For cases where neither image should be deleted, should be recommend renaming the local image to avoid confusion? Superm401 - Talk 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion regarding automatic categorisation of images at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia/Commons duplicate images that concerns this template.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in the RfC to add the optional parameter deliberate= to ((ShadowsCommons)). One editor suggested deleting all the placeholder images and protecting the file names if images should not be uploaded there. But there is no consensus to take any particular approach.
If editors would like to add the parameter to the template, I recommend boldly adding it and discussing on the talk page if the addition is reverted or opening a new RfC. Cunard (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are a handful of instances where the shadowing of commons files is done deliberately, either as a placeholder to prevent poorly-named uploads (such as File:Background.jpg), or because Commons has a bizarre picture for a simple name (i.e. the widely used File:Otters.jpg which shadows Commons:File:Otters.jpg). Nevertheless, these images are tagged with ((ShadowsCommons)) and appear in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons as backlog items to be cleared.
I propose that an optional parameter, deliberate= be added to ((ShadowsCommons)), which, if set to true, causes the template to note that no action is required and places the file in a new category Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons (no action required) (a subcat of the above) so that they can be distinguished from backlog items needing attention. --LukeSurl t c 17:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest deleting all of those placeholder images. They show up in a lot of maintenance categories and do not seem useful. If you don't want people to upload files with that name, then it is enough to simply protect the file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, things like File:Otters.jpg need to be resolved. Users sometimes copy wikicode from one project to another project, and it is confusing if you see different images on different projects. I solved File:Otters.jpg by uploading it to Commons under a different name and then tagging it for speedy deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding File:Background.jpg it was deleted on Commons for being an overly vague name. Perhaps the way to go about this is to either ask the Commons admins to redirect it to commons:File:Name.jpg or just delete and salt the local copy. commons:File:Otters.jpg could be redirected in the same way.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Local salting on English Wikipedia is inappropriate in many ways. One problem is that it is still possible to upload files with the same name on Commons, causing trouble for us when we need to unshadow Commons and for the uploader who can't use the file on English Wikipedia until it has been unshadowed on Commons. It would in my opinion be a very good idea to unsalt all file names on English Wikipedia and then salt the same file names on Commons instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you don't salt the local filename as well, then an inappropriately named image can still be uploaded locally.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You need the
reupload-shared user right in order to upload a local image if one already exists with the same name on Commons. According to Special:ListGroupRights, admins are the only ones who have this user right. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The final bullet of this template states: "Nominate the file for deletion if ..."; I believe the method of nomination should be linked here, but I'm unsure of the best link. Will the keepers of this template help determine the best link here, and perhaps add a live link in the template as well? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If the file satisfies WP:F8 (that is, identical or reduced quality), then add ((Now Commons)). If the file doesn't satisfy WP:F8 but nevertheless should be deleted for some reason, then list it at WP:FFD. In a few cases, other speedy deletion templates like Template:Db-f9 or Template:Di-no permission may be appropriate, but that's probably less common. However, there are multiple reasons for deleting a file, and it takes up too much space to list all reasons to delete files in this template. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean; understand, and agree.--John Cline (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bot proposal to add this template to candidate pages automatically: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 10 -- GreenC 07:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot is approved. -- GreenC 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am shutting the bot down.
- The last time it tagged an article was September 9 2022 at File:Half_Shot_at_Sunrise_(1930),_Bob_Woolsey_and_Leni_Stengel.jpg .. the SQL query has returned 0 candidates ever since. Either the query is broken, the SQL server is not honoring the query due to changes there, or another process is fixing the problem. I have no idea which.
- Toolforge is eliminating the Grid Engine and since my bot is written in code that is hard to migrate to the new system, and because my code has to be on Toolforge for the SQL query, it don't have time to try and salvage it. -- GreenC 02:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
,_Bob_Woolsey_and_Leni_Stengel.jpg){kind=link}