Template talk:rfdrawing

Unless there are situations where a drawing is better than a photo or any sort of image, redirect to. Just seems a more specific case of that, not only that, a relatively rare one as we tend to use photos (as suggested by the title) rather than hand drawn images. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many things for which a photo is simply not suitable but a drawing is, like mathematical spaces (lens space) and other objects (Morse function), diagrams (snake lemma), and microscopic objects (uranium-235). Keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. That was the intent of adding it. The elements of a bird, leaf, or a knife are often difficult to discriminate in a photograph. Other references seem to believe this as well. For example, the bird book that has the highest current reputation is The Sibley Guide to Birds, which contains no photographs, but numerous drawings. Many visual dictionaries have drawings (though not those from Dorling Kindersly). Photos have the advantage of being inexpensive to obtain and of making excellent eye-candy. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On a more holistic level, we could merge this into a, which is a redirect to rfphoto. I say we could, I'd probably favor it because it merges the categories into one, keeping all the entries together, hence easier to browse. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I imagine a requester often doesn't care whether it's a photo or a sketch, and if rfimage alows text to be added (as it should and as rfc et al. do) then he can specify. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fails. It should become a redirect to : Most people who wanted to keep the distinction between multiple image templates changed their minds in the end. --Daniel. 14:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)