Template talk:Orphan file/Archive 1

Not orphanage
I think the sentence "Wikipedia is not an orphanage, so:" should be removed from the template. It links to WP:NOT, but the linked passage refers only to keeping files in article space, not keeping files on servers, so the statement actually misrepresents policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. It's true, the section in WP:NOT refers to "articles". But, I do think Wikipedia shouldn't be an indefinite host for free license or PD files not in use. Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. It's our only purpose. I don't see what benefit having such images around indefinitely provides to that purpose. It's minor housekeeping type stuff, and as the huge number of files in Category:Orphan images shows nobody cares too much to clean it up, but as a matter of principle I do think that truly orphaned images should be eventually removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, I am not disagreeing with you about the merits of cleaning up such images. If we were to get into the pluses and minuses, I think it would hinge on whether or not the images are potentially encyclopedic. The vast majority of those that come up for deletion seem to be just unencyclopedic dross that I'm fine with getting rid of. But it's hard to make the argument that an encyclopedic free image of high quality should be deleted just because it isn't used at the moment, since it may prove useful to a page that might be created later. It's entirely reasonable to ask that it be moved to Commons, but we still have the "keep local" template, and that's a policy argument for another day.


 * My concern here isn't about the merits, though. It's about the language of the template. It's misleading about WP:NOT to include that link. I'm not arguing for deleting the template or deprecating its use, just for deleting five words. Orphaned files would still be tagged and deleted, just without the wording that confuses the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Date categories
Since the category Category:Orphan images has grown to ~87k images, would it make sense to start sorting them into monthly date categories, such as Category:Orphaned articles? (E.g., one "All orphan images" category, and then also broken down by month?) Avic ennasis @ 15:35, 11 Elul 5771 / 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For an idea of the categories, as well as lists of the images that allow you to sort by uploader, date, or filesize, see User:Avicennasis/reports/orphanimages. Avic ennasis @ 17:11, 11 Elul 5771 / 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request
I nominated this template for deletion (Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5), but this page is fully protected so I am unable to place deletion tag Bulwersator (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, place information about deletion on top of this page Bulwersator (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The nomination has been closed as kept. Please remove the deletion tagging.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Add link to toolserver tool
Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives a suggestion has been made to add this link  in order to facilitate finding out the article(s) an image was used in past. The tool finds the first edits a user made after uploading the file and hopefully one of the edits is adding the file to an article so we can write a description. Feel free to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this would be an absolutely fantastic idea. It would make many things easier in the processes that we go through. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When moving orphaned files to Commons, I often have to spend a lot of time searching the uploader's past contributions in order to write a description. It would be much better if a Toolserver link could do this for me. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We could add something like this to the first bullit:
 * But first someone should check the wording and the spelling :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very accurate, very useful addition. One suggestion (you can take it or leave it) The "the" before edits is unnecessarily wordy in my opinion. Just my thought. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  16:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me. I've added it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me. I've added it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fbot
Please change to  or. Piandcompany (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. --MGA73 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Svenbot
Please change to. Piandcompany chat  23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization fix
The P in "This media file is in the Public domain..." should be lower case, i.e. "This media file is in the public domain...". "Public" is not a proper noun, and there's no technical reason for it to be so.--Xanzzibar (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Update Link
The link to the move to commons assistant is broken, http://bots.wmflabs.org/~richs/commonshelper.php?.... needs replacing with http://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper?... to fix the link. Thanks, Jamietw (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request
Please remove the text from the template, as ContinuityBot is not performing this task, and no other bots are currently adding this tag to templates - F ASTILY 07:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If this template was applied by a bot, and if you do not wish for this file to be re-tagged after you remove it, add the text  anywhere on this page.
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Toolserver link down
Hi. The toolserver link is no longer working after the Toolserver was discontinued in favor of WMF labs. It does not seem to be a replacement avalaible at labs either. Please remove the link or update it. Thanks. MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a bad template
There are many cases where a file would have no incoming usages, but shouldn't be moved to commons or deleted, to whit:

Reasons not to be on Commons:
 * 1) Not out of copyright in its home country
 * 2) Keep Local
 * 3) Other notforcommons reason.
 * 4) Part of a discussion (e.g. screenshot)

Reason for no inbound file links:
 * 1) Uploader followed best practice, and uploaded the original image before editing.
 * 2) Uploader followed best practice, and uploaded a PNG version as well as a JPEG.
 * 3) Part of a discussion, where it's linked to, but not included, as a thumbnail wouldn't be useful.

Given a bot, User:FastilyBot is adding this everywhere, this template needs to change, and probably should be deleted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Add: to the top of this template. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Commons wording
I'd like to request the undoing of this bold edit by and the restoration of the toolserver link - I used that all the time when copying images to Commons to find file descriptions from uploader edits. Kelly hi! 13:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please feel free, I was thinking about undoing it myself 👍🏻 - F ASTILY   06:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - I can't, the template is protected. Kelly  hi! 06:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, however I'm going to refrain from making further edits to the template while the relevant TfD remains open, since I'm probably too heavily involved at this point. Anyone else is more than welcome to make this change, however.  Regards,   F ASTILY   08:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

'Should be moved to Commons'
"Should be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons" should be altered to say "should probably be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons; see these steps", or something along those lines. Usefulness is not the only thing Commons requires, it also requires that the file is free in the source country. Files like this are alright on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons. Thus tagging them with this Orphan tag that says it should be moved when it really shouldn't is misleading and contradictory. ɱ (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)