File talk:Example.jpg/Archive 1

Attribution
As it is not clear from the revision history, here is the attribution info for the current version:
 * Created by Ulrik Sverdrup
 * Modified by User:Brian0918
 * Recreated by Locke Cole (3 April 2006)

Question: Can we really gfdl this? It contains an image that the foundation reserves. &mdash; Sverdrup 17:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * no.Geni 20:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad JPEG
ùFeh. This image perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of JPEG compression. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things. --Ardonik.talk 00:21, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Should we upload Image:Example.png then? &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless the macro is changed to [[Image:Example.png]], that would be mostly pointless. I am removing the as it is kinda silly. Splarka (rant) 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Recreated
I've recreated it to get rid of the JPEG artifacts. It's not perfect, but it's better than it was. I've also uploaded a GIF version at Image:Example.gif, and I'll probably try to take over Image:Example.png (by taking that image and reuploading it under a better filename). Then, if someone needs to modify this in the future, they can work off the PNG (since it'll be lossless PNG (24-bit)). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Beautiful, we needed that. ❝Sverdrup❞ 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other
I have uploaded an this same image at Image:Example-serious.jpg for serious use, because this image is mostly used in new users testing. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Example.gif should use the image in example.jpg, to make the image usable by third parties. Peter O. (Talk) 07:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? — Mets 501 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I've turned Image:Example.jpg and Image:Example.png into free images I haven't done that for Image:Example.gif yet.Geni 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Why is this picture so important? What is it for anyway?--KojiDude (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just found out it is the image inserted when the user clicks the "embedded image" button on the edit toolbar. Thus many (new) users will see it when they test the edit interface. --David Göthberg 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Earth
I like that the current test image has explanatory text. But some graphics is nice to have too. The first thing that came to my mind was to just use some simple graphics like the coloured dots on the current image but that is a bit boring. The girl currently in the image is cute, but she isn't very culturally neutral. And I thought some photo would be nice. And of course it should preferably be a public domain image. So I did some thinking and came up with what I think is the coolest, most culturally neutral image that I can think of, and I think 99% of humans enjoy that image. I think it is sort of an obvious choice, the image of our home, the earth itself. --David Göthberg 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan
Just...why?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have any other free images that represent Wikipedia? Hyenaste (tell) 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the image is only used for tests, etc, the drawing isn't needed - it could just have the text, color blocks, etc. -Will Beback 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * that would leave a large white area in the current version.Geni 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be re-arranged to accomodate the subtraction. -Will Beback 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to have her? One reason for her is that she is a free-to-use image representing Wikipedia. Hyenaste (tell) 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We could have any (or no) free image in there. Its purpose isn't to represent Wikipedia, it's just to allow editors to test image placement. A photograph may also be appropriate. -Will Beback 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if any image will do, why not use Wikipe-tan then? Hyenaste (tell) 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No reason that I know of. Ryūlóng asked the opposite question. -Will Beback 02:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * from what I recall the reasoning went along the lines of:


 * beter make it a free image put it off long enough


 * what shall we replace the wikipedia logo with?


 * something that represents wikipedia.


 * needs to be the right shape though.


 * Wikipe-tan's past, now and future.png? darn doesn't scale


 * modified version of TrollBoat tan.png? That scales better.


 * Geni 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I liked past present and future but it didn't come through. :( Hyenaste (tell) 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely just use the WP logo. I've reverted back (but if consensus here is to remove it, just revert me :-) — Mets 501  (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia logo is not free and therefore should not be used.Geni 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The logo isn't free, but we're using it ON Wikipedia, where it's use is allowed. The context isn't misleading, nor does it seem to violate any conditions set up by the foundation. This is very absurd. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * re-users would not be useing it on wikipedia.Geni 12:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The anime girl is not very culturally neutral. It appeals to fans of Japanese animation and makes us look pretty, er, silly. Seriously, it's a cute picture, but can we replace it? I'd vote for the Earth image below over the anime girl. — Amcaja 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This image has nothing at all to do with reusers of our content (it's not used in articles, templates, or anything else; if it is used anywhere, such uses should be looked at because it's probably a mistake). I suggest reverting to the Wikipedia logo. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This was corrected a long time ago. Look at the logo. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed clause
The image states that, by default, images uploaded to Wikipedia are released under GFDL. That is not true, because images with no license are tagged with no license instead of GFDL-self. -- ReyBrujo 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions for different text? I would propose "Images uploaded to Wikipedia must be published under a free license" or somesuch, but fair use images complicate that. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I would think the caption should be something like "Images uploaded to Wikipedia must be correctly licensed or face deletion" or something like that, to prevent having to deal with free/fair use stuff. -- ReyBrujo 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that fair use images are now properly discouraged even more than before by Foundation decree, perhaps we could just ignore them in the message and refer specifically to freely licensed images? —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That simplifies the matter, yes. Now, I am pretty awful working with Gimp, so someone else should do it :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. I have the original Gimp working (xcf) file anyway. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

y
Could you please bring back the original version of the image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.203.111 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The Wikipedia logo is not free, so this free image is favored over it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal from userspace
I was under the impression that since this image is GFDL'd it should be OK for userspace, yet I've had two editors remove it. Is there a reason/guideline/policy behind this? --DeLarge 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Links to diffs? The example image used to contain the Wikipedia logo, so if they are old diffs the image may have been removed at that time, or the person removing it may be under the impression that it still contains a non-free image. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this image often appears in articles that have suffered from testing and if it is used on user pages such testing damage becomes harder to find.Geni 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (to Centrx) It was only put there very recently.
 * I was just slightly riled because one editor removed the image entirely, and the other replaced it with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. However, I also posted a question on the talk page of the editor who removed it the second time, and apparently it's some kind of bot tidying thing. I've replaced it with the .png version to avoid a repetition.
 * The truly ridiculous thing is, it's a copy of a mainspace article I'm working on restructuring (Mitsubishi Motors; see User:DeLarge/Mitsubishi) but because of the prohibition of fair use images in userspace, I deliberately took the lone FU image out and replaced it with example.jpg so that I wouldn't get hassled. Part of me feels like putting the damn .jpg back just to be spiteful, even if I have to keep reverting on a daily basis... I mean, replacing it with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg?!? --DeLarge 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah the bot needs some work but the removal but is correct. Useing the PNG is a fairly good work around.Geni 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New image
I have replaced it with a new image that is more professional and less genre specific and corresponding design. This is also GFDL. If you notice any errors or have any suggestions, let me know. —Centrx→talk &bull; 08:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The new image looks very nice. Thanks. — Amcaja 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice. -Will Beback · † · 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like the shape of a human brain. --66.218.10.42 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now, Centrx. The shape is great. Thanks for making it. Þicaroon 02:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I too like your image + text Centrx. Really looks like a test image. And it seems sufficiently culturally neutral. --David Göthberg 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The most useful image ever
Thanks for whoever had the brilliant idea of using this as the default in the editing toolbar buttons, it is so usefull for finding tests using the image button or gallery button :) Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, something I do often. However, I have just come here, and found that almost all the links have been removed! Well done to whoever did that! J Milburn 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About Example.svg
This image looks fake. --TheKittenBoy (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How so? --Geniac (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia image placeholders
editprotected

Since this image is an image placeholder, please add to the bottom of the image page. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky case. These images Image:Example.jpg, Image:Example.png, Image:Example.gif and Image:Example.svg are image examples and you could say "placeholders". However, the description at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders states "This category consists of image placeholders for requested images" which means a very special type of placeholder images. And these images are not of that type. (And they do not belong in Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace either.)
 * Perhaps we should make a Category:Wikipedia image examples and link to that category from the other two in some way?
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

must be published under a free license?
editprotected

I love how it says that all images on Wikipedia "must" be published under a free license, yet its not absolutely required, but only in strict circumstances. Think we could replace it with a message saying to "click here for more information on how to upload a file in its place" and then add this message box to the page or add a link to a tutorial for uploading images?

think this may help? ViperSnake151 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not done for now, since needs clarification. And admins don't make images for you, you have to provide the new image yourself. (If a new/changed image is what you mean.)
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean. First of all, this is the shared talk page of the whole set of test images. That is Image:Example.jpg, Image:Example.png, Image:Example.gif and Image:Example.svg. None of these images should be used in articles. Instead they are for testing and demonstration purposes in user space and in template documentation and similar. And in such places we are only allowed to use free images. It is only in articles that "fair use" images are allowed under some limited circumstances. And those "fair use" cases should be rare exceptions, we shouldn't encourage them. And I think we shouldn't encourage beginners to try to upload "fair use" images. But again, these test images should not be in articles at all.
 * 1: So what do you mean by "it"? All of these example images, or a specific one?
 * 2: What do you mean by:
 * "replace it with a message saying to 'click here for more information on how to upload a file in its place' "
 * Do you mean replacing it with another image? Or do you mean changing the text of some of these test images? And where do you mean people should click, on the image so they come to the file description page or what?
 * 3: What page do you mean your blue box should be added to? To the file pages of some of these example images? Or somewhere else?
 * 4: I don't think we should add extra instructions anywhere. We already have plenty of existing help pages about file/image upload, and the upload page itself has a lot of instructions and links to more help. Adding instructions for instance on these file description pages would mean yet another place that needs to be kept updated. (Even though I think your blue box above is very well written.) Instead I think we could perhaps add a link or two to some image help pages, at the bottom of the example files box. That box is placed at the top of all the file description pages of these example images, and at the top of this talk page. See previous section about that box. You are very welcome to suggest a text (one or two sentences perhaps will do?) with a link or two to some image (upload) help pages. Since I currently have no good ideas how to formulate that sentence and where to link to, and you seem more skilled than me in wording these kind of things.
 * Of course, this is a wiki. This is just my point of view on how to solve this.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Example images" notice box

 * The template discussed here has been renamed from example images to example files. I updated the name in some of the comments below to avoid confusion for new readers. --David Göthberg (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The example files notice box is currently shown on all the example image's description pages, and also at the top of this talk page. It looks like this:

Today User:Sdrtirs placed a NowCommons tag on the image description page Image:Example.svg. But the image is already at commons and does not exist here so I assume that tag was a mistake.

However the local image description page does exist and shows the example files box. The box explains how and when these example images should and shouldn't be used, since as can be seen from this talkpage (and from their "What links here") these images are constantly confusing people. If anyone think we should not have such an explanation box on the Image:Example.svg page feel free to discuss it here.

And of course, any suggestions for improvements of the text in the example files box are welcome.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like Image:Example.ogg to be added to the "Example images" box. stan  ley   bulgaria  04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the File:Example.ogg is related and it can have good use of the same explanation notice on its description page.
 * I see you already added the file to the notice, but you got reverted by Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. But I readded File:Example.ogg with a better wording, and explanation that that Ogg file is inserted when a user clicks the "file link" button in the edit toolbar.
 * I also added the icons of the three toolbar buttons involved, to show which buttons it is that insert these files. But I am not sure if that makes the explanation clearer or more confusing. I'd like comments from anyone if you think we should have those icons in the notice or not.
 * And I added this notice box to the File:Example.ogg description page. And redirected its talk page to this page.
 * Flopsy: We could move this template from example images to example media files or example files. I am not sure which of the two alternative names I prefer, so I'd like some input about that.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For anyone who's reading this later, it's important to know that I didn't revert Stanley Bulgaria out of the blue; it was part of cleanup after a persistent sockpuppeting vandal (that vandal being Stanley). :) However, David Göthberg's changes to the file have made the template more logical and should stay.  Moving to example media files or example files has the advantage of making the name of the template more logical, but has the disadvantage that it seems like feature creep to me.  I don't have a solution for this one, though, and I'm certainly not going to argue if the template is moved to either of these new names.  My general preference would be to use example files since it's the least likely to cause confusion in the future - "media" colloquially means "video" to a lot of people.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the input. So I have moved the template to example files.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Different from example.jpg
File:Example-serious.jpg is different from example.jpg; was this an oversight when the example image was changed, or is it different on purpose? Dave6 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That has since then been fixed. They now look the same.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up
Editors interested in removing this file from the mainspace could find toolbar experiments useful. PhilKnight (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Restriction for new users
This image shouldn't be used by IPs or not autoconfirmed users.They don't understand what are they doing--Shrike (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Clock?
is there a clock in that image --108.206.10.95 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Text content
-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The documentation should encourage editors to use "alt" text with this image - but what should it say?
 * 2) Do we really want to encourage people to upload media to Wikipedia? Surely we should, where possible, be directing them to upload to Commons? We have a backlog of media waiting to be moved from here to there as it is.

Edit request 2015-01-31
Please add ShadowsCommons to File:Example.jpg and File:Example.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 January 2016
Replace ShadowsCommons with Keep local. The image on commons serves a very different purpose than this image. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The file currently shadows a different file on Commons. Whether keep local is added or not does not affect whether a file on Commons is shadowed or not, so ShadowsCommons needs to remain even if keep local is added. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added in ADDITION. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 March 2016
Hi.

Please remove  from the File:Example.gif description page. It is no longer the case.

Thanks.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a good reason to keep ShadowsCommons, you can set it to to avoid the contradictory statements. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I've lowered protection. Ahecht's suggestion seems to be right. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, it should not be removed, because c:File:Example.jpg exists. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64: Hi. I didn't notice this talk page also serves as the talk page for File:Example.gif. I have corrected my request accordingly. Anywaym User:Jo-Jo Eumerus has removed the template.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2016
Hi.

This request applies to: File:Example.jpg and File:Example.png. (This page is their talk page.)

Request: Please remove from both images.

Reason: We do not want to (1) rename these files locally, (2) move them to Commons, (3) nominate them for deletion or (4) nominate the Commons version for deletion. So, why on earth do we have a template whose sole purpose is to encourage editors to do all these things? is more than enough. We must seek to communicate any message through.

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See previous section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My request was granted in the previous section! I made this request on the strength of that section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wonder if we do need the local file to be different from commons:File:Example.jpg - I'd simply upload the commons file over the local one and resolve the shadowing this way. Or, since the Commons file of the same name and scope is already multiple protected for being widely used on Commons (including sensitive interface pages), just delete and salt the local copy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you are an admin, you have the luxury of doing that. I don't. All I can do is to tolerate noise in my backlog and hope that when I make a request to eliminate that noise, it is at least declined for a good reason if declined at all. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that it was you who inserted this template and the reason you reject my request is to protect your own edit. Would you mind explaining to us what benefit this template offers that justifies keeping it, despite the fact that it adds noise to the backlog and gives advices that no editor can carry out (because of protection)?
 * Looking forward to hearing from you.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit summary shows why; the thread is now archived to File talk:Example.jpg/Archive 1. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not find the edit summary. If there indeed is one, please spare me of the wild goose chase and either link to it or copy and paste it here. The sooner you do that, the sooner we all part. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You stated "I see that it was you who inserted this template", therefore you must have found . It has an edit summary: I never omit one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's say I found it. Now, let's get back to my question: "Would you mind explaining to us what benefit this template offers that justifies keeping it, despite the fact that it adds noise to the backlog and gives advices that no editor can carry out (because of protection)?" Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the archived thread that I linked? It was a WP:PER by, to which I responded. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume to you would grant any WP:PER even if it requests addition of some juicy profanity to the page? I don't think so. Somehow, you thought "wow, this request is a good idea!" And that brings us back to my question: What benefit does the insertion of this template offer that justifies keeping it, despite the fact that it adds noise to the backlog and gives certain pieces advice that no editor can carry out?
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you find that you have a compulsion to remove all files from the backlog, it may be time to either remove the backlog from your watch list or take a wikibreak. 208.54.32.188 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an ad hominem remark in violation of WP:CIVIL! Why do you dodge the question? i.e. what justifies keeping log dirty? —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , there is no consensus to rename the files here or on commons. However, the files here do in fact shadow commons and should be tagged with the template to avoid possible confusion. The only problem that this presents is that it causes the files to appear in a category which some editors, such as yourself, just do not like. In addition to the two solutions for those editors provided above, there is a third: add a parameter to  that allows images that shadow commons to continue to be tagged with the template, but not appear in the backlog category. 2601:5C2:101:2DBA:8D58:1CA9:D7D8:532A (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Evading my question still.
 * I am not saying I like or don't like. I am asking what's the good of it?
 * Of course, you would evade my question, wouldn't you? I know who you are.
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing of being me? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Break
A few comments from me. did not provide a rationale when he made the original request. So far has also declined to provide a justification for using this template on this file. My opinion is that shadows commons is for files which need to be "fixed" in some way. If this local version is to be retained indefinitely then the template's wording does not seem to apply. So on that basis I support the request to remove this template. Are there any other comments? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've actioned the request &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this. As can be read in Template messages/Cleanup, templates aren't badges of shame. Their purpose is to make problem known, so that it is resolved but they must be ultimately removed.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 16:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)