Commons:Deletion requests/Texas FM shields 1

Delete, no longer needed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deletion of superseded files. --GeorgHH • talk 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Holderca1 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just the way things are done. See COM:DEL/Superseded. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Just the way things are done" doesn't cut it with me. I'll be completely honest, it seems stupid to have two files that are identical in every way but format. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "It seems stupid" doesn't cut it with me, so there, discussion over. Seriously though, if you have a problem with this policy then go change the policy; otherwise, give a compelling reason to disregard it in this case that wouldn't apply to every single other superseded image. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is stupid to keep images that will never be used again. Furthermore, that is not a policy that you have been citing. Even if it is, it is a stupid policy that is a bunch of bureaucratic crap. --Rschen7754 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a policy (all our superseded tags reflect that). If you want to change the policy, go argue for a change in policy in an appropriate venue (though you will have to have better arguments than "that is a bunch of bureaucratic crap" if you want to be taken seriously). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nah, I have better ways to waste my time; I don't feel a pressing need to argue with policy wonks on a site that embraces useless images and redundant categories. If it wasn't easier to categorize files here, I'd upload them to Wikipedia instead. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. So nah, I have better ways to waste my time; I don't feel a pressing need to argue with argumentative en.wikipedians that stop by the Commons every now and then, who completely disregard the fact that Commons has its own rules and traditions forged by a ton of discussion and consensus and which are not, therefore, to be taken lightly. In short, no u. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But they are not used, nor will they be used. If they are seen used in an article, they are replaced on site with the svg version. So the only thing accomplished by having them around is to make our work as editors more difficult. --Holderca1 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - See comments above, they're pertinent here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Give me one good reason why these images should be kept besides "my mommy told me so." --Rschen7754 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a perfectly valid argument; maybe if you had listened to your mother you wouldn't be quite so rude to others. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        SERIOUSLY - why keep all these images? We're trying to make the highest quality lowest resolution files here - keeping these obsolete images just introduces problems when people use them. Give us a reason and Don't point us to a commons page saying deletion of superceded images is not allowed! master son^{T - C} 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        SERIOUSLY, don't point you to a policy page that has wide community support because the opinion of you and a couple of other people from WikiProject U.S. roads overrides all that. Whatever. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What? That is an incoherent sentence. --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin)
Delete, no longer used or needed. --Holderca1 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No real problem IMO. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lpangelrob 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inferior and redundant. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Superseded images are not deleted. Tag them instead. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what good does tagging do? The redundant set still exists then, and having two sets of shields around for the same thing can easily confuse editors. Just because a tag says "use the SVG instead" doesn't mean they will. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? To blindly follow a process? Use common sense please. --Rschen7754 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, pretty much: that's just the way things are done, after much discussion of this matter. ~~(I'm really, really amazed that so many people have turned up here to vote; I wonder why so many people care.)~~ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Never mind to the last bit; this explains that. Hence all the voters. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi1979 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom master son^{T - C} 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate pngs make me cry IRL Stratosphere 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give a valid reason. --Rschen7754 23:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy. Commons is not intended to be solely a repository for Wikimedia content, but a repository of free media. Links from outside, non-Wikimedia sites would be broken if these images are deleted. See Commons talk:Deletion guidelines#Superseded clause. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for giving an intelligent reason for the keep vote. I disagree with this because the benefit to the rest of the internet would not surpass the disadvantage to Wikimedia sites. --Rschen7754 06:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still unclear on this. The deletion policy states that superseded images are deleted on a case-by-case basis. If this isn't a good case, what would be? --Holderca1 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't we delete and then redirect to the SVGs if that's an issue? --NE2 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let people choose which format they want to use. SVG and PNG are not identical, and don't have the same level of support. --Itub 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MediaWiki creates PNGs from the SVGs, so I don't understand this argument. --NE2 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion to change the policy Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Superseded#This_policy_is_ridiculous here. --Rschen7754 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per COM:DEL/Superseded. As no deletion argument has stated why this policy should be overlooked in this case. giggy _(:O) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Texas FM shields 1

Texas FM shields 1

Navigation menu

Search