Talk:PAM graphics format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] November 2007 issue tags

I see I’ve got myself a couple of notes.

“It does not cite any references or sources.” Very odd, considering there is a heading called “References” at the bottom of the entry, with a link to quite the authoritative source about the PAM graphics format: the PAM format specification on the Netpbm website.

“Its notability is in question.” Possibly. But that would be grounds for merging it into the Netpbm format entry, not for outright deletion.

“Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.” Well, in case the links to the Netpbm and Netpbm format entries aren’t sufficient, that could be another reason for the merger proposed above.

“It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.” What on earth was the one who tagged it with this tag thinking? This entry has conformed to the Wiki standards since its very inception. I’m no neophyte here—the wikification requirements are something I’m very familiar with.

All in all, this looks like a case of zealous bureaucracy. I wouldn’t be surprised to find at least one of the tags to have been added after a second-long skim of the entry (the first one, the “No references” tags that was added despite the reference at the bottom, is almost certainly such a case). --Shlomi Tal ☜ 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that PAM isn't notable enough to have an article of its own. But this information would work great in Netpbm format. For one thing, that article is inconsistent with its title today, because it covers only 4 of the 5 Netpbm formats. That also solves the context problem, being that the PAM article is mostly a contrast of PAM to PNM. --Bryan Henderson 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)