The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. Following GeorgeMoney's suggestion, I will reuserfy the page to satisfy some concerns of its detractors. Xoloz 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Random picture of the day[edit]

Competes with two already established projects, WP:FP and WP:PPR. Also, Linuxerist and GeorgeMoney have declared themselves the "presidents" of this page, and will not allow anyone to make changes without discussing it with them first. See my tak page for more details. --Hetar 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I am not the one reverting your edits. It is linuxerist. I am not involved in this edit war. Don't blame me. From my point of view, the only restrictions are copyright. If you want to nominate someone else's pic, give them credit and tell them. I was away the whole time this edit war was going on and I was not involved in it. I have left a comment on Hetar's talk page explaining this. The only reason for this MfD is because Hetar didn't agree with one of the rules which could have been easily changed if he posted it on the talk instead of getting into an edit war. If you look at the history, it is: Hetar, Linux - rv, H, L - rv, H, L - rv, H - mfd. Apparently, this MfD was Hetar's only way to settle an edit war.--GeorgeMoney T·C 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What rule? That's the whole problem I have with this project, two "presidents" seem to have an undefined set of rules. They aren't written down on the project's page anywhere, so how are we supposed to know what they are or follow them. The only rule I see on the page is, "Anybody can put a picture here." --Hetar 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this should be discussed on the talk page of the project, not here. This MfD was filed for the wrong reason. Please retract it. --GeorgeMoney T·C 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the existance of a project page with undefined rules and two presidents is a violation of WP:NOT and an excellent reason to nominate it for deletion. --Hetar 03:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested that we see what the members like? You said nothing of the sort. I left a message on your talk page that said, "Why do you insist on changing one of the images i nominated at Wikipedia:Random picture of the day? The whole point of that project is that anyone can add a picture, and that there are no requirements (other than obvious copyright ones). Please explain your reasoning." To which you responded, "Please talk to one of the presidents before making changes." (diff). --Hetar 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how does WP:POTD help? So, you're saying if WP:POTD got nominated for MfD, you would vote delete?--GeorgeMoney T·C 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address my complaint. At the very least, POTD is project-wide whereas this is just yet another one of your many ill-conceived attempts at having control of some sort of side-project. — GT 04:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's that supposed to mean? So now I am a person with "ill-conceived attempts at having control of some sort of side-project" --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Here's another. And another. I don't know why you bother with this stuff. — GT 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you care about User:GeorgeMoney/UEW? It is just a stupid list of people. Also, did you read the talk page of WP:TRUSTED? I don't care af it's deleted. The only reason I made it is because it has potential to be something useful. --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm getting at is that you tend to create things that don't really end up being very useful and are little more than a waste of time and space. I wish you'd concentrate more on editing and less on these projects of yours. — GT 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue, but I don't view picture of the day as a waste of time. Disseminating non-featured pictures does help stimulate interest on making articles based on the pictures, if they do not already exist. For example, I uploaded an image from Foreign body to picture of the day. Who knows, maybe someone would help out to make Foreign body removal, an endoscopic skill, based on seeing the picture. -- Samir धर्म 06:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prospects of that happening seem rather dubious to me, to say the least. I don't see much discussion around these images. It looks to me like people just plug in pictures wherever they want and there's no further discussion. And on most days, such as today, the result is a picture for the sake of a picture without really being of much conceivable interest or value to anyone. — GT 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're saying I don't have the right to tell the members of the potd what's happening? --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's vote spamming, yes. Ral315 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this bad? If RPOTD was deleted without having my vote on it, I would be mad. I think that the members should be notifed. If you were a member, wouldn't you like to know?!?!?! the_ed17(T)(C)(P)(F)(WW) 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not voting on a user subpage, or on moving it to a user subpage. We're voting on whether to keep or delete Wikipedia:Random picture of the day. — ॐ Priyanath 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it was moved from being a user-subpage only recently, and that should obviously be taken into consideration. We're not "voting" on anything; we're discussing options, and using bolded keywords to make at-a-glance summaries of people's positions easier to see. -Quiddity 23:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - I still 'recommend' delete, even on user space. Yes, let's move on. ॐ Priyanath 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SO? How is ONE not-so-great picture reason to denounce this as a joke? the_ed17(T)(C)(P) 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what was wrong with the picture. Yay! Azumanga Daioh! Sergeant Snopake 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Cough, Cough) Nice. (chuckle, chuckle) ROFL!!! the_ed17(T)(C)(P)(F)(WW) 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More