Forum:Deleting Talk Pages Only Images

So I was doing some conversion of JPGs to PNGs, and discovered that a majority of them are only used in talk pages that have long since been resolved. And checking these Images Used only at Talk Pages, I see that they are all resolved and are just a burden to this wiki if we keep them here. Reasons include:
 * 1) Problems have been resolve, pointless to keep them any longer.
 * 2) Some are very poorly named, renaming them would be forcing open some closed forums and  archived talk pages.
 * 3) A good deal of them are JPGs, no sense in converting them just for a long ended talk.
 * 4) Some of them are poor quality.
 * 5) Some are doctored/marked, with highlights, boxing, collages, etc, which are all not allowed in our image guidelines.
 * 6) A few of them are actually scanlations.
 * 7) Some have no sources, and probably would take a long time to find those sources.
 * 8) Some may be duplicates of images that we are using for articles (like we already have this, and we don't need this).
 * 9) Some are just charts, screens, and whatnot created by users, not taken from manga/anime/other related sources.

My suggestion is to erase all these long-due images (if we cannot find a single good use for them in any articles/templates), replacing them with a Redlink. And in the future, any talk page only images should be deleted once the talk has been resolved. 04:18, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I'd kind of support keeping them just for archiving purposes, and maybe in case a user might want to talk about something that's already been resolved. But I have no problem with them being deleted anyways. They've served their purpose. 04:33, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

A lot of them have already been deleted anyway like ones on user talk pages. So it can go either way. The ones I will absolutely support getting deleted are ones that were incredibly pointlessly uploaded when they could have just been externally linked. SeaTerror (talk) 18:58, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Well, first off, all those useless ones would be the charts and graphs and other wiki background screens. Technically, if they are used only for talk pages, then ALL images can be externally linked. 01:13, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I also checked, though not related to this topic, that there are other JPGs that are not yet marked with the Jpg. Is there anyone who knows how to track down all files of one type? 04:07, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

External links don't always last especially like how Imageshack went full commercial and disabled free uploading. I meant an image like http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/File:Mermen_falling_on_Sea_Urchin_Armor_Spine_Squad.png. SeaTerror (talk) 04:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for external link people can indeed just point to a website if they want to point to an image for reference, and let the link die out later, rather than keeping such images to clean up later, risking being forgotten. As for all these easily referenced manga/anime images (like the Urchin Squad one), we can get rid of them since it's easy to point out what chapter/episode they are in and look up there later. Is that what you mean? 05:26, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I meant an image like that can just be linked to an external scanlation site and if needed then later updated to a different one. There are some images we can't delete like RAW databook images since those would be hard to find elsewhere. SeaTerror (talk) 19:09, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Those aside, there are many easy to find manga images that we can link. But even databook images have served their purposes, hard to see why we need those anymore either. 23:29, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

So if I don't see much response, I can start initializing the mass delete of all manga-page images for talk pages? What about the others? 15:51, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

There might be some that we really don't need anymore. There are probably some scan ones out there that could be updated to raw images we already have. But there are also a good amount of them that should stay. Going through them all would include reading entire forums in order to understand why the image is there, and would be an absolute shitload of work. I'm just not convinced it's worth it to start another big project that's going to go unfinished for some time. We were supposed to delete all jpgs like 2 or 3 years ago now? 16:33, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but impractical at this stage. Unless someone is volunteering to go through all talk page only images and change them with an external link, I don't think this would actually happen, at best for a good year, and more likely never. How about we just make it a rule from now on, and if anyone going through an archived talk page finds an image they object to they're perfectly welcome to change it to an external link? That way they'll be changed if there's any fuss, and we won't have a problem from now on.

16:44, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with JSD and Nova. 16:47, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I don't want any external links, as they're not viable long-term. Any images that need to stay must be uploaded here. 16:50, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

But if they need to stay, they'd be on article pages. If they don't need to stay, there's no problem removing them. Which images are essential for talk pages but not actually important for articles?

16:56, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

The other problem with that is we're not allowed to edit other people's talk page messages like that unless it's for redlinks. SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing images from user talk pages. We should have already, as far as I'm concerned.

Forums and wiki talk pages are another issue. Policies, rules, and page content are based on discussions, and we should make sure that if an image is essential to the discussion, it should continue to be a part of a discussion. For the very same reasons why we never delete the discussions themselves we should not delete the images.

Sure, there are plently of discussions out there that aren't that essential to rules, policies, and page decisions, and do I think we need to keep those images? Not really. But I also don't want to see people spend the next 2 years wasting effort trying to read all these discussions to try and figure out which images "are essential" (a subjective and likely problem causing issue on its own). 19:54, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I arrived late, so I'll just add my two cents and leave. We should keep them, for both archiving and context. We don't know if the issue it helped resolve might resurface in the future, so it's good to have it at the ready if it does. They provide context to stuff. If they illustrate a point that is relevant to a discussion, then deleting the picture is no different than deleting someone's key post. 20:04, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Some should be deleted like the one I linked earlier. That was just uploaded to be uploaded when an external link would have been fine. SeaTerror (talk) 20:13, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we are gonna delete it, then we should set up a bot for that, to hunt down all the red links afterwards. If we do keep them, what about the jpg situation? Those should've been cleared up 2-3 years ago, as JSD mentioned. 22:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

JPG images should be deleted, if that's the case. If we want to keep it because of its relevance to a talk page, it should be a PNG file in the first place. There's no problem with me either those images would stay or be deleted. I'm passing this decisions to the real veterans and the admins.

If they are JPG then they all have to be replaced as PNG since that's the rule. But first we should decide if they are getting deleted or not. It's going to be a long discussion since obviously not all of them can be deleted.SeaTerror (talk) 23:58, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Well, something like this is both a jpg and so... pointless now. This and this are just in a talk page of a file that has long since been deleted for being a jpg. This is just a duplicate of a better version that is currently in an article use. These are the situations we are dealing with. 00:11, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with the deletion of some JPG files instead of replacing them, but only in extreme cirumstances. But it would all need to be done correctly. Here's what I would do for all the files Yata just talked about:


 * The active talk one should stay for now, as while the topic is outdated and unneeded, the image is essential to the conversation, as wikia doesn't look like that anymore. To me, removal of that kind of stuff should be part of a wider (aka not in this forum) discussion about if we should "preserve wiki history".


 * The Barujimoa images were used in a talk page for the image. What we should just do is move the whole file talk page to the talk page of File:The Nightmare of Barujimoa Infobox.png, which is where the current poll-winning version of the image is. Then, we should just upload the 3 ones from talk pages to the current file, then just link the versions from the file history on the talk page.


 * For the Big Mom one, Yata's correct. We should simply just replace its use with the better image.

Bottom line, there are plenty of ways to correct these bad images that aren't outright deleting them. If someone that is on the side of preserving talk page integrity worked at this, I would be ok with it (they should start only with the jpg files though). I do not want to open the floodgates to anyone just marking the images for deletion though. In a couple weeks, I might have time to do some of this project myself, currently, I don't.

And Yata mentioned this early in the forum, but I forgot to address it: Deleting the ones in archived talks and forums would still require us to edit those pages, because we could not have the broken file links left in there. Small detail, but the reasoning that deleting them saves us work because of that is incorrect. 12:11, August 12, 2015 (UTC)


 * Seconded.

What about the jpgs? We gotta get rid of all jpgs eventually, and those used in talk pages will HAVE to have something done with them. Either use a redlink or replace with a png, I second the former. 00:00, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. We can re-upload them as PNGs, it's just saving it again in MS Paint, but as a PNG file this time.

I still gave an example of one that should be deleted though. SeaTerror (talk) 00:44, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, whatever we can externally link. What we cannot, we delete and re-upload as png or redlink them. Let us see which way everyone thinks is the better way before we proceed. 02:27, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of external links replaced with ads recently. Just look at User:Sff9. I will not allow external links.

Nova and I are going through a bunch of them today, we'll see how many awful ones are left after that. 13:03, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

"I've seen a lot of external links replaced with ads recently. Just look at User:Sff9. I will not allow external links." 1) That's only with images. 2) You're not the one that makes that decision anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 21:15, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we are dealing with JPGs by replacing them for sure. Now if we can link an image externally to make a point we can indeed remove the need for uploading these images that we draw on, scanlated, and serve no use in articles. So what if a link goes dead or becomes an ad, at least we know what it used to link to. 03:57, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

We won't know what it used to do, since it will just be a random link with no file name. Last week when Nova and I had time, we did a lot of work to clean out the category alphabetically A-H. We'll probably have more time to do it like that in the future, so we don't need to get hasty and make mistakes here.

What I've been doing for a lot of images is just inserting them into the file history of other images and adding external-style links but just linking them to the older revision of files on our wiki. That way, we know they aren't going to be deleted and we can lower the number of images in the category. I don't know how many we started with, but I got it down to less than 200 images in the cat.

My strategy doesn't work for every image, as not all of them are relevant to existing files here. But hey, the category is here to be used, and as long as it's used minimally, I'm fine with it. 04:07, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

Well, this problem seems solved. Now this brings up the topic of JPGs themselves, so I like to direct you all to this new forum. 18:31, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

It isn't resolved yet. There are still images that should be deleted JPG or not. SeaTerror (talk) 18:38, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

True, those we can easily link up to outside sources. Heck, if someone is willing to set them all up in ImageShack (with an official account), then we can just clear that up. ImageShack shouldn't have any ads. Any volunteers? 19:20, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

1) Imageshack is horrible now. 2) That's not what I meant by external links. Some images should have just been linked to external sites like the one I linked earlier. That should have been a link to a scanlation site showing the page. SeaTerror (talk) 23:35, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Well there's plenty of manga readers out there. The problem is some of them are contend with using the fast but crappy scanlation as opposed to waiting for the more refined one. We can easily delete any image that can now be redirected to an online manga reader sites. No problem for me. 23:50, September 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * You know, it'd be a lot better if we can find more practical use for these images, like File:Vol3settei20.jpg, placing it in Chopper's early concept section. We can add that to our list to dos. 00:07, September 6, 2015 (UTC)

Nova and I have still been working at these, I think we're up through "M" in filenames. I have manged to do something to avoid any scanlation images so far, using various methods.

And if that Chopper image was sourced, I'd say yeah. But I have no idea what the source is, so by that it should be deleted. Also, Angel's userpages are NOT talk pages so I've been deleting any used there, because they are personal use. I'll leave that one around for awhile, and ask those who have the databooks if it's from one of them. 00:35, September 6, 2015 (UTC)

I won't forget about this issue, but we need to close some active discussions. 13:53, September 29, 2015 (UTC)