Supernatural Wiki talk:Image Policy

• Support for it to be a policy. There is no reason to have unused images and files on the server. They just make extra work to keep it all clean. Furthermore the number of duplicates and images that are linked to only off Supernatural Wiki is horrible. Personally I think this policy should be expanded to include searching already used images before uploading a new one. There is no reason to have 40+ of the same image uploaded over several years. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:08, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
• Note I would like to add that this has already been in effect for awhile now. it just was never added to a policy page or put in writing. It never needed to be as no user has ever objected to needing to use them or have them deleted. Even the ones that wanted to just upload a image and use it off site. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:17, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It seems reasonable and prevents spam pictures. Dtol (talk)
• Support - Unused images serve no purpose and create create clutter on the wiki. I support this policy.Rafe Adler (talk) 04:54, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
• Comment/Oppose I don't know if regular users get a say in this, but the 24-hour limit is way too short. If you're uploading many images, 24 hours might not even be enough to finish uploading them, given other stuff you have to do (eat, sleep, work/study). If we do get a say in it, then I definitely oppose this policy. Orion (T-B-C) 21:20, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
• Comment What time limit would you suggest? Such a policy has a viable use, but we do need to consider what you said and make sure users have enough time. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:25, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - No less than 72 hours, and even that should be extended to no less than one week once the images are cleaned up. As I see it, the short deadline should serve as a way to keep the clutter more or less contained during the cleanup, and not as a way to prevent it altogether. A permanently short deadline would only make people less likely to upload images in the first place. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:36, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Orion makes a good point. I'm in favour of making sure that all pictures get used. Dtol (talk) 21:30, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - All it would take would be a reply to who ever left the message on the users page. If I left a notice and someone said they were working on a large project I would make a note to check up on it later and ask how long they thought it would take. There is also the sandbox that can be used to hold the images and work on the page. I do not think any Admin or Mod has deleted images without warning unless there was clear abuse of the wiki involved. the 24 hour period should be long enough for the editor/uploader to contact the person that left the message. It is designed for the good of the wiki not to make everyone work faster or be a burden on them. If the person can not even bother to respond to a message in 24 hours maybe they should wait for a day they have more time. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:32, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Except it doesn't work like that. Sometimes crap happens, and all that work is rendered useless. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:36, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment The images can be un-deleted if that is the case. I fully understand that sometimes crap happens, that is a fact of life. However in most cases if a person is working on a project or have an account they will see the notice within 24 hours. I have no issue working with people on the issue. If they need more time no problem, if something came up and they missed the deadline no problem I an undelete just as easy as delete. The key here is communication. And I'm not sure what work would be rendered useless... if the images are unused then all they did was upload them which as I said can be rectified if needed, and if they started to place them in page then they would not show up in the unused files page. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:46, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment - So if someone uploads 500 images, then has to take someone to the hospital, you'd both delete the images when they failed to communicate and undelete them afterward? I'd love to see that happen. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:48, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment 500? That would draw attention in of itself, heck it might get the account blocked thinking that it was hacked or a bot. I think even Wiki global would be looking in to that. As an example Reka uploaded 40 images I had no issue un-deleting them. Would it better to say they have 24 hours after the notification of intent to delete to ask for more time? I can't think on any time that a normal page would have more then 100 images on it either, if there are ones correct me.--ThomasNealy (talk) 22:12, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose/Comment - Although I'm not opposed to a time limit, I am opposed to a 24 hr limit for the same reasons that Orion has presented. It seems like an imposition and a disruption of any project one undertakes to have to keep your eye on a clock, check your message board, or leave messages for someone to inform them of your plans or your progress. It is not something that encourages people to want to participate. Deleting images and then undeleting them are two chores that may not need to be performed at all if images are left as-is for 72 hrs, or even a week, which means less work for the deleter. Also, having to wait for undeletions to happen is discouraging.Reka12452 (talk) 23:25, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a lot of thought over the day. What if we gave the registered users with a good edit history 3 days (72 hours) and kept the 24 hour limit for unregistered users, new registered, and those without good edit history? That way the ones that are most likely to abuse the images are the ones that are watched the closest, and those that are mostly likely to do big projects and can be trusted get more time, and in both cases a simple message asking for more time would be all that would be needed. Would that be better? I really am against a full week for unknown uploaders, it leaves to much time for abuse. As it is now from what I have been cleaning up somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the images are being used off site, and since we started to actively enforce the use it or its deleted policy that number has vanished from new images as have the unused images sitting around ( from new uploads at least. I still thousands to delete other wise) there is no reason for us to be hosting images for other wikis let alone wattpad and live jurnal. And yes those are the two biggest offenders. They can host their own damn images. --ThomasNealy (talk) 04:27, February 6, 2018 (UTC)