Template talk:Db-i1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
Recent versions of MediaWiki support automatic image thumbnailing. The Speedy Deletion Policy encourages deletion of redundant thumbnails and duplicate images, provided that all incoming links have been diverted.
Use this template as follows:
- Let's say you find an image Image:Frobnicator-thumb.jpg and you determine that it is a thumbnail of Image:Frobnicator.jpg.
- Look at the image description page of Image:Frobnicator-thumb.jpg for any pages that might link to the thumbnail. Edit those pages to use Image:Frobnicator.jpg instead, suitably scaled.
- Edit Image:Frobnicator-thumb.jpg and add a line {{isd|Frobnicator.jpg}}.
--MarkSweep 03:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Is it really necessary for this to go in two categories? (The images are crowding out other pages at CAT:CSD.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, that's clearly not necessary. MacGyverMagic suggested the creation of a separate category on my talk page for the same reason. However, I didn't know if it would be Ok to take these images out of CAT:CSD: I was afraid that they might be less visible and would get delete more slowly or not at all. I'll go ahead and remove Category:Candidates for speedy deletion from the template. Then admins need to remember to periodically check Category:Redundant images. --MarkSweep 03:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Question - non redundant orphans
Is there a tag/cat for images that are orphans, but which might not be necessarily redundant - i.e. ones that someone might like to add to an article, but perhaps the original uploader forgot to do so? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know of such a tag (there is Template:Notorphan for the opposite situation). This seems like it could be solved more easily in the Mediawiki software or through DB queries. It'll probably be as easy as finding orphaned pages in the image namespace, or images that have no incoming links from the article namespace. If tags are to be used, they should probably be maintained automatically by a bot. --MarkSweep 05:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- See Special:Unusedimages. dbenbenn | talk 20:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing.
If you are contemplating editing this template, especially with regards to categorization or parameters, please read the discussion at Template talk:Db-reason.
{{db-reason}} is the meta-template from which all these templates derive, and is also used for CSD in its own right. Some of the other CSD templates are also used both as meta-templates, and as templates in their own right. Because of this, the relationship between these templates, their parameters, and the issue of categorization (so that candiate articles get categorized, but the templates temselves don't) is more complex that it appears at first glance. The discussion on Template talk:Db-reason should elucidate some of these issues. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit to the template
I have edited the template slightly to insert that the image must be on Wikipedia (not Commons). The reason for this edit is because I am repeatedly removing and correcting speedy deletion notices from images which are marked as redundant when the replacement is on Commons. For licensing reasons, better described at WP:CSD#Images.2FMedia, redundant images are only deleted if the replacement is on Wikipedia.
I may shortly be making another edit to make the point that the replacement is supposed to be in the same format. Stifle 00:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I made another edit to include that it must be "in the same file format," as per CSD I1. Quite often I am seeing images tagged as CSD I1 and they are in different file formats. If it is a fair use image, it can be tagged with {{orfud}} instead, otherwise the image probably needs to go to WP:IFD. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have just removed that, as the table given at WP:CSD where it lists the appropriate one to use for each purpose, doesn't say it has to be the same format. I know it does earlier, but it makes more sense that once it's better, it has obsoleted the old one. For example: doing an automatic conversion of GIF to PNG may well reduce the image size, and will not lose info as they're both lossless, but it's not the same format anymore. - Рэдхот 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
For some images, there is no reason why they cannot be speedily deleted when the better image is on Wikimedia Commons and/or in a different format. Image:61 ABW.jpg here is redundant to commons:Image:61st Air Base Wing.png. There are no licensing issues because they are both based on a PD image and the new image at Commons is not based on the old image here on the English Wikipedia. Is there any reason why this template should not be used in this case? --Pmsyyz 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, because CSD I1 stipulates that to be speedy-deletable, a duplicate image must be in the same image file format and must be a duplicate of something else on Wikipedia (not the Commons). If you think this criterion should be less restrictive, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not here. This template should reflect the criteria listed at WP:CSD, so I've restored the bit you deleted. —Bkell (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, for images that are duplicates of things on the Commons, you should use
{{subst:ncd|Image:Filename on Commons.ext}}(or just{{subst:ncd}}if the filename is the same on the Commons as it is here). —Bkell (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects
I have moved the redirect RI to point to {{refimprove}} Rich Farmbrough, 07:54 1 October 2007 (GMT).
- If this causes problems, let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01 1 October 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Proposal to update language
Modified wording for this template is being discussed here. Thank you, Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suspected duplicates
How do I label pairs of images which I suspect to be exact copies? (But for which I have no way at this moment to use a tool like `diff' to compare them.)--Imz (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't a template for that- my bot lists suspicious images at User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images, and several users monitor that page to clean it out every so often. You're welcome to add to that page (if so, please use my template User:Staeckerbot/Suspiciousbox so that my bot won't get confused), or create another one (if you'll be identifying such images regularly, perhaps a page should be created in the WP namespace). Staecker (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Misssing "Image:"
The template is missing an "Image:" in the template to be placed on the author's talk page.
