Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
User talk:Mini-mitch/Archive Talk 5: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Ta
(→Ta: new section) |
(→Ta) |
||
| Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
Thanks. Nice work with the images.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 21:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC) | Thanks. Nice work with the images.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 21:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC) | ||
=="Unused" images== | |||
I will reiterate what I've said to you before: just because an image is ''currently'' unusued is not a reason, in and of itself, to delete it. This is especially true now that CSS is being used. When you link an image through CSS, it ''appears'' that the image doesn't link to anything. For instance, we both know that [[:file:transferring.jpg]] appears on many pages, but the file page indicates that no pages link to the photo. | |||
More to the point, just because something isn't used ''now'' doesn't mean it might not be used in the future. Again, [[:file:transferring.jpg]] is an excellent example. I originally put it on the disambig template, then got rid of it for a few months, then put it back in through CSS. I would have been ''pissed'' if someone had deleted it, because it took a while for me to screencap it, and I don't have it on this computer anymore. (Granted, I'm an admin now, so I have more facilities at my disposal to find deleted images. But were it deleted when I wasn't an admin, I'd have pitched holy hell.) | |||
If I could get you to refocus your energies on getting rid of ''duplicates'', that's where the real cleanup needs to be done. I've created a page at [[Tardis:Duplicate images]] to help with that task. I've also seen you deleting images on the basis of quality, and that's very useful indeed. So please continue in that vein. But please don't delete just on the basis of an image being unusued. As the principal creator of images for the site, I can tell you that the scraps of photos that aren't being used are often the most useful for creating new site maintenance images. | |||
Now, of course I'm reacting with my own biases here, and I can understand we might need compromise. I'm prepared to admit that you may well have a point — there could be a ''lot'' of total crap that needs to be cleared out. So if you get through cleaning up the duplicates and you ''really'' want to move on to unused images, can I at least ask for right of review? Maybe you could slap them with {{tl|delete}}, giving me time to review them for future suitability? Perhaps we could agree that you wouldn't actually delete the files but say on the first Monday of every month? I've seen some gems in the delete pile before, such as the image or Rose that's in the main graphic at [[companion]]. It would be a shame to lose a great pic just because it wasn't being used ''on the day that you came across it''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''16:23:28 Fri '''15 Apr 2011 </span> | |||
