geni wrote:
On 11/22/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Why not? If it can't, either feed them in more
slowly in the first place
or extend the IfD deadline to allow the backlog to build up without
overwhelming processing.
5000 links causes issues with page load time. The page would probably
be inacesserble on dialup and frankly and meaningful review of that
number of images would be imposible.
Oh, come on. If you go with my "feed them in slowly" suggestion, then
you never get 5000 links in the queue to begin with. If you go with my
"put big surges in a backlog so there's time to process them at liesure"
suggestion, you can just use the same tried and true approaches that are
used in the high-volume AfD process to manage them (eg., split them up
over multiple pages). These are perfectly simple answers that you should
have thought of considering how long you've been involved in
deletion-related discussions here.
If we're
having to delete articles without taking adequate care because
our current mechanisms aren't capable of providing adequate care, that's
an argument for changing our current mechanisms rather than an argument
that we _should_ be deleting articles that way.
We did change stuff after that. We redid all our fair use templates.
Now we just need to get people to read them.
As far as I can tell this is a non sequitur. My text above was in
response to speedy-deleting orphaned fair-use articles on the basis that
they're _orphaned_, after I pointed out that orphanhood can be a result
of vandalism on other articles that you can't detect at a glance when
you're only examining the image information page. Are you suggesting
that changing the fair use notice templates would somehow prevent
vandals from deleting the images from articles that use them in valid
ways? Vandals, by their very nature, don't pay attention to such things.
My basic point remains. An image should never be speedy-deleted soley
because it's an orphan, because with the current software there's no way
to tell whether its orphanhood is a temporary state. Such images should
be given more careful consideration, at the very least a time delay to
allow for the possibility that its orphan status will change in the near
future.