Misplaced Pages

:Files for deletion/2005 September 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:06, 8 September 2005 editPsychonaut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,685 edits →September 3: fix typo← Previous edit Revision as of 10:13, 8 September 2005 edit undoPsychonaut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,685 edits →September 3: clarificationsNext edit →
Line 139: Line 139:
**] - '''OR''', obsoleted by ] **] - '''OR''', obsoleted by ]
***'''Keep'''. Yeah? And who exactly obsoleted it? You. You could have uploaded a new JPG image over the old one, but instead you decide to make a new title and thus erase my contributions from the history of Misplaced Pages. ] 21:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC) ***'''Keep'''. Yeah? And who exactly obsoleted it? You. You could have uploaded a new JPG image over the old one, but instead you decide to make a new title and thus erase my contributions from the history of Misplaced Pages. ] 21:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
****I think you failed to read the relevant edit summaries, Jeremy. Images comprised of text and other line art should be ]s, not ]s. —] 10:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ****I think you failed to read the relevant edit summaries, Jeremy. Images comprised of text and other line art should be ]s, not ]s. Your version is also blocky and lacks antialiasing. And try not to feel too special about having your image replaced with a better version; I've done so with lots of other users' images. —] 10:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
***'''Delete''' per nom. Different format images can't be obsolesced in-place. &mdash;] ] 21:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ***'''Delete''' per nom. Different format images can't be obsolesced in-place. &mdash;] ] 21:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
**] - '''OR''', obsoleted by ] **] - '''OR''', obsoleted by ]

Revision as of 10:13, 8 September 2005

September 3

  • Keep Please don't say what you don't know to be true. Zap is quite healthy, thank you; and this nomination is very rude. This image is a redirect target, and for technical reasons alone, must not be deleted. — Xiong熊talk* 22:11, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
  • Should meet the same fate as Misplaced Pages:Zap, whatever that may be. Probably deletion, although I think it should be kept. ~~ N (t/c) 00:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages:Zap proposal was thoroughly rejected by the community and considered a good-faith proposal of a plainly bad idea. So we won't need this image. Radiant_>|< 08:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • But if the proposal is kept (which I suspect it will be, by no consensus), then this image should still be around to illustrate it. Disk space is cheap. ~~ N (t/c) 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for archival purposes. Andre (talk) 01:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thuresson 16:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep all these Lithuanian maps. They provide valuable information about former administrative boundaries, and should be found in articles concerning the history of the administrative areas or the former areas themselves. There is no reason to delete them. 80.255 18:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Misplaced Pages is not a repository of images. If these images are encyclopedic, then they need to be linked to a relevent article. written by Nv8200p
    • Comment - yes, these are maps, and even could be called "historical," however there is no need for these individual maps. One map showing all old counties is more than enough. Also they are very confusing and will lead to many misunderstandings. Renata3 03:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The new image is better quality then the one I had, so it's fine by me to delete that image. JesseG 02:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)