Commons talk:Redundant tags

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


copyied from my talk page -- Duesentrieb 14:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to improve this Tag by an automatic adding of [[:]] to this template by changing {{{1}}} to [[:{{{1}}}]] so you only need to copy the image or page links without need to add something else ?
-> Using {{Redundant|Image:abc.jpg}} is then automatically converted to display [[:Image:abc.jpg]] inside the template text.
(Check template history what I tried) --Denniss 11:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would, but then you could not put multiple images or additional notes in there. Also, changing it now would break all pages currently using the tag. I don't think this is a good idea. If you feel it is, als about it on the village pump. -- Duesentrieb 11:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW: we should continue this discussion on Template talk:Redundant -- Duesentrieb 11:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

end of copy from my talk page -- Duesentrieb 14:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Angela pointed out that the Static Wikipedia uses Commons images. See, for example, [1]. Since it is "static", image uses can't be updated. I suggest that we have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to worry about this issue. The alternative is for the Commons to be paralyzed. Anyway, if someone really wants to make a static Wikipedia, they'll have to include static copies of images. dbenbenn | talk 01:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

you missing that IE doesn't support transparency and thanks to this short sighted deleting hundreds of Wikipedia pages looking quite ugly in IE. Just look this in IE: Image:Commons-logo.svg, which was suggested to use in replace of Image:Commons-logo.png. --TarmoK 12:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Before Commons-logo.png got deleted, it looked exactly the same as Commons-logo.svg in all possible contexts, since it was simply the 1024px thumbnail of Commons-logo.svg. dbenbenn | talk 16:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
First do you say that Image:Commons-logo.svg page opened in IE looks ok and the background is transparent? (Would be nice to hear what is defined "all poossible contexts")
Secondly I doubt deeply that PNG was thumbnail of SVG as SVG was most likely done later, but hard to tell, as no copy of original, which should be available if this kind of deleting is done. Now seems that nobody can't go back to the earlier version, ain't nice way of handling things(?) --TarmoK 07:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Internet Explorer doesn't support transparency, so no, of course the logo is not transparent in IE. Also, see the log, particularly the September 16 entry. dbenbenn | talk 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So you saing it's ok to delete (earlier) version(s) which works (well, worked as the version is gone for good) in IE? and it's ok to delete images which which work also in IE in favor of ones which are not working properly?
... ok, according to the log there was replaced version which was made from this SVG. --TarmoK 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Responsibility to check Redundant marking[edit]

Why this template encourages to delete redundant images but missing totally responsibility to check that marked images in fact is redundant to the one it is referred? Now somebody marks image redundant as it looks similar and next thing someone goes to remove it "because it was marked". --TarmoK 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice Image:Amerika-Pos.png has been deleted. While the resolution is lower and the outline appears to be identical, the colour scheme is rather distinct. 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Distinctly horrible. :p Anyways - No, there is no cure for human stupidity. ¦ Reisio 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant to[edit]

Am I alone in thinking that the text on this template doesn't make sense? Is it possible to be "redundant to"? Should it not be "Is made redundant by"? Nicklott 22:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "is redundant to" is fine. User:dbenbenn 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. It must be a north american usage. Nicklott 13:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"used to introduce the second element in a comparison." --
No, it's an English thing. ¦ Reisio 03:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Careless alteration[edit]

I like the new way of automatically linking, but nobody bothered to go around to the pages that instruct on usage and update the examples. I got a few while I was updating ifc stuff, but haven't actually checked whatlinks_here_. ¦ Reisio 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the same image vs improved image[edit]

People are using this tag for two different cases:

  • 1. Two images are exactly the same, except for different titles (and one may be higher resolution).
  • 2. An image is an (allegedly) improved version of the other, for example SVG flag.

Now,for #1, it seems to me that those images can be deleted, as long as they are exactly the same, and the redundant image is not being used.

For #2, this is where the "upload a cross" etc procedure comes in, correct?

So for images that fit case #1, does anyone see a problem with me speedy deleting them? pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem speedying #1 if properly checkusaged. Database should be up to date, with lagging database better use the "crossing" procedure. --Denniss 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect deprecated template[edit]

I suggest this template is redirected to {{Superseded}} -- the two are very similar in effect so the redirect shouldn't have any negative effects. In the meantime, I am manually reassigning images in the redundant category to superseded, duplicate or vector version available where appropriate -- but this is an endless job since new redundants are continuing to flow in. -- Himasaram 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


I have nominated this template for deletion. Discuss it. Yung6 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)