Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse video

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse video

Discusses the act of inverting the colors in an image. I don't know as much about computers as some people do, but this sounds unencyclopedic. Hasn't seen a single major edit since it was created a year ago. See also negative (photography). --Smack (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Needs more work but contains useful material. BlueValour 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BlueValour --Danielrocks123 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this the same as inverting an image?--Andeh 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. crystal-ballism that more work on article will do anything good. Tychocat 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dictdef per Tychocat. Also, it's unsourced and I wonder where it all came from. Kimchi.sg 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's essentially a dicdef now, but could be more. Essentially a stub. Ace of Sevens 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dict def, and WP:NOT a how-to guide. Proto||type 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As an editor/filmmaker, I can tell you that this is wicked an inverted image. I couldn't find an article on the topic, so we could just change the title and wording. I'd be more than happy to help. It's a wicked fun and cool thing to use. Yanksox 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Yanksox makes a good point: as a special effect used in many areas of the visual arts, one can imagine a decent article being written on this subject, simply by covering where and why it's been used. While what we have now is not such an article, it's no worse than many small stubs. The "dicdef" principle really applies only where there is no potential for expansion. This should either be kept, or if the subject is already covered in another article, it should be redirected there; but there is no good reason to delete it. — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be better to discuss this as a section at Image editing. However, if we do keep it, we should probably rename it to Reverse image. --Smack (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry, I have to disagree with the interpretations of most editors who have weighed in above here. I don't think the point of the Reverse video article is a TV or movie effect; it's talking about what happens on a computer screen when you highlight text so that, for example, what had been black text on a white background becomes white text in a black box against a white background. (To see what I mean, click and drag with your mouse over just about any text on this page.) This effect has been around in computers for a long time and was even more common back in the days of 8-bit computers, when it wasn't practical to have on-screen effects like italics and underlining, but it was possible to have the effect described in the article stand in for one of them. At the risk of suggesting how old I am, I used to use the AtariWriter word processing software which showed text on the screen in reverse video when that text was going to be underlined on paper. This is not a dicdef; it's a stub. Vadder 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I read your comments and see what you mean. I still think we could change this to an article about inverted video, which seems to be the most proper use of the page. Yanksox 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering one reason not to do that: pages that currently link to this article should expect it to be about computers, so the links will be wrong if the basic subject matter of this article changes to videography. Vadder 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What about a disamb? Yanksox 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A disamb would be good, as long as somebody goes to all the pages linking to Reverse video and points them appropriately past the disamb. Vadder 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it could use some more content, but it could become a useful article. dougmc 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be expanded but is a valid subject and there are plenty of substantive references available to back up information.--Auger Martel 10:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kimchi.sg and Proto above. --mtz206 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have started to add some sources. BlueValour 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.