Category talk:Candidates for deletion


 * /Archive 1, 2

Image gallery
Any objections to using __NOGALLERY__  on this page? The upside of using it is that only the image name will show rather than the actual image, so the page loads faster and uses less bandwidth. The downside is that the list of image file names get mixed with all other file names. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If I might venture a suggestion as a non-admin but regular "sticky-beak" to this page. If it's possible, can the number of images displayed per page be limited? ie, notice at the bottom it says "(previous 200) (next 200)", maybe reduce this to 100, 50, 25? That way still get to see the (most recent) images targetted for deletion, while cutting down on the bandwidth etc. --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 02:09, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The number of items to display per-page can be changed, but it would apply wiki-wide. --Fyren 03:03, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That's a pity. Although, would reducing the number of thumbnails per page from 200 to 100 be so bad, even if it is applied wiki-wide? From a quick random sampling, appears the average thumbnail file size is approximately 6kB, so that could mean a possible 600kB saving in bandwidth for each page view, plus quicker page loading times (speed of course depends on user's Internet link etc, but you get the idea). If someone has a gallery of over 100 images, would they seriously object to having it divided into multiple pages? (or does this effect other things to?) --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:01, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's a setting for all categories, but it doesn't just affect thumbnails. All category pages would list only the set number of members per page whether they're normal articles or images. We end up using something like 2.5T per month anyway, so 600k per view of this one category isn't going to make a dent.  --Fyren 01:07, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The biggest problem is that Gem doesn't hang out here as much any more, that's why there's so many images! --Xasxas256 01:34, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I can very easily delete them all. I don't particularly want to check to make sure they should be deleted.  If someone cares to do that and then either make a list of filenames somewhere or say "delete all the images in the category,"  I can zap them with few seconds of effort. --Fyren 01:38, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Would it be possible to alter template:delete so that it checks the namespace and categorizes pages in the image namespace in a subcategory like images tagged for deletion instead of the main candidates fro deletion category? -- Gordon Ecker 02:02, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I guess it could do that, but the problem is that the images weren't deleted, not that they're images. If someone tagged 200 various articles (that had content or were otherwise not obviously immediately deletable), the category would still be clogged.  --Fyren 02:07, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

indent reset
 * Ok, so kill the idea of changing the number of objects per page (ie, the 200 to 100 or whatever), it clearly effects too much, so best not be changed. As for the mass of tagged images, yeah it has banked up quite a bit (one reason why I was watching this). If it's of help Fyren, if it were me, I'd be confident of recommending all the currently "tagged for deletion" non-armour related images (can provide a list if it quickens the process). --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 02:22, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * UPDATE: I've checked every image in the N-Z range currently tagged (50 images, oh my aching eyes!), and only one (Image:Shadyguysig.gif, copyvio) has any dependant pages), so I suggest delete em all and be done with it. --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 02:48, 4 July 2007 (CDT)