Template talk:Duplicate

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

What about different formats? eg. Image:Air Force One on the ground.jpg, Image:Air Force One on the ground.png. The template should state whether or not this is the right tag for cases like this. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it:
Duplicate 
For images that show exactly the same thing, though of differing qualities. Maybe the images are exactly the same file with different names. Maybe they are exactly the same photograph but at different resolutions, maybe exactly the same image but different raster formats (PNG vs JPG), maybe the same vector image but different formats (PDF vs SVG).
Redundant 
For images that show the same concept, but in slightly different ways. A diagram has been redrawn with the same concept, but different art, different lettering, or different arrangement of elements, or a photograph of the same building from slightly different vantage points, or whatever. — Omegatron 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this definition is that flags typically show the same thing but the quality and detail can have huge variance. To some people the slight difference in a shade of red is a trivial matter, but to other people it is very important. So I'm not comfortable with flags being marked duplicate, or coming under that definition. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this put images in something like Category:Duplicate images or something? Putting it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion implies that they should be deleted right away, but all uses have to be replaced first. A speedy tag should probably be added after it's been orphaned. --24.46.201.42 08:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

99% of people who tag stuff speedy don't check-usage it. It's the responsibility of the deleting admin to ensure the image has been removed from use. Even if we required that people replace uses before tagging stuff for speedy, they never would, so it would be the same situation as now. Also, this template is often used by people who are "renaming" their own image. Therefore often the badly-named image has never been used. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] new grafic link without a "point"

(feel free to correct my spelling. ) I set the new dublicate a line below and delete the "point" from the end of the sentence. The reoson: I copied everytime the "point" and had somme errors. Now it is easier to update the links by copy and past. If there is a better way, please tell me how! (De En-1) --Mjchael 19:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When deleting, use this reason:

For the deletion comment could someone change it so that it automatically generates a wikilink to the file in question i.e. change it to

duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]
/Lokal_Profil 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

that is adding the code
<tt><small>duplicate or a scaled down version of <nowiki>[[:</nowiki>{{{1}}}<nowiki>]]</nowiki></tt></small>
to the template so that a plain text copy of the text gives a wikilink. /Lokal_Profil 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Keep the Consistency (Change the layout)

Dear Administrators,

Why don't you change the layout in order to keep the consistency with Speedy Request {{Speedydelete}} and Copyvio {{Copyvio}}?

Please refer to {{Duplicate/ja}}

Followings are very smal things, though...

  • Deletion Guidelines : ALL languages don't have to be shown. User can click "Language Changer Bar" at the bottom.
  • Be more clearly: UPPER Messages are for READERs, MIDDLE are for MAINTENANCE Staff, and LOWER are for ADMINs without mixing up.
  • Explain the usage simply: The explanation should be OUTSIDE of the main box. The main Message Box is automatically shown on all tagged pages; Whom is it for? Without making READERs confused, Admins or People helping maintenance can come to check the Usage details here.

What do you think? --SantaClaus 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to add image to review dupes more easily

Please just copy the source code between the lines below. See an example below the code block (category stuff removed). It was taken partially from {{Superseded/en}}. Thanks. Siebrand 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<div style="clear:both;" />
{| {{PD-Layout}} id="duplicate"
|-
|{{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|[[{{#ifexist:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|right|new file]]|}}}}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|64px|left]] This image is '''an [[:Category:Duplicate|exact duplicate]] or scaled-down version of: [[:{{{1}}}]]'''<br /><span style="color:orange">'''There should be only one copy of an image.'''</span><br />''After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|speedily deleted]]''.{{Clr}}
----
:<small>* [[:Image:{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Image:Gtk-go-forward-ltr.svg|→|12px]] [[{{{1}}}]]</small>
----
''If you are the uploader of this file, and it's not yet used on other projects ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Image:{{PAGENAMEE}} check usage]), consider using {{tl|badname}}''
<br/>
<small>'''Admins:''' Follow the directions on [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]<br />
Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced! Only use for images that are ''exact'' duplicates! When deleting, use this reason:</small>
:<small><tt>duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]</tt></small>

----
<center>{{Duplicate/lang}}</center>
|}</div><includeonly>
[[Category:Duplicate|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
</includeonly>
<noinclude>
----
Use this template to tag exact duplicates with '''{{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}}'''.
If you are the uploader and the this file is not used ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Image:{{PAGENAMEE}} check usage]), consider using {{tl|badname}}.
[[Category:Problem tags|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>
Nuvola apps important.svg
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: [[:{{{1}}}]]
There should be only one copy of an image.
After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be speedily deleted.
* [[:Image:Duplicate]] → [[{{{1}}}]]

If you are the uploader of this file, and it's not yet used on other projects (check usage), consider using {{badname}}
Admins: Follow the directions on Commons:Deletion guidelines
Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced! Only use for images that are exact duplicates! When deleting, use this reason:

duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | हिन्दी | Italiano | Македонски | 日本語 | Magyar | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | Українська | +/−

Use this template to tag exact duplicates with {{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}}. If you are the uploader and the this file is not used (check usage), consider using {{badname}}.

[edit] Speedy deletion

Can some sysop remove "After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be speedily deleted." from the template, see Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates. /82.212.68.183 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It has apparently been done. Michelet-密是力 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I might miss something but the sentence is still there (3rd line). This said, all I see in Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates is a discussion with no clear consensus. I'm quite interested by the redirect solution instead of a deletion, but before changing the template, shouldn't you wait for the conclusion of this discussion to be inserted in Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates ? — Xavier, 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This change is still needed.
Commons is a image storage for the Wikimedia project. That means that Commons should store the images that are needed at Wikimedia projects. One very important feature at Wikipedias (and other projects) is the ability to cite specific revisions of pages. If such pages contain images that are later deleted, red image links will appear in those revisions. For images that should never have been used in pages (bacause of copyright or other reasons) that is not a problem. But for duplicated or renamed images there is usually no real problem with the images, so they should still be available. Currently it is not possible to use image redirects so both files need to be kept. At least until image redirects are working, and then the duplicates should be redirected. If the images are deleted before that, it will be very difficult to restore the duplicates and redirect them when redirects are implemented.
(Of course there can be copyright or other real problems with duplicate files, but then they should be deleted bacause of that and not beacause of duplication.) /Ö 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to change the text to: After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others maybe will be deleted by an Admin. --GeorgHH • talk   20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done I think that's as much as we can change without having a larger community discussion concerning the deletion of duplicates. I think the issue is people are thinking these are the same as superseded images. That's not what this is for. A duplicate is a duplicate, not another version. It's getting harder and harder to replace all uses, so I don't see to many being deleted anymore. Rocket000 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to CommonsDelinker

I ammended the tag with the universal replace command of CommonsDelinker --ALE! ¿…? 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, as we have the "Image:" part also in the argument it does not work of course. So I tried
<nowiki>{{universal replace|</nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}|{{#replace:{{{1}}}|Image:| }}{{{1}}}}}

but that did not work either because #replace is not implemented. So how could one do something like that? Please help! --ALE! ¿…? 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How's that? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Wikimedia not wikimeida =P ./Lokal_Profil 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badname -> Bad name

{{badname}} is now called {{bad name}}. Please change the text accordingly. — Xavier, 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could a bot change all the usages accordingly, please! --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I may have missed some pages, especially where the template is just mentionned between nowiki tags, but I already did most of the work. I'm just stuck with protected pages like this one. I'd be glad if you could help. — Xavier, 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-exact duplicates

What about when we have images that are not exact duplicates, but are clearly redundant (i.e. multiple digital versions of an old panting)? I'm not saying that one of the images should be on a speedy-delete track, but surely there should be a process for eventual merging, no?--Pharos 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If they are non exact duplicates, such as SVG vs. PNG vs. GIF, they are not duplicates, and not redundant. Deleting the images without first checking their actual use in ALL Wikimedia projects will harm those projects. You need to check ALL usages; and make sure that the proposed replacement image is compatible with its licencing terms for each relevant Wikimedia project that use them.
Note that the automated deletion of duplicate images has been disabled, because it harmed projects, where some people were incorrectly using this template. Duplicates have to be manually checked, and there are existing bots that periodically extract lists of these images, these lists being posted in a Wikipedia or Commons project, managed by voluntary people participating in each Wiki. These bots don't necessarily run on all wikis, you need to contact the bot maintainer if you want lists posted for your wiki, and the bot also needs special authorization according to the wiki policy. (Don't assume that what is valid and managed in English Wikipedia applies also to all other wikis, because they don't necessarily have the same amount of administrators or maintainers able to do this work).
If the image is in Commons and complies with Commons licencing rules, then they should comply with all Wikimedia projects, but the reverse is not necessarily true: it may happen that an image from an existing Wikipedia was moved to Commons, despite it's not suitable for Commons with its licence, but acceptable in some Wikipedia. In that case, the move to Commons should be cancelled, and a request for deletion on Commons should be performed, and the image relocated back into in the Wikipedia project that needs it (make sure to preserve the licencing terms, because some Wikipedia projects may possibly not have the licence template, so the licence template used should be copied as well in that Wikipedia project, if it is compatible with its policy).
If the Wikipedia projects is strict and adheres strictly to the Commons rules, then the image should not be moved back to these project, instead the articles in those Wikipedia projects using it should be modified to disable the inclusion of the non-compliant image (anyway this image will be deleted from Commons, and a red link for a missing image will appear in those projects...) -- Verdy p 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you really understood my question. I was asking about multiple digital versions of a {{PD-Art}} painting, which would not have copyright issues anywhere. The multiple digital versions were created by different people, so they're not "exactly" the same. But one version is clearly superior to another; I guess this depends on what the definition of "exact" is.--Pharos 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In general with art it's best not to delete any version because it's very subjective, determining which is the most true to the original. I mean if you have some that have tiny dimensions they are usally fine to delete, but for hi-res stuff, even if one seems garish on your screen, it's best not to delete them. Just link them to each other in the other_versions field in {{information}}. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Further, If you really wanted to delete one you thought was awful, you could nominate it for deletion the regular way - definitely no speedy tags for this situation. But generally I think it's not worth the bother... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's profitable to host obviously inferior versions, because people will end up using them on the projects anyway out of ignorance and inertia. This would be different from a case where there is actual disagreement about which version illustrates some particular point better (for example, garishness or mutedness). For example Image:Boston Tea Party-Cooper.jpg and Image:Boston Tea Party.jpg, where I think the first is clearly superior because it includes the whole original page, and it's at a higher resolution.--Pharos 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image redirects

This template needs to be updated now that image redirects are possible. /Ö 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you like to change it? Image redirects are nice, but I don't see how they would change how we handle duplicates. Samulili 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
After the image is deleted, a redirect can be created in its place. Superm401 - Talk 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be a fouth step: "Redirect the deleted image page to the kept file". This is an improvement in many ways
  • Most importantly it will make it possible for reusers of Commons content to have reliable source links for the images they use.
  • It will stop old page versions on Wikimedia projects to have broken image links just because an image is renamed or duplicated.
  • It will not break image links if Commonsdelinking for some reason misses some use of an image.
/Ö 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Duplicate and redundant categories

Please see Template talk:Category redirect. We are discussing whether Template:Duplicate should be used for redundant categories that are unlikely to be used. Superm401 - Talk 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stopped working

I reverted the latest edits. The template stopped working (no image was shown). Multichill (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same file in different lossless formats?

Should this template be applicable to files containing the exact same data in different lossless formats? User:Cecil apparently doesn't think so. I find this interpretation a bit strange, given that using this template for scaled-down versions of images is explicitly allowed, but I'd like to ask for some clarification from the broader community here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this message the standard message, the dupes-tool creates for the comment-line. If is not my thinking, but a general consense which was created in a discussion which fills several KB. I also first asked another admin about his opinion, because I could not confirm if your file really contains the same stuff since I was not able to open it with a standard ogg-player. So no, I don't replace stuff that somebody else could still convert into a less defective and more user-friendly file than yours. Any actually we don't delete anything at all, we just hide it from the view of users. Down-scaling is done by the software itself so it does not make any sense to keep two files that have exactly the same result when presented in the projects. -- Cecil (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's the consensus, so be it: I can certainly file ordinary deletion requests for such files just as easily. (I just wish the closing of deletion requests on Commons didn't resemble a Poisson process quite as much as it seems to.) Anyway, just for the sake of curiosity, would you happen to have a link to the "discussion which fills several KB"? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Duplicate"