|
The templates proposed for undeletion are:
(Listed in above format as {{Newdelrev}} permits the inclusion of only one page)
The concerned WikiProject was not notified of the TfD nomination, and thus the people who have an interest in seing the templates remain never got a chance to comment.
The TfD was closed with the sole argument of "over specialization" of the templates. However, these are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. Both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. The second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of Pokémon images facilitates maintenance of those images. While the closing Admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokémon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus (indeed unanimity) that these should be deleted among those who participated in the discussion and no requirement that Wikiproject be informed when templates they might be interested in are nominated for deletion. The generic templates are quite sufficient and there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates. Right outcome, right assessment of the discussion. WjBscribe 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I'm afraid you're countering straw man arguments here, WJB. I'm not questioning the admin's interpretation of the debate. However, WP:DRV says that a deletion may be questioned if new info is available a the time of the review. I'm interpreting "new information" to mean "new arguments", and the grounds I state for undeletion were definitely not mentioned in the TfD. Neither do I seek undeletion simply because the WikiProject was not informed, that is simply the reason why these arguments were not stated in the TfD in the first place, nothing more. To refute my actual arguments (Categorization) you have only said, "there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates". I assume you meant "screenshots", but I have already stated why these subcategories are desirable (overpopulation of the parent category). --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn deletion and relist templates also served an important purpose in helping the images meet the WP:NFCC, by identifying the copyright owner of the images. note I have a small COI with this nom, I had to convince the closing admin to re-tag the images as generic {{fairuse}} rather than just leave hundreds (possibly thousands, I didn't count them) of images tagless. -N 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overrule and Relist. The arguments made in the TfD were at the least misinformed. The templates, while at first glance looking so, are not redundant with current templates for nonfree media, as the deleted templates also identify the copyright holder within their texts w/o adding extra - AFAIK, many of the other templates dealing with such don't. Further, as Raven pointed out, the main reason for these to be applied was to alleviate the problem of maintaining gargantuan categories. They are not "overspecialized" any more than {{Template:D&D Books}} is overspecialized. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overrule and Relist per above. Bleh999 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, there are no new arguments here in the nomination, only claims of ownership by the WikiProject. The process ran the proper length of time, if you can't be bothered to keep track of the templates you claim to own, then it's nobody's problem but your own. There is nothing more to be seen here. The TfD discussion was unanimous, and absolutely correctly so. Corvus cornix 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, DRV is not "XfD round 2" and the closure was 100% within guidelines, no procedural problems. The complaint that the Wikiproject was not notified is not grounds for overturning a valid deletion, either. Arkyan • (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it would then possibly not have been deleted. It's only fair to let both sides of an argument present their cases. It's another thing to let just one side say "Delete!" while the other side sits, twiddling their thumbs ignorantly. If Wikipedia is built on consensus, then everyone has the right to participate in a discussion. Overturn deletion and relist. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "What if" is also not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid reason. Are you implying that everyone who participated in the discussion is on a "side" that opposes the Pokemon wikiproject? If anything I would take their opinion as uninvolved editors to be more neutral and unbiased than a project with a vested interest in the topic. Again, there is nothing here that has violated deletion policy or procedures and thus no grounds to overturn it on. Arkyan • (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what he's implying, Ark. He's implying that the point of view from the WikiProject wasn't even heard from because nobody there knew what the frag was going on. He's not implying that only one side was heard, he's implying that one side wasn't heard. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not anybody else's problem. It was a unanimous discussion by those involved, it ran the proper length of time. Nothing more to be said. Corvus cornix 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The WikiProject does not need to be notified of this. The comments over at the TFD were perfectly valid deletes, and the templates were deleted. If you want the WikiProject's side to be heard, they should've hunted for that TFD themselves. 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's like asking Harry Potter to search for a Whaziflubbit, even though there's a possibility that they don't exist! --Brandon Dilbeck 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. This is not about the Pokémon project not being informed: there was no requirement for them to be. As above, this is about the fact that new arguments have come to light, and thus the decision for deletion was not made taking everything into account. As the page itself says: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it has, so the templates should be relisted. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you (and the others) may be misinterpreting the point about "new information". New arguments != new information, and that is why DRV != XfD2. For example, let's say an article about Some Guy was deleted as it lacked sources to establish notability. Now let's say I have found a number of news articles that can establish this notability, so I bring it to DRV as new information that was not available during the AfD. That is what is meant by "new information". What we have here is not new information that was not available during the TfD, but rather, new arguments that were not made during the TfD. So again, new arguments are not the same thing as new information, and are not grounds for overturning a decision. Arkyan • (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The deletion process ran the proper length and had overwhelming consensus to delete. Lack of notification of a WikiProject is not a reason to overturn a TfD and restore the templates. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it evident from reading this discussion that there currently isn't an overall overwhelming consensus to delete? A sample of seven or eight people who somehow stumbled upon that TfD discussion over the course of a week is obviously not representative of a collaborative encyclopedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not XfD 2.0. What "protests" are brought up now are irrelevant to the original TfD. --Farix (Talk) 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse; the generic {{non-free character}} suffices for at least the several hundred images that I retagged this morning and earlier this evening. Other templates will also suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that they give no information about who actually owns the copyright. The fact that it's Pokémon USA must be added manually, which is not the case for the deleted templates. And you still haven't commented on the category size. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Saying "too bad, you didn't get your arguments in fast enough, now consensus can't change" is silly. And substantial new arguments are certainly grounds for relisting. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are no substantial new arguments. Corvus cornix 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates add categorization (what do we need {{flagimage}} for? It duplicates other fair use templates. One thing it does though is categorize the pages it's on) and aid the images it's tagged with to meet the WP:NFCC by identifying the copyright holder. Those are *2* new arguments. -N 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To those endorsing, I have a few things to say. For the "the WikiProject does not need to be notified": Perhaps there is no convention for doing so, but it should, ought to and usually is done by application of sheer common sense as opposed to WP policy. For "this is not TfD round 2": The original TfD was not nearly valid, whatever policy may state. A warning template is added to subjects being considered for deletion for precisely this purpose, to notify editors who may be interested in the discussion. In ths case, the subjects are templates which are used only on image pages, which is why no one ever knew about this discussion except those that were hanging around the TfD page. And "no one" includes the WikiProject which created these templates in the first place, and which might therefore have very good reasons for keeping them.When only one side is ever given the opportunity to speak when another, sizeable, side exists, the debate obviously becomes farce. Whether Wikipedia policy states it or not, this is a case for ignoring all rules and renewing the debate. And its not as if we have no new information at all. These templates are maintained for subcategorizing image categories like category:screenshots of television and category:screenshots of films, which encourage the creation of subcategories if the existing category is very large. These categories currently have 33,000+ and 15,500+ images respectively, which would be considered "large" by any standard. That is information which was not mentioned in the TfD, i.e. it's "new information" for wikilawyers. That is the argument that was originally presented, and none of the "Endorse" crowd has said anything to counter it. The only argument for endorsing seems to be along the lines of, "The TfD was valid, you aren't allowed to say anything now, so run off and play with your toys." not anything constructive to the ongoing debate. Thank you. The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion: no valid arguments for overturning have been presented. In fact, the bulk of the argument seems to be addressed towards some categories which do not need a template to be used! This overspecialized and frequently misguided Wikiproject seems to be constantly amazed that its whims and WP:OWNership claims are not automatically accepted by the rest of Wikipedia, and seems oblivious to opinions about bad precedent. Project membership does not trump consensus! Similar templates have been discussed before (e.g. at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 29#Template:PokeImageNR), with similar results. And the claims here that the TfD was not valid because some random wikiproject which may or may not have had an interest in the matter was not notified are beyond preposterous! Say it with me again: "project membership does not trump consensus". And frankly, the more specialized the project, the less likely (in my experience) that it will be able to muster unbiased arguments, and the less appropriate for it to create hordes of overspecialized templates and categories. I could see having templates and categories for cartoons in general, but having separate templates and categories for each and every cartoon series in existence is a horrific idea! I strongly suggest that this project work together with other related projects to come up with a few (one or two) general-purpose templates which can take arguments to specialize them, similar to {{WPBiography}}. Xtifr tälk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear. WikiProject ownership of articles/templates/whatever is a very serious problem. Corvus cornix 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Categories that do not need templates"? What I have been saying is about depopulating general categories, not populating specific ones. {{Film screenshot}} adds ad page to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of films and {{Tv screenshot}} adds it to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of television. Neither does the Project claim ownership of the templates, but seeing as templates are not used by Wikipedia readers but rather by a section of editors, seeing as it is only the Project which uses or needs to use this template and it is the Project that will be incovenienced by their deletion, I think the Project would earn a right to outrage. And as for "each and every" cartoon having its own image category, I'd like to remind you that Pokémon is not any other cartoon, it is a fad that has lasted for a decade and still going strong. Notability aside, what matters is the numbers: Category:Pokémon lead images has around 500 images. I'm estimating around 1500 images for all the categories put together. 1500 images, in short, which use the template.
And as N (who, for the Endorse crowd, is not a member of the WikiProject) pointed out, the templates contain the information that the copyright is owned by Pokémon USA, which must be put on the image page to make it comply under WP:NFCC. Without these templates, this information must be manually added to an estimated 1500+ pages. I suppose it could be done, but I doubt any of those currently yelling "Endorse" would like to do it themselves. And even as we speak, several images that were tagged with the deleted templates have been tagged as lacking a tag by the deleting Admin's bot, and are under direct threat from OrphanBot. If the discussion closes on "Endorse", they shall be deleted exactly a day after it. And as it was only the Template which added them to the categories, their respective categories have been blanked now and it's impossible to identify them and prevent this unless one goes through all the 1000+ Pokémon-related articles on the Wiki. Again, that is work that none of the Endorsers would be keen on doing.EDIT: That problem won't be solved even if the decision is "Overturn". The WikiProject is expected to do all the dirty work, as usual, and if we complain we're "claiming ownership". --The Raven's Apprentice 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused what Xtifr means exactly by "Project membership does not trump consensus." Consensus of what? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's basically trying to say that just because the WikiProject members say the templates should stay doesn't mean they should, and that agreement of the WikiProject members is not an all-Wikipedia consensus. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I thought at first that people honestly did think that there were strong arguments not considered, but recent events on WT:PCP have demonstrated that it's really more of a "we weren't told so it's wrong!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I suggest for the Pokemon folks to prevent this in the future, have someone just watch TFD for you. All I am seeing here is that a project wasn't notified, so that should cancel the vote. I don't buy that at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I have seen 3 arguments in this DRV to undelete the templates. I have listed them and why they don't make these templates necessary.
- Wikiproject not notified - People from Wikiproject Pokemon should pay more attention to Xfds.
- Categorization - Make a new template to subst into images with the necessary categories and text saying "Copyrighted by *copyright owner*".
Compliance with fair use policy - See Categorization. Funpika 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "WikiProject not notified" was never an argument for overturning, it was solely an argument for permitting this DRV in the first place. Looks like FunPika has addressed all issues, except one: overcluttering of the parent category. Unless we make at least one template, which can use variables to serve the functions of all those deleted, the parent category'll just clutter up a bit more. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Non-free television screenshot}} can easily have a parameter for changing the category. –Pomte 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as delete, no process went wrong here, nothing to review. Funpika's three points are also relevant. --Iamunknown 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Posting the TfD at the talk there would have undoubtedly brought in a bias towards it. There's no reason to make specific templates for a show when generic ones do the job just as well. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - ironically enough, I am the person that nominated these articles. I apologize, as I was in a hurry that day, I did not notify that original creators. The point of the TFD ought to be to have a discussion about the merits of a template, not a simply "you better get your vote in now or it will be deleted forever without your valuable input". I apologize, but I believe it would be best to have a full discussion from all elements present on these templates. The Evil Spartan 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - Per User:the Evil Spartan. FunPika 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
