Template talk:Extracted from

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

Editor parameter[edit]

I would like to see the optional ability to add a parameter editor = to the file, or are we saying that it is implicit that the person that has uploaded the file is the person who did the extraction. Billinghurst (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not also a parameter "summary of the modifications made" as is available in Template:Retouched picture? I tried to expand the documentation with examples, and noticed parameter 3 is undocumented. I guess it is for arbitrary wikitext to replace the image thumbnail. -84user (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Does the "#ifexist:" serve any purpose in : {{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[{{#ifexist:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|original file]]|}}}}} or can I replace it by {{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|File:{{{1}}}|File:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|original file]]|}}}}}?

--Zolo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it avoids problems if you add/remove the "Image:" prefix. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actual images[edit]

LA2-NSRW-1-0007.jpg Chandler B. Beach.jpg

In my opinion the two b&w images of Chandler B. Beach included on the left side of the box are pointless and misleading. I suggest to replace them with the actual source->extracted images. Here is the modified template: User:Basilicofresco/Template:Extracted from and here you can see an example. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, I've always wondered why static images were used. Your suggestion gives the reader information and reduces the image count. -84user (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And I had to revert this change because all the extracted images (multiple hundreds, maybe even some thousand) were listed in Category:Pages with broken file links. Pleas re-do this change showing only the source image. It's pointless to show a thumb of the extracted image at the page of the extracted image. --Denniss (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
for me was better than the previous version, this is unclear, at least the first part (but that's just my opinion)--Pava (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I just checked and the current version does show an image of the original as well so the only improvement may be the placement of this image. Again, there's no ned to place a thumb of the extracted image on he image page of the extracted image, especially if it creates a lot of work for others (for me in this case, while working through the cat mentioned above with some thousand images, about 25-33% were caused by this template). --Denniss (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If there were broken links the template had to be improved. Now it will not create a link if the filename is wrong. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Basilicofresco: I don't like the new version, because it makes sense to have explanatory images, while it doesn't to re-transclude the actual image, and because {{extracted image}} is using the same design.    FDMS  4    16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi FDMS4! In my opinion is very nice to see both the source and the extracted image together at the same size. In this way the reader is able to understand the relationship between two images in a blink, without reading. Moreover it is useful to avoid mistakes like File:AbdurRahmanKhan-A.jpg: now, with both the images at the same size, it is obvious that image was not extracted from File:Abdur rahman.jpg. On {{Image extracted}} I would use the same style: the original photo and one or more extracted images. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, but now the source file thumb is (and has to be as there now are two images) much smaller, so the reader won't be able to find out a lot about the source file without having to click on it (and it's now taking longer to find out which one actually is the source file as there now are two images).    FDMS  4    19:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Since we are talking about extracted images, and not just derivative works, is always pretty obvious which one is the source and which one is the extracted. Even on small thumbs. Moreover there is an arrow between the two images. Well, the arrow is actually quite small... we could increase the size. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Why is there a namespace-check? If we can see in the /doc and in categories for example is it not working correctly: Category:Fleurons_for_Évocations_(Lemerre) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 11:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"image" → "file"[edit]

Would anyone mind if the word image was changed to file? This template is often used for images that have been extracted from DjVu or PDF files so it always looks strange to me to say that it's extracted from an image. It's somewhat correct, but misleading. Thanks, The Haz talk 18:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree and done for En and De. Anyway this template should use Autotranslate! User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, and I agree about autotranslate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmat2 (talk • contribs)
Still working for me (tested: en-gb + de), if anybody seriously needs the template data (parameters) in German please holler (oder probier den Vorlagendateneditor einfach aus, viel kann da nicht kaputt gehen). –Be..anyone (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)