File talk:HyruleJump.png

Delete I concur with the deletion reason. RoyboyX Talk 20:33, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Delete Scr7 02:25, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Per above DoctorPain99 23:00, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

An image should not be tagged for deletion when it's in use. Omega Tyrant 23:52, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Why not? Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 23:57, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

1. If an image is not needed, it should be fully removed from the articles it's on first. Remove, then delete if it has no use.

2. This image is on PSIWolf's subpage, where it counts as a personal image, which we don't delete if they're not committing some sort of offense. Omega Tyrant 00:02, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

1. Nothing is stopping us from deleting it, then removing it from the articles it is on. That's actually better form, in case there isn't consensus on whether or not the image should be on the article it is on, and in that case, having the image is generally better than not having it.
2. It's on an "article images I've uploaded" subpage, which means that if we got rid of it by taking it off the article, it wouldn't be an article image and probably wouldn't go on the subpage in question anymore. Also, if PSIWolf wants the image for personal purposes, he can voice that in the deletion discussion or someone can ask him.

In any case, an image being in use should not be grounds to prevent discussions of deleting it from occuring; that doesn't make sense and is an unecessary restriction. DoctorPain99 00:56, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

"Nothing is stopping us from deleting it, then removing it from the articles it is on. That's actually better form, in case there isn't consensus on whether or not the image should be on the article it is on, and in that case, having the image is generally better than not having it."

No that is not "better form", what the fuck are you talking about? If there's not consensus on whether the image should or not be on the article it is on, you don't delete and then remove, you fucking wait for discussion about the image in the article to resolve itself; you don't make a decision that shuts it down from reaching resolution in unjust favor of pro-remove. If an image is used on any articles, ensure the images are justly removed from the articles before deciding it has no use and deleted.

You guys are really jumping the gun here.

"It's on an "article images I've uploaded" subpage, which means that if we got rid of it by taking it off the article, it wouldn't be an article image and probably wouldn't go on the subpage in question anymore."

It's still on the subpage dude until someone physically removes it from the subpage.

"Also, if PSIWolf wants the image for personal purposes, he can voice that in the deletion discussion or someone can ask him."

It doesn't work that way, you don't delete an image someone has on their userspace, and then go "oh, you should of said something". PSIWolf can decide first if he doesn't want the image anymore, we don't delete first and then wait for him to respond. Until he removes the image and/or personally requests its deletion (or we change our policy regarding personal images), the image cannot be deleted.

Again, stop jumping the gun.

"In any case, an image being in use should not be grounds to prevent discussions of deleting it from occuring; that doesn't make sense and is an unecessary restriction."

No it's not an "unnecessary restriction", if an image is in use, the image still has not been formally decided as not being needed on the article(s) it's used on. If you guys think the image doesn't belong on the Hyrule Jump page, discuss it there first and have it formally removed, don't go on here about how "we don't need it". (And even then, the image is still in personal use, so it's still not valid for deletion). Omega Tyrant 01:18, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

That's exactly what we're doing. If anyone has objections and wants to say the image has usage in the article, nothing is stopping them from doing that here. Essentially you're proposing that we have the same discussion twice; once on the article talk page about whether the image has use and once here about whether the image has use. That isn't necessary; we can just discuss the issue once and be done with it.

As for PSIWolf's page, I agree we shouldn't delete it until he says its ok, but I don't think that should stop us from discussing.

We're not "jumping the gun." We saw the delete tag on the page and as is natural, discussed it. If there are legitamite concerns about the image being useful, those can be discussed here. A deleteion proposal is purposed to ensure that the very issues you describe are resolved. The image won't be deleted if they aren't. But there's no reason to declare it undiscussable. The issues don't get resolved that way. DoctorPain99 01:44, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

That is not what you guys were doing, you were just saying "delete", while completely ignoring the fact the image is in use. Point is, you should be discussing the image's merit on an article on the article's talk page, not on a different talk page. We don't discuss if a template should be used on Wolf's article on the template talk page, we discuss it on Wolf's talk page. And the image should be formally removed before any such discussion about deleting it occurs.

Additionally, how can you know someone watching the Hyrule Jump article will notice this discussion affecting its content on a different talk page that won't show up in their watch? Such a user could be supportive of the image being on the article, and then it just gets deleted out of nowhere, before they had a chance to revert the image's removal and speak for it. A discussion about an article's content should also be preserved on its talk page where it can be easily referenced for the future, instead of being on a deleted talk page of a deleted image, that no one but an admin can reference.

Here's what the step by step process is for removing an image from an article and deleting it if it's not needed:

1. Remove the image from the article, with your stated reason in its edit summary.
2. Wait and see if anyone reverts it. If a revert happens, discuss on the article's talk page.
3. If no revert happens, or discussion about the image removal resolves in image removing, you can then check to see if the image is not in use. If it's unused, then you tag for deletion.

You guys just skipped to step three (while ignoring the image being on a userpage) and pushed for deletion. That is jumping the gun.

"As for PSIWolf's page, I agree we shouldn't delete it until he says its ok, but I don't think that should stop us from discussing."

If an image can't be deleted because it's in use on a user's userpage, then there's nothing to discuss whatsoever.

"We're not "jumping the gun." We saw the delete tag on the page and as is natural, discussed it."

Erroneous tagging is not an excuse to push deletion of an image in use. What one of you should of done, is remove the tag and stated how the image is still in use, not push for deletion.

"If there are legitamite concerns about the image being useful, those can be discussed here."

No, this is not Talk: Hyrule Jump, discussion about content on that article should be discussed there, not on a completely different talk page.

"A deleteion proposal is purposed to ensure that the very issues you describe are resolved. The image won't be deleted if they aren't."

No, a deletion proposal for an image is to ensure an unused image that could be used elsewhere is not deleted, not to remove an image that is in use. Again guys, if you think an image is not needed on an article, remove it from the damn article first and then discuss any contention on the article's talk page, not push for an unnecessary deletion on the image's talk page.

"But there's no reason to declare it undiscussable. The issues don't get resolved that way."

1: Discussion about the image's use in the Hyrule Jump article is in the wrong place. If you don't think it belongs on the Hyrule Jump article, remove it and talk it about it there, not here. 2: Tagging was objectively erroneous, as besides the image's use on the Hyrule Jump page, it's in use on a user's userpage. If the tagging was objectively wrong, it's not discussed, plain and simple. Omega Tyrant 21:34, 16 July 2013 (EDT)