Forum:Talk Sprites for Deletion

From the Pages for Deletion page:

Talk sprites
A lot of talk sprites from Days are marked for deletion. However, a lot of them are used for templates, which can cause problems if they were all deleted. I think those deletion tags should be removed. For example, the sad sprite of Mickey is on the upcoming template. I really don't think these pages should be deleted. SeanWheeler (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC) not sure, but I think you're okay to remove the deletion tag on those. 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, unless a staff member says otherwise, assume everything in the deletion category is meant for deletion. You were right to bring the discussion up on here, instead of starting a mass removing spree. Anyways...No, do not remove the deletion tag on the Days images. Those images have to be uploaded off the Wiki and linked back to whatever templates/pages they were on. The Days images are not "real" images. Check out Spriter's Resource They are user edited images created by Xiggie/DoorToNothing to be used by users for talk templates and the like. Under our old image policy such images were allowed. However, with our new policy such images should be deleted. I've been working on uploading the images in the deletion category to my personal Photobucket account for a while now. It's taking more time than it probably should, but I promise you they will be taken care of properly.-- Xion 4  ever  17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, they weren't just cropped from the game? They were completely fanmade from scratch? I find that hard to believe. But if those were fanmade, can someone use a capture card to replace them? SeanWheeler (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds a little extreme, to require every user-edited image that is on the wiki to be uploaded off-wiki, especially when the images were talking about aren't just any images being used on just any user's talk bubbles, but they're images that (I assume) the administrators themselves chose to be used on these administrative templates. They serve a greater purpose than the passive pleasure of a few users, they actually have a purpose on the wiki, an important one at that. I think that there should be an exception for the images the administration has deemed to have an actual use on the wiki. I mean, otherwise, it sounds like we would have to remove every user-edited image on the wiki, among which include approx. 50 walkthrough images (38 of which I uploaded last week myself), the little symbols, including the one that symbolizes your status as administration (pretty sure SE never released a shiny keyblade logo), even the wiki logo itself (I know they didn't create a logo for us). 02:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The images were taken from the originals which can be found Category:Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days Sprite images. The images were not only flipped, but some where filled in from where the red banner used to be. As ridiculous as it sounds, if you check the older deletion logs, my personal Photobucket account, my edit count/edits you'll see exactly how many user images have been taken care of. There used to be over three pages in the Articles for Deletion category- meaning between the 401-600 image range. Now there are only 279. Heck, even check out Ultima's userpage. At least seventy five percent of the 219 deletions came from user images. It's a long process, but it's getting there. Some "user" images have been deemed okay to remain on the site, such as the staff template and Wiki logo, as you mentioned. As for the Walkthrough images, to my knowledge internal linking is not possible if using links from Photobucket/Imageshack. This could prove problematic to the walkthrough articles since we've apparently deemed that to be the way the articles should look. As for images being used on administrative templates/elsewhere: see the userboxes. These images used to be held on Wiki, too. Now they're linked from Photobucket. To be quite honest, I've waited this long to delete the Days images exactly for this reason. From what I've seen on here from other users/staff, those images should be hosted elsewhere and deleted. That is what I believe, too. Perhaps we should open a forum on this...-- Xion 4  ever  03:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll do that (it is actually starting to become somewhat long....)04:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)



Discussion
I don't have a talk bubble, but I still think those images are pretty official. Just flipped automatically makes it fanon? You can see those sprites when holding the DS in front of a mirror, can't you? These are close enough. And if we link almost every image back to photobucket, what's the point of having a filespace anymore? These are sprites used on administrative templates, that are used on the mainspace. I think they should be kept. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just do nothing about them. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And there are some that didn't have anything added where the red bar is. And we only got a handful of those official ones. Most of the others were flipped. The flipped ones outnumber the accurate ones. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think considering flipped ones as fanart would be very nitpicky. If we go even more extreme and consider cropped images as fanart, we would end up with the full screenshot of a cutscene with less focus on the sprite. One step further would be a photograph of a DS with a blurry picture. What I consider fanart is if you add something to it like changing Roxas' hair blue, giving Sora sunglasses or changing a frown into a smile. Those kinds of edits would be fanart. But flipping a sprite, you'd get the same result as playing in front of the mirror. If flipped images are fanart, wouldn't that mean your reflection is fan art? Is the mirror a fan artist? I would think of an artist as a human and not an inanimate object! SeanWheeler (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You're suggesting we'd steal from another site? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chain never said anything about using without permission. He just noted that that site has more than what we have already. And as you can see through the fine print at the bottom, "No need for credit, but don't claim as your own" So as long as we don't say "We ripped these ourselves", we're not violating Barubary's TOU. 21:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)