Forum:Unused images
You might or might not have noticed Lyrithya and Zombiebaron have been busy deleting a crapload of unused images. My question is, do we want pretty much all unused images deleted? Is putting any effort in deleting them purposeful? —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:24, 8 March 2011
Yes, if an image is not being used, it shouldn't be on this wiki.
- It's more complex then saying that every unused image should be deleted. Obviously I support keeping some of them. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:28, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
For. per above. --Mn-z 00:24, March 9, 2011 (UTC)- Order is the reason that my penis is something other than an incoherent gaseous cloud of random molecules. --Inebriated 06:38, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- For. Delete all unused images and put them on the mirror site (Uncyc). DJ Mixerr 03:49, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
(talk)(contributions)
Only the crappy ones should be deleted. (Question:What do you mean by "crappy"?)
UN:N
- If the image is pointless, make it go away. no use in keeping it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Englance (talk • contribs)
Not voting
Hi, my name is Amadeus M. Skullthumper. You might remember me as being an "editor" of the "wiki," or you might not. Despite what you may think I've been an excellent lurker lately. I'm going to break my streak though, as I always do when I see something so impossibly stupid I can't help but comment.
I'm going to play a game. You can join along. It's called "what's wrong with this forum?"
1. Asks a question and immediately sets up a vote. Instead of, say, directing their question to the appropriate two users, the original poster here has decided to make a forum about it. Even worse than this already blatantly idiotic idea, he continues to march to the beat of stupidity echoing throughout his thick skull by not inviting a discussion but immediately forcing the community into a vote. That's right. He asks a question and, in lieu of waiting for a response, creates a voting page. I guess the cynics among us might call that "cutting out the middleman," but I call it retarded, presumptuous, and not well thought-out.
2. Makes no attempt to understand what is actually going on. Images are being deleted. OH NO. Clearly there isn't a rational reason why this has been done before and continues to be done in the present. It is all wrong. Fortunately the yellow journalist of our time, Socky, has decided to point out the evils of the Uncyclopedian society to the rest of the userbase, too busy being occupied with silly things such as writing and enjoying themselves. Which isn't what Uncyclopedia is about. It is about voting!
3. Of course images are being deleted you stupid-head. Images serve one purpose on the wiki: to add something to the wiki. If an image is unused* it is, by definition, adding nothing to the wiki. Therefore, like the many, many articles that are slowly burnt to death each day, it is culled from the wiki at large to prevent Uncyclopedia from becoming one enormous mess. Why should we host and list files that have zero purpose whatsoever? These are unused; no one's even displaying them on their own userpages. You could make the argument that unused images prevent other people from having to go through the tedium of having search engines built especially for the purpose of harvesting relevant images and then uploading them to the server, but that's only if you somehow believe going through 5,000+ poorly named images would be faster than Google Image Search. And even if someone wanted to search through every unused image ever uploaded, guess what, we only have a cache of a thousand at a time. So yeah. Take that argument and stuff it up your open ports.
Since this is a wiki, feel free to add anything else you might find wrong with this forum topic. I'm out. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:35 Mar 08, 2011
* Not the technical definition of unused, the human being definition of being unused, that is to say, it serves no purpose to the wiki. Don't be a smartass. The {{notorphan}} template is for images that are unused (by the technical definition) but not unused (by the common-sense definition). So don't pull that one. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:45 Mar 08, 2011
- Best. Comment. Ever. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:48, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that Socky is a temporary admin, and has an unholy number of edits? Therefore, he deserves a more civil response. --Mn-z 00:26, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Edits and common sense are not the same thing. I mean, my bot has more edits than I do, but I don't let him usurp me, unless we're out for ice cream. And don't take what I've written too seriously. It's sarcastic and attention-grabbing, but no actual disrespect is meant; it's understood that my writing is always somewhere along borderline trolling and is, paradoxically, not meant to offend anyone. In fact, I'd have more of a chance of offending someone if I talked seriously; this is something I like to call "refuge in audacity".
- Also, we're having a civil discussion on IRC right now. No offense has passed either way. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:29 Mar 09, 2011
Whatever you all want to argue
The unused images is at present an enormous mess. There is no way to reasonably go through them all, considering the sheer numbers; hells, I don't even know of a way to unreasonably go through then all, considering the caching. The ones that do not show up on the first 1000 unused images or the first 1000 recent files are literally unreachable unless they are already categorised or one comes up with the filename some other way and goes to them that way, which would be roundabout at best. Most successful method I've tried was a google search - and if we have to use google to find a file, we may as well search the entire internet for a file, not just our own servers.
I'm not saying we should delete the categorised images, necessarily - could make galleries out of them, and they'd still be sorted and potentially useful. But beyond that, the entire heap is nothing more than an unordered pile, not doing anyone any good, and just leaving it will only let it continue to grow.
Guys, if you have files that show up as unused that are used, or you want to keep them, please use the {{notorphan}} template on them, or put them on a page, respectively. There is nothing to vote on. We have on our hands a maintenance nightmare, and the longer it is allowed to fester, the worse it will get.
~ 
00:03, 9 March 2011
- I contacted our overlords last night and requested a list of all the filepages for all the unused files. They still haven't gotten back to me, but when they do I will post the list in this Dump. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:20, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- And then would they get us another one after people have their week or so to save things?
~ 02:00, 9 March 2011
Hyperbole compulsively throwing in his opinion
I think it's a problem that we have apparently around a million images, only a small fraction of which appear on any article.
I think the only viable solution is to delete every unused image, and then, if we find ourselves missing anything, to go back and restore it. This will take many dozens of hours to finish. But making a decision on each unused picture before we delete it would take hundreds of billions of hours.
Socky and Aleister have expressed concern that we might be "throwing out babies with the bathwater." Well, we'll throw out one or two, but those can be rescued after the fact. The thing is - of the hundreds of legitimately funny but unsued images that will inevitably be deleted - virtually none of them are ours. IPs have, in twos and threes, picked up pictures from image dumping grounds like Fark or 4chan or Ebaumsworld, and dropped them on us.
If we had a thousand articles that were just cut-and-pastes from The Onion or Cracked, would anyone really think twice about deleting all of those? And 99.9% of these funny unused images fall into that category: they're someone else's work.
In fact, frankly, we can't even claim fair use on them. I can (generally) claim fair use on a picture of Fergie pissing herself because I'm satirizing the incident. I can't really claim fair use on "ROFLcopter shooting down enemy soldiers." We're not satirizing anything - we're just stealing some kid's animation. That's just... theft, really.
Let's nuke all the unused images from high orbit and fix any damage later. It's the most efficient and best solution. 
pillow talk 00:17, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
The final solution
So, Wikia finally got back to me with a huge list of unused images (10,688 in total). I have posted them all at User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles. In one week Dr. Skullthumper, Lyrithya, and I will begin the slaughter. In order to save pages, you will have to add {{notorphan}} to them, and then remove them from the list. Good luck. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:44, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- The official page for the mass deletions is over here. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- This is good news for your project. The problem now is that the page is so huge that it takes a long time to load. Then, when looking at an image, and going back to your page again, there just isn't time to look at these, let alone save them and then go back and delete them to assure that they are saved. Many of the names are very intriguing, so the loading/time problem comes into play here. And why are some of the pics showing up as red links, is someone already huffing these? Maybe these things can be worked out by working through them in smaller sections, and extending the time period, but even 1,000 pics might be unmanagable in a weeks time unless the actual pics were viewable. So many pics, so little time, so little wine. Aleister 13:16 9-3-'11
- I have no idea why some of them are red links. The first red link on the list, for example, was huffed back in 2008 by sannse. Pretty bizarre. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:11, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- This is good news for your project. The problem now is that the page is so huge that it takes a long time to load. Then, when looking at an image, and going back to your page again, there just isn't time to look at these, let alone save them and then go back and delete them to assure that they are saved. Many of the names are very intriguing, so the loading/time problem comes into play here. And why are some of the pics showing up as red links, is someone already huffing these? Maybe these things can be worked out by working through them in smaller sections, and extending the time period, but even 1,000 pics might be unmanagable in a weeks time unless the actual pics were viewable. So many pics, so little time, so little wine. Aleister 13:16 9-3-'11
Here are all the subpages, which should make the loading and editing problem somewhat easier.
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/...
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/a
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/b
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/c
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/d
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/e
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/f
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/g
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/h
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/i
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/j
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/k
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/l
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/m
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/n
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/o
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/p
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/q
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/r
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/s
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/t
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/u
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/v
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/w
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/x
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/y
- User:Zombiebaron/UnusedFiles/z
On a related note, I'd propose we delete them in shifts. Only a couple subpages every week. How about it? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:31, 9 March 2011
- Fun hater.
~ 21:40, 9 March 2011
I've never seen an unused image
An unused image repository
I'm saving some! 
|Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill 
| 02:33, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I would make sure they are funny, epic, hilarious, and good to keep. Not a waste of bandwidth on here. DJ Mixerr 03:52, March 14, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)