Forum:Let's go on an image deletion rampage!

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Let's go on an image deletion rampage!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3602 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

We have undeletable images at last! So there is no problem in getting an image back if we find out same strange person wanted it after all.

I've been waiting for this, image deletion rampage here we come! The criteria I'm thinking of (some of which are standard anyway):

1. Any image that's not being used on an page one week after uploading.
2. All shock/gore/porn image
3. All milder versions of the above that are not used for genuine humorous value in an article (this includes titty pics used only on user pages)
4. All personal photos that are not used on the day of uploading
5. All personal photos in articles that are not funny to a general audience (this includes a pic of your mate John in the "fag" article)
6. All personal photos added only to attack the subject (this includes that pic of your mate John, on your user page with the caption "John is Gay")
7. All duplicate images, like the 600 copies we must have of that fat guy typing in the nude.

Waddyathink? -- sannse (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (note the absence of a staff hat, for those that haven't worked out the sig code yet)

Yes. When? —Braydie 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and the text on the uploading form should be changed to make it obvious that images not used in pages after a certain time will be deleted.

Also, a list of all the duplicate files could be generated if only the downloadable image archive was current. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 17:05, 26 Mar 2007

Uh, images that are used... for example Famine's sig picture (I put it on a page in my userspace just so I don't forget - better safe than sorry) still come up on Special:Unusedimages because they are used in the other form, rather than linking to the image page..if you know what I mean. I suppose if anything goes missing then they'll just have to tell an admin which one it was and they can restore it (maybe those can be stored somewhere?) —Braydie 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, add {{notorphan}} to the image description page, which makes the description page link to the image, removing it from the unused images list. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:05, 26 Mar 2007

Cheers, erm... whoever you are. —Braydie 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This may as well be the place to get images back if they come up as redlinks on a page or your sig picture has gone, just leave list here. —Braydie 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unused" images uploaded by an admin or major contributor should be run past that person before deletion. Reskins, particularly have the habit of creating lots of supposedly orphaned images that are really still in use. And are plentiful enough to make tagging them all a pain in the ass. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am for all those conditions Sannse listed. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lazy enough to wait until the next FFW. Although John *is* gay... Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03/27 23:20

1 in 10 are gay? If each were entitled to a vanity page on Uncyc for this reason alone, maintaining all these pages would be all that gets done here. Still, it should be possible to create a list of all the otherwise-unused images being hotlinked from Uncyclopedia pages, just grab a copy of the XML database download and use 'grep' to search for http:// and any of .JPG .jpg .PNG .png .GIF .gif And yes, 1 in 10 images are gay. We respect their colourful diversity. --66.102.80.239 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A thought

What about images used only on the vandalism/example pages? (and while I'm asking, why do we have 17 of these? -- sannse (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete them - having some broken images on the page will probably add to the effect. Also, I put the vandalism/example archives and other sub-pages on VFD, but people claimed they were necessary and linking to the history just wasn't good enough for some reason. I'm still up for deleting them anyway though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:53, 2 Apr 2007

Eh. I can understand talk pages being archived etc (just easier if you want to see something that was said without looking through history tab (but you already know that)) but do you really want to see history of a example of vandalism? Surely it's not that important and I don't think I've ever looked at any of those pages... —Braydie 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief bit of history on that:

Back in the day, the Vandalism page looked very much like this. I got a bit sick of the constant reversions and editwars, and after talking with some other admins, their names now lost in the mists of time, decided to change it to be actual content. Aaah...I forgot how it was crashing browsers then too. Anyway, Vandalism got the meta-humor it has now, and promptly spawned a bunch of bitchfests about how it wasn't fair that the vandalism page wasn't being vandalised.

That, in turned, spawned the Vandalism/example_on_wheels! page, as a place for all those whiny bitches with minimal creative ability to toss around the zillions of pounds of crap now splattered over those pages. Until now, I've let it go because I didn't care to revive that bitchfest. And because I find it subtly humourous that behind the very subtly vandalised Vandalism page lies an obvious cesspool of vandalism. It makes me chuckle that a bunch of people don't see how obvious vandalism is perhaps the worst and most uncreative way to cover this topic here.

So anyway, if you don't mind dealing with the inevitable bitchfest, nuke everything back there. I'd support it 100%. As long as the main vandalism page doesn't end up looking like this again, I'll be happy. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 04/2 21:50

I think we're keeping the vandalism/example on wheels page, but just deleting the archives. I think. —Braydie 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was only talking about all of these, but I don't really care about this one either. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:17, 3 Apr 2007

Well, I still think we need the main one, otherwise there's no place for examples of vandalism to go. Oh yeah, except for admin's userpages. —Braydie 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so unless anyone screams by this evening (UTC) (or unless someone get there before me) I'm going in for a nukeing. Everything that's "..Vandalism/example..", other than the first level page. And all images that become orphans from that too. OH THE POWER!!! -- sannse (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of kicking the cruft out of Special:Unusedimages

Yah, so I'm pretty sure that all the stuff I'm huffing isn't used (or at least they claim not to be used), but we can always bring them back, eh? Also, feel free to help. -- The Zombiebaron 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm working from the full image list, to catch anything else that should die, but I've only found time to check the first 500 so far. I'll try and have another couple of bashes this week -- sannse (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)