Template talk:The Fourteen Infallible

This template was considered for deletion on 2020 April 4. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Comment out

@Frietjes: I noticed your edition here. I'd like to know the reason behind this edition, please!. Mhhossein (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: the image flashing is giving me a seizure, and it is only twelve names, not fourteen. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Thanks for your attention. Your response made me check the image once again. It starts with Muhammad, Ali and Fatimah, then the other infallible after fatima (Hassan, Hossein, and etc) up to Mahdi appear. Do you still believe it is only twelve Imams? How? Mhhossein (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: can't tell since the image flashing is giving me a seizure. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: You disabled it because it bothers you? or there is another reason? I can simply tell you that the image shows the 14 infallible. Mhhossein (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I have not found anyone else who thinks it should be there, after starting a discussion at MOS Images. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: I check the discussion, just one person opposed the image! One said it was a bit over the top while the other said it should bot be thumbed! No problem with being! Mhhossein (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it per this guideline. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: Could you please say exactly why it did not respect the guideline? Mhhossein (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't stop after 5 seconds. in addition, I have seen no one, other than you, who supports its inclusion. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: As I told yo before, according to the discussion only Seppi333 is totally opposing. Besides you and Seppi333, Plastikspork is also opposing. On the otherhand, me, SabreBD and Redrose64 did not oppose its inclusion. Do you still believe that I'm the only one? Mhhossein (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a difference between "supports" and "doesn't oppose", and "no, its a bit over the top" = "thinks it is excessive". perhaps Sabrebd and Redrose64 could explain their positions here. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that by using the word "also", I did oppose. BTW your attempt to notify Sabrebd wouldn't have worked - it needs to be correct first time, you can't go back and amend as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying it is excessive and could be moderated in some way so that is not a blur of images, or it should be removed.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]