- Template:PokeImageNR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)
- Template:Poke-nsd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)
- Template:Poke-nrd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)
- Template:Poke-no source (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)
As the creator of two of the templates, i was not notified, and no one at the project who would be using this templates was notified. The reasons for deletion could have been addressed without actually deleting the templates. I'd also like to ask for some leniency, that even though the TFD was up for a week it occured during a period where most people who would be using these templates were likely involved in rl because the newest release of the games came out during this period. Aside from real world involvment, this also meant 100 page moves, and anon monitoring on those pages. Images were taking a backseat.-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist - The original reason for deletion was that the templates were redundant to {{nrd}} and {{nsd}}. They were in fact intended to assist with those categories. Another concern was that it would create unneccessarily complicated backlogs. The templates can easily be modified to utilize the same categories and in fact would aid in clearing up the backlog by making people who might be able to properly source an image more aware of it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist. I wish I had realized that there was no notification, or I would have done it. Anyway, templates shouldn't be deleted without the input of those who use them. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I was the closing administrator on this. It was a completely valid discussion. And the consensus was almost unanamous. Do I wish that more had been notified? Yes. But honestly, #1 I'm not sure it would've made any difference. This was not real close. I am always leery with the "I wasn't notified" reasoning with TfD because the debate stays open for 7 full days. Someone should be able to catch it in that period. And. Besides all of that, the templates were redundant to existing templates. And they weren't being used either. All grounds for deletion. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. If those who weren't notified can tell us how these templates aren't redundant, then let them do it here. If they can't, then their involvement wouldn't have changed the outcome of the TfD. WikiProjects do not own templates/articles related to their chosen subject and have no special rights in deletion discussions. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- it was my understanding that I shouldn't discuss my reasons for not deleting here... that i should only try to explain why i think it should be relisted, as this is not the proper forum. However - if you ask, you will receive. The Pokemon genre tends to attract a large number of people who do not feel it neccessary to read and understand the policies before uploading content. As such, prior to a massive image overhaul back in March, there were many images that either had no source or rationale. Rather than tag them with nsd or nrd i created tags (PokeImageNR and Poke-no source) to place them in special categories that i and anyone else who was interested in looking at Category:Pokémon images could quickly and easily sift through - sourcing, nominating for deletion, etc. The two newer templates, I assumed, were created to address the problem brought up in the TFD about creating forked backlogs (i now have realized this may not have actually happened). The templates are not redundant because they actually help with the backlogs created by nsd and nrd. Many images do not become sourced because a general person will probably have no idea where the uploader could have found the image. If additionally categorized in a relevant subcategory of a topic, the image is more likely to become properly sourced, or receive an accurate fair use rationale. The fact that by the time the nominator found these templates they were no longer needing to be used supports this idea (had i tagged images nsd or nrd they would probably still be tagged that way, as evidenced by the number of images in those categories). Deleting these templates prevents helpful categorization, and they can easily be reworked to so that they utilize the current date categories as well. Arguing that because they're no longer used they can be deleted is like deteing nsd and nrd if we were ever to empty the backlogs. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid debate, no new evidence above. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- apparently I didn't make myself clear. The nominator made the statement that, "all images without source or fair use rationales are treated equaly and should be listed in one place for easy processing." Like i said, the templates did not (or should not) create forks of image categories that people would have to go through in addition to those linked to nsd and nrd. The scenario presented:
Imagine if admins didn't just have to process everyting in "images with no source as of XXX", but also had to go though a dozen categories like "images of pokemon with no source", "images of dogs with no source", "images of cars with no source", "images of fish with no source" and so on. It would just make the system even more complex and tedious to administrate for no real benefit.
was completely groundless, the perceived forked backlogs would NOT exist. And seeing as how nobody added any other reason to the debate, the refutation of this idea should be enough to support recreation. However, i've also refuted Woohookitty's claims of redundancy and non use. I'd also like to point out that no one who !voted semed to realize that these templates had been used and were being retained for future use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relist I know it isn't required by the rules, but it would be much better practice to always notify at least the the project when a template is under discussion,it order to avoid misunderstandings like this. Relatively few people watch TfD. The idea should be to do what is necessary to have a proper discussion with all parties affected. In this instance a good case has been made. DGG 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist, it seems the timing of the TfD was unfortunate in that it coincided with a period when those using the template were busy with other activities. This, combined with the lack of notification to the template creator and project and the additional reasoning presented here make a compelling case for a new TfD discussion. Regarding the notification issue, I endorse DGG's comment. I also have vague memories of what I presume was a proposal that the clock didn't start on XfD discussions until the creator had been informed, adopting that and the same for notification of any relevant projects (identification of relevant projects would seem to be easily accomplished by all projects wishing to be so informed placing a prominent note on the template talk page) would seem to me to be a good way of avoiding many, possibly even most, misunderstandings like this. I understand though that some thought would need to into how to achieve this without adding complexity. Thryduulf 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to go with Samuel on this one though. The Wikiproject or the users using the template should not get any kind of special treatment. And that's what this would be. These are not "their" templates just because they use them. It's not as if the TfD tags were hidden on the 3 pages affected. They had a full week to make their voices heard. If we overturn something that is this clear, what kind of precedent does that send? It's not as if this was even close to a mixed vote. If a unanimous result can be overturned, then what exactly is the point of TfD? And it isn't as though there was just one or two users saying delete. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. The deletion debate was unanimous, and the templates were unnessesary and redundant forks of existing templates. There is no lack of members associated with WP:POKE, and if these templates served any sort of purpose, they would have immediately been identified by one of those members during the week+ that the debate was open. Resolute 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion the deletion process ran its due course and the result was unanimous. The templates, as far as I could tell, had been properly tagged and anybody with them on their watchlist should have noted the ongoing deletion debate (We are not talking about a hidden notice in a locked closet in a abandoned toilet with a sign on the door reading "Beware of Tiger" here) and should have weighted in and notified others that would be affected. Also, as I pointed out in the TfD, I don't think we need a special template just for Pokemon related articles. The normal ones do just fine. CharonX/talk 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. The only thing more annoying than pokecruft is people whining about pokecruft. —ptk✰fgs 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. There is no reason to categorize deletion queues by subject. Uploaders need to give the correct information, we don't need to make one million categories to coddle them into following image policy. Regardless, most of the pokemon images are fair use anyway, it's not hard to find more. And I have nothing against pokemon... - cohesion 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your more appropriate tone. But by saying we shouldn't "coddle [users] into following image policy" isn't that like saying "noobs be damned"? And the idea of encouraging people to follow policies by discovering the image was deleted and then having to re-upload it doesn't seem helpful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd encourage anything to help new image uploaders and am a strong proponent of moves in this direction. This particular solution though doesn't scale in my opinion. Also, many people will continue to add the normal templates to pokemon images anyway, so you have no guarantee of catching them all. (awesome unintentional pokemon double entendre!). - cohesion 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just for the record I did notify a user who seemed to have been heavily involved with making the templates, guess he was not active. I'll concede that the category forking seems to be a non-issue. I only read the noinclude text and skimmed the code real fast and missed the part where it added the "official" category too. That said there are still good reasons not to make forks of these templtes. For example if lots of projects did the same and the speedy deletion criterea change at some point there would no mechanism to ensure that all the forks where properly updated to reflect current policy (guess we could maintain lists, but still a lot of work). Yes there are ways around that too, like making the pokemon template just transclude the official one and add it's own category or such, but I guess it ultimately boils down to wheter or not it's rely needed. I'm not entierly unsympathetic to the idea of having additional "filter" categories where people of varios Wikiprojects could investegate problem images related to theyr interests. More eyes on our images would defenently be a good thing. However I'm not convinced project spesific deletion templates are the way to go, there is no guarantee after all that non-members will know about and use these templates, so images they tag will never show up in these categories for project members to review (evidenced by the aparent non-usage of these templates). Perhaps it would be better if the Pokemon project (and any other project for that matter) where to create theyr own "image task force" that would routinely browse though the list of images tagged as missing source and rationales and just manualy add a relevant category to images they think relate to theyr project. --Sherool (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Compromise - Ok... i think i've come up with a solution that would make everyone happy. How about we just add an optional parameter to nsd and nrd that adds a category? Least amount of code, and would help the most people (those outside the poke-project as well). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- ... wait... ick... then users will have to use the template typing in something like {{subst:nrd|Pokémon images without a Fair-use rationale}} maybe merely adding code supported magic words? the code is substed so it's not like it would have to check each time. But then again, when the tag is removed, the editor will have to be sure they remove all relevant categories. of course that's really no different than Sherool's option. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The overwhelming opinion from the TfD and this review is that there is no need for unsourced images to be placed into separate categories by subject. The technical way of doing it isn't the issue. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The TFD !voters offered nothing more than support of the nominator's admittedly inaccurate observations. So quite honestly seeing as how Sherool is making new arguements, i fail to see how the old TFD has any bearing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see no convincing reason as why to allow the forking of those generic-use templates. The addition of categories might see useful, but does it warrant the creation of the fork - we might end up with nsd template for any topic imaginable. The addition of the parameter is also not very useful, since to use that parameter one would have to know the proper category which either leads to guess&check or listcruft at the parameterlists. CharonX/talk 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just a couple of comments. Firstly, there is a long precedent on the TfD page for not having templates forked from existing templates unless the templates are used heavily. Now. This isn't like a policy (though the redundant piece of the policy is along that same line). :) But it's something I've seen on TfD time and time again. We have the generic templates for a reason...and that reason is to eliminate the use of specific templates for each and every case, which would clutter the server and make things more confusing. It just simply makes more sense to have one template for something like this and not many. Secondly, I do appreciate the fervor that you've brought to this, Zappernapper, but I think you are missing something. I don't think people said they wanted the template deleted because they didn't like the argument. I think they did it for what CharonX is expressing and for what I just said. There is just no reason to have a specific template for Pokeman articles when the generic ones do just fine. There is no reason for the template to specifically say Pokeman. It's redundant, no matter how you dress it up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Endorse deletion, unanimous result from TfD was that these templates were redundant; nom has offered no evidence to challenge that. Notifying the creators is polite; notifying related Wikiprojects (especially over-specialized fan projects) is absolutely not required, and frequently counter-productive. (The more specialized a Wikiprojecct, the less likely, in general, that its members will be willing or able to endorse a neutral or balanced POV, in my experience.) And while it's not strictly relevant to this review, I'd like to point out that concern was expressed at the TfD about what would happen if more Wikiprojects started doing the same, and I confess that I fully agree with this concern. I have no personal objection to a Wikiproject tagging images for their own purposes, but I do object when they try to replace and override existing standard templates. A completely separate {{PokeImage}} template with project-specific arguments to place images in project-specific categories seems like a much better approach. Xtifr tälk 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or simply put categories on the page! You don't need templates to add categories to something. And you particularly don't need to add special parameters to existing templates to then "allow" arbitrary categories to be added to pages! Let alone create new templates that you can use to replace existing templates in order to place something in a standard category and your own special-purpose category. Xtifr tälk 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
