Template talk:Low quality chem

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Quality is disputed[edit]

I think this template should be reworded. Quality is subjective. Who cares if it's disputed? There's no way to verify who's right. No can be right. But obviously, there's a general consensual agreement on how chemical diagrams should look—certain standards, but this makes it seem like we need to discuss the drawing it on the talk page instead of creating a better version. It's not a problem tag, it's a media cleanup tag. And it shouldn't be orange. It's not that bad (Hosting, it isn't - using it. maybe.) I also think maybe we should bring w:WP:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing here to Commons because linking to a different project's guidelines in a single language isn't ideal. It's a very helpful page and being on Commons would allow for translations and better integration with the system we have here. Rocket000 (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just two comments:
--Leyo (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some more comments:
  • "There's no way to verify who's right." The template is set up to give a detailed reason. If you cannot verify the reason, simply ask somebody more experienced (e.g. the tagger). This directly leads to:
  • "Who cares if it's disputed?" Everybody who might use an inappropriate version because he cannot verify the quality himself. That is also the reason why it is orange. The template should bee seen and should prevent users from using poor diagrams that are no longer used.
  • "It's not a problem tag, it's a media cleanup tag." Structure diagrams are almost never improved by the original uploader (they might have left the project or lost interest) and it is much faster to create a corrected version from scratch. Therefore, it is essentially a problem tag.
  • "I also think maybe we should bring w:WP:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing here" Most if not all structures are created for Wikipedia use and that is where the experts are. I remember some frustration when Commoners bluntly denied that diagrams do actually have something like "content" that could be discussed beyond the superficial aesthetic appearance... Therefore, I think it would be a very bad idea for the Commons to try to start their own structure drawing project.
Cacycle (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Then we shouldn't have opinionated templates like this. Let users use what they want. If you still want to force your views on them do it in a gentler way. We respect uploaders here. No one likes their images being called poor quality. Just don't use it if you don't like it. Quality is subjective. You can't argue with that. As I see nothing constructive this template achieves I suggest not using it anymore on Commons. Rocket000(talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I'm not looking for an argument. Rocket000(talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)