UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Image:OB-KotN-HolyCrusaderIcon.jpg

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Image:OB-KotN-HolyCrusaderIcon.jpg

Because I have replaced the image with one called DivineCrusaderIcon instead of HolyCrusaderIcon. --Lord Walter Thibault 11:27, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

• Oppose Still in widespread use. It would be easier to delete the replacement. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:15, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Support (conditionally). As Nephele says below, now that some people have started to switch (and most still haven't) it's no longer simple to just delete the new one. At some point I imagine an admin is going to have to go through and complete the rename by replacing the instance on users' pages. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 00:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
• Oppose Ditto Rpeh, plus the replacement is exactly the same image as far as I can tell. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 21:14, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Support (conditionally). Not to sound like I'm playing "follow the leader", but it makes sense; since it's been taken this far, we might as well continue with the replacement. Neither solution will be simple, now. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 12:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
• Support (conditionally). The image can only be deleted once it is no longer being used anywhere, which is not currently the case. Once (if) all of the pages currently using the page have been updated, then I would support deleting the image. Given that Oscararon has already posted messages on all of the user talk pages about this, the situation seems to have reached the point where it makes more sense to move forward and fix the image's name (instead of the current situation with two identical images being used simultaneously, or the previous situation with an incorrectly named image). Personally I think this image rename has been far more trouble than it's worth (and, FYI, Oscararon, that includes a lot of followup work that other editors have had to do, not just your edits, which is why all of the editors opposed this idea in the first place. If it was something you could have fixed on your own, then it wouldn't have been such a big deal.) --Nephele^Talk 22:07, 7 September 2008 (EDT)