effort by user:KVDP to add illustrative diagrams to some articles on steam and other railway locomotives at :en Wikipedia. However they are so inaccurate as to be seriously misleading and without hope of remedy by further editing. There are better alternatives available already for half of them, and the articles would be better without than to use the others.
As a technical aside, they're also in PNG rather than SVG (for a topic that really does need SVG). They also have embedded English language captions that are both non-i18n and also impossible to read at article-use sizes.
Keep I admit that none of the images are actual representations of existing locomotives (which have distinct features, ...) Rather however, the images are simply used to represent how a locomotive generally works and they are set up in such a way that they can be easily compared, ... Also, I wish to note that the images are set up so as to allow use of components for other (non-locomotive machinery (other machines use steam engines aswell). The images are also perhaps not a true representation of existing locomotives, but that doesn't mean that the setup as shown here doesn't work. I will work on improving the images upon your remarks. Also, I will keep the images out of wikipedia until they have been improved. KVDP (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, a number of these images include speculative modifcations and improvements to the historical orperation of locomotive engines that are creations of KVDP's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipeida. Additionally, this user has a history of attempting to legtimize impossible techonolgies, like here en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_ICE_fuel_generator and is using wikipedia to backup is personal, and original research viewpoints on his website here [1]. Wikipedia is for Historical and Factual information, it is an encyclopedia, it is not a blog, it is not consumer reports and is not a place to speculate. - Aalox(Say Hello • My Work) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're making this into a personal crusade. Please note that I keep my personal views and blog seperate from my images and wikipedia, and where I do propose fuels, ... along the line of my personal view, I do state this clearly. In order to preserve objectivity, please keep this only about the images at hand, and not about me. Regarding the legitimizing of "impossible technologies", I am totally baffled. Seeing that you are a student at the university of Florida, I am certain that you are capable of seeing past the clumsy term I used to see that the fuels I propose are indeed well possible to use. Finally, I already did my share in having accurate images shown at Wikipedia/wiki commons, such as the replacement of the [undershot water wheel image (see right)] this file. As it appears however, this extremely inaccurate image (which can not be said of my image) is still present at wiki commons. Perhaps that you should focus on these images instead, rather than focusing on deleting images that have improvements pending ::KVDP (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no argument regarding wikipedia, indeed this project has a policy of not allowing original work. I would be willing to improve the images so that they do fit, but I recognise that in their current form, there not good enough to pass as a "regular" locomotive to allow remaining on the wikipedia page. However, I did place the images at wikimedia commons, not just on wikipedia. Other projects such as wikiversity do allow own work. I remember asking someone at wiki commons about this (not sure anymore about what it was, might of been simply about text, but that aside). So, if I agree to remove the links to wikipedia articles, the images I made are allowed at wikimedia commons (ie where they can be used for other wikiprojects). KVDP (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with OR. These images are _bad_ OR, and they're not even claiming to be OR, they're claiming to be authentic representations. I admit I'm unfamiliar with Commons' policy on content quality, but I sincerely hope that these images fail it, because there's little point in contributing to a project where images this bad would be seen as acceptable. Yes, "bad". They're plain dumb wrong with no excuse, and they can only confuse and mislead others. That's not what I'm here for, I'm disappointed to see that you even wish to defend them on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete all. These are seriously misleading and contain so many glaring inaccuracies that they shouldn't be kept at all—if they're hosted on Commons, there's too much of a chance that people will assume they're accurate and try to add them to articles. It's not a major issue for the big wikis like en-wikipedia, where dozens of people watch the articles, but on one of the smaller Wikipedias one of these could easily sit on an article long enough for someone else to pick it up and reproduce it, and once it was challenged it would be sourced back to us and there'd be one more "WMF spreading inaccuracy!" story for the media to run with. There's no good reason to keep something knowing that it's fundamentally inaccurate. — iridescent14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he is claiming the machines operate in ways they do not, misinforming readers of wikipedia articles. He is making up his own inventions and passing them off as functional, existing machines for wikipedia articles. - Aalox(Say Hello • My Work) 07:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Pieter, I think you're misunderstanding the issue here; the problem isn't that he's drawn his own images—that's fine—but that they're fantasy diagrams of "what I think a locomotive looks like inside" by someone who doesn't understand how a locomotive actually works, which aren't labelled as such and thus are being dropped into articles by people who think they're genuine diagrams. They're no more in the project scope than an editor using Wikipedia/Wikimedia to host their self-penned short stories would be. — iridescent15:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that a new version of File:Steam powered locomotive with steam turbine.png has been uploaded with the comment 'changed linkage to steam wheel, this was incorrect' . However it's still inaccurate, and in just the same way as before. Decent work, whether text or images, can't be done without some necessary level of research and understanding. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete all as potentially 'harmful'. The enthusiasm of this user must be applauded, but his method of illustrating things he doesn't understand (by his own admission) without any research and then passing them off as 'reality', cannot be condoned. -- PeterJewell (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt's too bad, they are beautifully done, but a glance at several shows that they are certainly not mainstream, and, in at least the case of the steam locomotive, violate the laws of physics. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Dubious_Contributions, User:Globbet has drawn our attention to the fact that the problem is not just locomotive drawings, but others as well. Although he or she appears to be well intentioned, the user appears to have no mechanical training or experience. We have seen the drawings of locomotives. KVDP's drawings of pumps show no seals, or seals in the wrong place, valves in the wrong place, and other mistakes. KVDP has recently propagated a series of pump drawings onto English Wikipedia which will have to be removed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Globbet (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep I admit that none of the images are actual representations of existing locomotives (which have distinct features, ...) Rather however, the images are simply used to represent how a locomotive generally works and they are set up in such a way that they can be easily compared, ... Also, I wish to note that the images are set up so as to allow use of components for other (non-locomotive machinery (other machines use steam engines aswell). The images are also perhaps not a true representation of existing locomotives, but that doesn't mean that the setup as shown here doesn't work. I will work on improving the images upon your remarks. Also, I will keep the images out of wikipedia until they have been improved. KVDP (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment In a comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Dubious_Contributions, User:Globbet has drawn our attention to the fact that the problem is not just locomotive drawings, but others as well. Although he or she appears to be well intentioned, the user appears to have no mechanical training or experience. We have seen the drawings of locomotives. KVDP's drawings of pumps show no seals, or seals in the wrong place, valves in the wrong place, and other mistakes. KVDP has recently propagated a series of pump drawings onto English Wikipedia which will have to be removed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)