Category talk:Articles that need deletion

Just to be clear on why those Comic Issue 0 images are the ones I chose for deletion, the ones that I uploaded in January are much better-loooking than the ones uploaded back in August '06 (which have crappy compression), and the newer uploads also don't have waterwarks all over the bottom of them. Just to let you know, geyser, why these older images should be deleted. --Iritscen 15:43, 28 March 2008 (CET)

---

This is a useful category and in no way takes away from the fun of the wiki. This is just proper wiki management. I dislike blanking a page as a method for leading to deletion, especially since you said the wiki doesn't notify you that the page is blanked, and anyway, it makes you view history just to see what it was that got blanked. Besides, now I can note images that are duplicates and should be removed. I am trying to clean up the issues with the images on the wiki (unused files and dupes) and this is helpful to me. So please don't stand in the way of this. It in no way adds any burden to you as a sysop.

Iritscen 17:19, 11 March 2008 (CET)

Oh my, aren't you the paranoid one today? You're the one who cracks down on stuff just because it's useless or requires cleanup or whatever... not me ^_^

The worst thing that can happen is that I'll overlook a few categorizations and won't check on the category page, so you'll still have to remind me somehow.

I don't remember being vocally opposed to such a category. The only thing I stand in the way of is compulsive editing. Quality takes time and transparency.

Speaking of unused images, I'll eventually delete every uncategorized image that is only "used" in your Images/Whaveter galleries: proper management ;)

I fail to see what's the problem with the PV karate Konoko (btw, you name your own stuff with a lot less ambiguity than other people's fan art, doncha? ^_^)

I'll also keep the beer and pron things, just to remind us of our early days. I won't uncategorize them. And I won't give you any more reasons for that ^_^

geyser 20:29, 11 March 2008 (CET)

"I don't remember being vocally opposed to such a category." From your talk page: "Don't even think about using templates and such for [marking pages for deletion]." So I was just pre-emptively trying to avoid any trouble by accusing you of having a problem with something before you could say that you did; that's a technique you use with me all the time ("don't think of [this]", "don't try to [that]" before I've done anything), so fair's fair.

"I'll eventually delete every uncategorized image"... Now, I don't consider that proper wiki management. But if you're saying that I just have to find a category for all those images in order to save them from deletion, then fine, categorizing is what I do best. And who knows, I might just happen to "forget" to categorize certain fan art. I do have a decent idea of what looks good and what doesn't, you know.

I wanted Karate Konoko gone because it's WIP. The other art I uploaded from my (halted) project was done, at least as far as that style, or version, is concerned. If I or someone else uploads unfinished art, it then has to be replaced every time I upload a new version, so it's better to wait until it's done to my satisfaction (I explained that on the talk page for Images somewhere.)

I have to admit, the beer and pron images do amuse me. I just wanted to draw your attention to them as the old, unused files that they are.

Iritscen 14:53, 12 March 2008 (CET)

Don't even think about using templates and such for [marking pages for deletion]. 1) that's not what I call vocal; 2) that was said at a time when you were totally oblivious of categories, dude.

Now, I don't consider that proper wiki management. Just don't celebrate mediocrity and we'll have a deal. I do have a decent idea of what looks good and what doesn't, you know. O RLY? :)

Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.

Same goes for good taste, obviously. No offense meant, just wanted to rant a bit... and that quote is just too good to ignore (introduction to "Discours de la méthode" by Rene Descartes)

If I or someone else uploads unfinished art, it then has to be replaced every time I upload a new version. Huh? Just upload over the existing image, and there'll be nothing to do beyond that.

I just wanted to draw your attention to them as the old, unused files that they are. My attention is everywhere already. I remember pretty much everything that ever happened to this wiki ^_^

geyser 19:04, 12 March 2008 (CET)

"that was said at a time when you were totally oblivious of categories, dude." No, you dude (sorry, you probably haven't seen Home Movies, so you won't get that). How do you know I didn't know about categories? I'm pretty sure that I did, although I may not have made any yet on this wiki....

"Just don't celebrate mediocrity and we'll have a deal." Fine, see if you get invited to my yearly Celebrating Mediocrity bash next month. All the mediocrely good artists will be there.

I would have categorized the fan art I wanted to keep by now, thus demonstrating my own taste in terms of what is keep-worthy and what isn't, but I see you're still making categories as of recently, and I have a feeling I should wait to see how you structure things. As I asked you elsewhere, what do we do about fan art that can't be credited or where an artist has only one thing under their name? Is there some catch-all category we can use for those?

"Just upload over the existing image, and there'll be nothing to do beyond that." That's true, but while the project was active I was updating every week. I just don't feel like uploading new images each week to two places. Besides which, why should unfinished art be on the wiki anyway? --Iritscen 19:30, 12 March 2008 (CET)

"Oblivious" is not the same as "ignorant". I merely saw you start this whole business with "Images" and figured categories were not your friends.

Categories are not really a hierarchy. They are much more flexible than "Images" and don't call for a strict "structure" or for exhaustive coverage...

Thus there's no need for a "catch-all" category. "Wallpapers" and "Fan art" should cover a fair share of the artsy stuff that's dearest to your heart.

I can't see why the alternative to regular updates is an outright deletion. And really, it's not so much worse than the "finished" PKV pictures ^_^

geyser 04:37, 13 March 2008 (CET)

"Categories are not really a hierarchy. They are much more flexible than "Images" and don't call for a strict "structure" or for exhaustive coverage..."

Wikipedia editors would not agree with that statement. Have you seen how obsessively everything is categorized? I once followed a page on a Norwegian hockey team out through like 15 levels of categories until I got to the rarefied air at the top of Wikipedia's category tree, where the most basic elements of the universe are used as category names. But I don't necessarily advocate that approach.

"I can't see why the alternative to regular updates is an outright deletion."

Because it's not done. I'm self-conscious enough about my work already without having half-finished bits get uploaded (not that I blame whoever did it, they don't know about my quirks and foibles). The only reason I was even uploading a weekly, incomplete version of any of that work to my Photobucket album was to demonstrate that weekly progress was being made. Otherwise people would think nothing was going on, like so many abandoned pages on the Web, and stop checking back (assuming anyone was checking to begin with, which is maybe too big an assumption, but a guy's gotta dream, right?). --Iritscen 19:22, 13 March 2008 (CET)

1. Categories are not a tree. Unlike the subpages of "Images", they allow for overlaps and such, so they're flexible and nice.
2. I don't care how Wikipedia uses categories (or templates or whatever)... I just take Mediawiki's features for what they are.

geyser 20:46, 13 March 2008 (CET)