Forum:Server Space

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Server Space
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 December 2011 by Nex Undique.

On this wiki, we really put a lot of time into our images. We're not satisfied with an image until it's a top-notch quality. We have standards having to do with quality, updates, AA, transparency, file extension, file size, and more. However, this leads to an image being uploaded tons of times until it fits all the requirements. So instead of an image taking up 200 KB on the server, it takes up 200 KB times the number of uploads, as each version is saved.

My suggestion involves deleting images and re-uploading the most current version under the same name. Of course, it would be very impractical to do this to every image on the wiki, so there would have to be a certain file size and number of uploads to exceed.

However, some of the overwritten images of a given file name have historical significance. The historical version of Example.png would be re-uploaded under the name of Example old.png and possibly added to the proper graphical updates subpage. The most up-to-date version of Example.png could then be deleted and re-uploaded.


  • Reduce RuneScape Wiki's server usage
  • Help out our Graphical updates project by adding more images to it.


  • The actual deletion of a file page takes sysop tools, so regular contributors would have to use {{D}} or a specialized template.

Joel amos Talk Contribs 00:40, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


Question - Is this necessary? If server space was an issue, Wikia would have told us so. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:44, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

It's just a matter of not taking up several times more server space than necessary. Especially now that we have bots that re-upload every single image on the wiki for maintenance purposes, it seems like a good idea to start having a more ethical approach to our images.--Joel amos Talk Contribs 01:16, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I would never add any of those images to the graphical updates page. I hate that section of our website, so that "pro" is out for me. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:46, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Upon the deletion of a file or page, the page still remains, it just is not publicly view-able. This would do nothing. Ts4kNfA.png 00:54, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

After so long, they delete the old images that were deleted, making them unrestorable. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:58, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Server space isn't an issue. Plus, I like file histories, why get rid of them for a non-existent problem that only has a small potential to possibly be an annoyance (it will never be an actual problem. Server space can increase, and I'm sure it would be done for a huge wiki like this one) years from now? ɳex undique 01:33, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It makes more sense to keep the file history for images, especially when images take up the same amount of server space when they are deleted compared to when they are there for everyone to see. We also don't have any real limit on our server space, so there is no real problem with that. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:23, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Why do something about server space when server space isn't an issue? It's nice to see how an image has "evolved" if you will over time. While articles are much much smaller (if we had any articles over say, 50 kb, I'd be concerned), there are a lot more revisions of them. So we could also delete large articles or articles with many revisions and then replace it with one single revision, too? I don't think so. Matt (t) 02:46, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

we have 26 --Iiii I I I 05:21, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Images take up space whether they are deleted or not. It's an integral part of the MediaWiki system. It is pretty much impossible to "reclaim" any space by permanently deleting stuff, because delete doesn't delete. It just hides it from an increasingly large group of users. 222 talk 07:48, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - As brains said, deleting things won't give us more server space, considering admins can check deleted files, proving that deleting does not actually delete anything. Moreover, even if it did, we are not running out of server space; rendering your server space argument pointless, whereas deleting the histories of files will effectively stop most of us from being able to see how an image came to its current version (which would be very helpful if you needed to check whether or not the image was edited correctly) and make it impossible for most of the users to comment on the edits of a user (which could be useful in a RfA or anything similar) There is absolutely no point of removing the histories. bad_fetustalk 16:49, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Really the only time we need to clear file histories is in case of duplication, such as edit warring and the multiple upload bug that's cropped up. Otherwise all it does is hide the revision from non admins What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:29, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Solution for a non-existent problem and rather confusing. Also, per Brains. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:32, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Nostalgia and graphic history pls. Ronan Talk 19:46, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Chess and Brains. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 21:27, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to do anything. ɳex undique 00:28, December 11, 2011 (UTC)