K Project Wiki
in: Improvements and Issues

Forum:Mixed Issues

Sign in to edit
Forums: Index → Improvements and Issues →  Mixed Issues Forum_new.gif Post

Some issues I want to discuss before taking action. If there's any issue I've missed feel free to include it here. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

Delete Template[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Reverted and subpage deleted. We can apply preformatted reasons without a need of a subpage.
Please do not edit this discussion.


Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Revert. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Support Support - Revert. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Revert. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Support - Revert. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

Since this is a small Wiki I don't think we need all this features Speysider included, it would be very useful on larger wikis. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

As what Remnant said, I would like to propose the sub page, Delete/reason to be deleted as well since the reason can be given here {{Delete|<reason here>}}. RifatmfaridTalk 06:24, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Rifatmfarid, do you even know what that subpage is for ? It is for preformatted deletion reasons and makes for typing certain reasons easier.
Wiki size is irrelevant. I suppose keeping the quick deletion stuff that I added. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
People can write their reasons for the deletion without needing the template, Speysider. RifatmfaridTalk 10:35, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand the point of the subpage. Delete/reason is for preformatted reasons. The delete template already supports user reasons. For example, {{Delete}} places a delete notice on the page with a preformatted reason of looking at the talkpage to find out why the page is deleted and {{Delete}} places a delete notice on the page with a user defined reason of Some reason. Please do not make random assumptions as if you know what things are for, without knowing the real reason for them. It does not help you or anyone else. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:39, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
You can simply look at the deletion logs on the article to find out why it was deleted. Moreoever, when any page is deleted on the wiki, such as a redirect left behind after moving an article, everything about it is deleted. This goes for the talk page. You're not going to find a "preformatted" reason(s) of why it was deleted on a nonexistent talk page.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
If a page is deleted, then the delete tag would've gone with it. It's clear to me that nobody understands the purpose of the Delete/reason subpage and that they should find out what it's for before making ill-informed conclusions. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 18:58, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

I meant users that edit here, not the size of the wiki, lol. There's only around 4 users who edits here regularly and the edit traffic is low. I'm saying there's not enough users uploading/creating images/pages that violates policy that requires categorized deletion tags. It's better to just compile all the tagged pages/images on a single delete category, it's easier for the admins instead of going all through the other delete categories.

The subpage contains pre-formatted reasons for deletion. It's meant for regular users to use to inform the admins why it should be deleted. But as I said before there's not enough users, regular users to be exact. Remnant13 Talk 08:49,2/17/2013

Thing is, nobody is making you use the subpage reasons. They are there if you want to use them. You can still write your own reason like this: {{Delete|<reason=My reason>}}. If you want a preformatted reason, then you'd just do {{Delete|<pre=the preformatted reason option from the Delete/reason subpage.>}}. The template is interchangeable. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 18:49, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Upload Templates[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.


  • 720p upload
  • 1080p upload

Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Delete. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Support Support - Delete. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Delete. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - Keep --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Support - Delete. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

I don't really see the point of this template. It doesn't always mean if its resolution is high the quality is high as well, so there's always some exceptions to this. You can simply put "Only By A Similar Image Of Higher Quality" on the FUR template. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

The template is not meant for that purpose. It is to tag images which match specific HD resolutions and to prevent people from uploading images in lower quality (for example, User A uploads an image in 1080p [1920x1080]. User B finds a similar image in lower quality. User B can't upload his image because User A put 1080p upload on it.) --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:39, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
To my awareness it does not literally prevent them. It just tells them not to. If they're the kind who'd upload bad images over good ones, I doubt this would make a difference. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 
Frankly, some users may not even be aware that a higher quality version of an image they're about to upload exists on the wiki. And even if they do, I sincerely doubt that they would want to replace it with a similar image of lower quality. I do not see many good reasons for keeping these two templates.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
They are information templates, they aren't meant to do anything other than tell the user that the media is 720p/1080p HD. Nothing more, nothing less. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 18:58, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
It's not about the resolution it's about the quality, on some cases images are better off at lower resolution since some 1080p images tends to get blurry.
"Please note that this image or media is a 1080p HD upload. Please do not replace it with an image of lower quality (that is, an image lower than 1920x1080, excluding black bar cropping)."
That's simply dictating users not to upload an image with a lower resolution size. Removing "(that is, an image lower than 1920x1080, excluding black bar cropping)" sounds better but we can't determine all the images here if it came from the 720p or 1080p especially on cropped images. On the FUR "Only By A Similar Image Of Higher Quality" is a simpler way of putting it. Users can upload a new version whether it's lower or higher in resolution keeping the ratio between resolution and quality reasonable. Remnant13 Talk 08:49,2/17/2013
I have never seen any 1080p images look blurry and I doubt I ever will. The bit you plan on removing is there so people know exactly what is defined as "1080p HD" and I've worked with images for quite a while so I know what is 720p and 1080p HD. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:23, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
It's only present on objects or characters drawn on a small scale like this image here 720p and 1080p both are blurred the only difference is the resolution size. It came from the raws and only the 720p images color/contrast/level was edited so image editing isn't a factor.
Here's an exception: 720p and 1080p. See the 1080 image is blurry and clearly lacks sharpness. But when scaled down to infobox size (300px) it looks better than the 720p image. Remnant13 Talk 01:59,2/19/2013

Warning Templates[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Deleted. New violation template.
Please do not edit this discussion.


  • PolicyRemind
  • ImageWarn

Voting[]

  1. Neutral Neutral - Should be revised following the Wikis theme.Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
    Oppose Oppose - I changed my vote. Remnant13 Talk 12:04,2/18/2013
  2. Support Support - Delete. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Delete. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose Oppose - Remnant's new idea seems to be good. RifatmfaridTalk 13:26, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - . Keep --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Neutral - What Remnant said. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 
    Oppose Oppose - Remnant's new idea looks good to me. Ultraprime2 Talk  12:48,2/18/2013 

Discussion[]

A pre-formatted message is easier and saves time typing. This templates should be revised making it simpler. Especially the ImageWarn, it only supports 1 image and the design should follow the Wikis theme to maintain consistency. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

I oppose deletion of these templates. They make your time easier. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:39, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
People can simply tell users that they're violating policies through talk page in their own words. Taking up a little time to write a message to someone breaking a policy/policies is not going to hurt anyone. And from what I have seen, warning them in your own words tends to get the message to them even more.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
They can save time by just using templates, rather than making 1 million variants of the same warning. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 18:58, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

We can simply make a user friendly warning template. Some users like myself sucks at writing so... it's easier for those kind of users. Users can choice whether to use a readily available warning template or use their own words. Remnant13 Talk 08:49,2/17/2013

It's better to create a single template, let's say Template:Violation which you can select which policy did the user violated.

Example
{{Violation|Image}} or {{Violation|Talkpage}} Remnant13 Talk 12:04,2/18/2013
PolicyRemind does exactly that. It's meant to be a 3 stage thing: PolicyRemind -> PolicyWarn -> PolicyLastWarn -> Block. ImageWarn is meant for just image policy violations, but technically is not necessary. If you need me to show you exactly how to use it, feel free to ask and I will post usage instructions, but I don't think it's necessary to delete PolicyRemind because it does exactly as what Remnant wants. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 12:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't to some extent, the current template supports only 1 policy input and a stage warning system is just plain redundant. My version will use a switch feature allowing easier coding and usage. A simpler template will be easier to fix/update, yes? Remnant13 Talk 02:35,2/19/2013
Your template suggestion above is no different at all from my own. Unless I've misread it. And how is a stage warning system redundant ? --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 07:54, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
One warning is enough if they choose to ignore it that's their problem. If they violate the policy again it's better to use your own words rather than using the template again and based on my experience they tend to ignore the warning anyway, especially the Image Policy so stacking templates on someone's talkpages wont do any good. Remnant13 Talk 10:19,2/19/2013

CSS import[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Removed. Since the templates that uses the class on the CSS are being deleted/revised we don't need such class anymore
Please do not edit this discussion.


Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Remove the import. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Support Support - Remove. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Remove. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Speysider (talk • contribs)
  5. Support Support - Remove. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

It has some issues especially on Special:WikiActivity it adds ridiculous spaces. I'm against importing CSS for 2 reasons.

  1. May pose issues with existing CSS. We don't have control over the imported css, any changes on the css might cause problems.
  2. I want to maintain at least some originality. I've worked on some CSS in my test wiki and I'll probably open a discussion about a whole design change on this wiki when I'm done.

Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

It won't pose any issues with current CSS. Plus, it is required for certain templates. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

If we need any part of it in particular, we can take that part without all the byproducts. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

It wouldn't be possible to take parts of the css. Also Remnant, where are you seeing these supposed massive spaces on WikiActivity, I can't see any. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:32, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
This compared to this. It's not impossible, just tell me which template they are used on and I'll see what I can do. Remnant13 Talk 10:45,2/16/2013
PolicyRemind, {{No rationale}}, {{Delete}} (my version that is), 720p upload and 1080p upload, to name a few. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:47, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
All 4 are being discussed, I'll do it when we are finished. Remnant13 Talk 10:51,2/16/2013

Redirects[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.


  • Image Policy
  • Image policy

Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Delete. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Support Support - Delete. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Delete. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - Keep. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Support - Delete. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

As Ultra said "I'd think that putting a redirect to a project page into the mainspace is not something that should be done. The mainspace is for articles and article redirects.". It's unnecessary and I think redirects should only be reserved for main pages. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

They save you time not having to remember the namespace. I support keeping these redirects, as they are useful. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
We have the policies written and linked on the Wiki Navigation and Sidebar in both Oasis and Monobook. They're not there for show.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
They are not visible on the default tab, you have to physically go to the Community tab to see the option for policies, so they are not easy to find from there. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 18:58, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
People don't need to write a 10-page essay in order to find out where the specific policies are. It's not that difficult to find it.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 19:02,2/16/2013 

Twitter[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Changed to K Twitter.
Please do not edit this discussion.


Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Remove. Neutral Neutral - Adding K and GoRA Twitter. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Neutral Neutral - I'm not sure exactly why the TwitterWidget is needed. I can live with the twitter functions on the site but I'd prefer that the featured twitter accounts be from official K related media, such as the official K and GoRA twitter accounts. They may be in Japanese but frankly, I don't see why this should be a reason to oppose the idea. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Neutral Neutral - Official K and GoRA twitter accounts would be better. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Neutral - I'm fine with K and GoRA's twitter's being added. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

I don't see any reason why Animanga Twitter should be featured. If anything we should use the official Twitter account of K and GoRA although both are in Japanese. I propose its removal. Remnant13 Talk 05:22,2/16/2013

No opinion --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'll change it to K and GoRA by tomorrow. It seems no one wants to argue about this :P Remnant13 Talk 08:49,2/17/2013

About[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Deleted.
Please do not edit this discussion.


  • K Project Wiki:About

Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Delete. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
  2. Support Support - Delete. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:37,2/16/2013 
  3. Support Support - Delete. RifatmfaridTalk 06:05, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - Keep --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Support - Delete. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

Again I don't see any reason why this this page should stay. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

It is a page intended for you to describe the history of the site. There is no reason to delete it. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the K Project Wiki doesn't warrant a page like this. It's still new and building. Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

No rationale[]

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion is:
Keep and revised.
Please do not edit this discussion.


Voting[]

  1. Support Support - Delete. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013
    Oppose Oppose - revised to match the other templates for consistency. Remnant13 Talk 03:49,2/19/2013
  2. Support Support - Delete. RifatmfaridTalk 08:30, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
    Neutral Neutral - Could be used for other reasons. RifatmfaridTalk 13:46, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose - Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Speysider (talk • contribs)
  4. Support Support - Delete. Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
  5. Neutral Neutral - Ultraprime2 Talk  10:30,2/16/2013 

Discussion[]

Same reason as the Delete Template. Remnant13 Talk 04:24,2/16/2013

Unless I'm wrong, all images here are to have license data and fair use rationale's ? This template is intended for the sole purpose of tagging images which do not have {{Fair Use Rationale}} on them. As such, I oppose removal of this template. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
All images need a fair use rationale and license data. If not, that would be a violation of the Image Policy and they would most likely be deleted.
Anyway, if we're removing the template, then I suggest removing it from the list of default licensing templates found in Special:Upload and Special:MultipleUpload. It's not impossible though frankly I'm not sure what is required for changing it, be it CSS or JS or something. Furthermore, red links would just look unappealing if it were deleted and that didn't receive some change.
Glass Heart (GHeart) 18:24,2/16/2013 
If all images need fair use and license data, then why delete a template that clearly tags an image as missing the fair use rationale template ? That makes zero sense at all and is very counter-productive to this wiki. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 19:02, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Again, there's not enough users that upload images to keep track of and as you can see I've already added FUR to images that needs them, only a few left. If a user uploaded an image without FUR we can just inform them on there talkpage or add the FUR ourselves instead of tagging. Remnant13 Talk 08:49,2/17/2013
The point of the tag is to alert someone "Hey, this image is missing fair use rationale" so that a user can come along and add it in. It's not supposed to be heavily used, only used as the situation calls for. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 10:20, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't needed. All you need to do is throw on the Fair use template yourself. SeaTerror (talk) 02:32, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

And what of the people who don't know what to put in it ? I see no harm whatsoever in this template, only that people want to get rid of useful templates. --Speysider Talk Page | Tabber Code | Channel 09:24, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed useful it's just unneeded, but we can keep it as a reserved template. I can pretty much say the same for the Poor filename and Poor quality. For the sake of ending this discussion so we move on I'll change my vote. Remnant13 Talk 03:49,2/19/2013

Then you do it yourself and not be lazy. Simple as that. I've fixed many images myself that didn't have licensing on them. That is what we call not being lazy. SeaTerror (talk) 08:11, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms