Template talk:Not-unused

Why category "Quality requested"?

Why are all images with this template in the category "Quality requested"? I see the category appears in the templates source code, but what's the reason? Or is it just an oversight? --Grandy02 12:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed me doing sloppy copying of templates. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Specify Location The Image Is Being Used (Optional Parameter)

Since this template is about protecting MediaWiki-specific unused images, should this template have an optional but recommended parameter to specify where the image is being used? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (EST)

This would be quite useful for maintenance purposes. --™ The 'Shroom 15:51, 20 January 2016 (EST)

I also noticed I can edit this template. I usually don't edit templates. Should I add the code to allow for the additional parameter? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:38, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Not until there's more support. You could ask Walkazo (talk) or Glowsquid (talk) for their opinion. --™ The 'Shroom 16:41, 20 January 2016 (EST)

I think a better idea is to start a proposal. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:44, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Sure, that works too. --™ The 'Shroom 16:45, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Proposal

Allow Additional Parameter to Specify Where the File is Linked

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 19:15 GMT

Specifically, I came across File:Shiver Snowfield Mirrored.png. It has both {{personal-image}} and {{not-unused}} as tags. I couldn't find where the file was linked to. It looked abandoned. I tagged it with {{delete}} anyways. Henry Tucayo Clay (talk) disagreed with my tag and promptly removed it. It got me thinking about having an additional parameter specifying where exactly the image is being used. Any image with {{not-unused}} without specifying where the file is linked to is subject to an investigation where the file is being linked to. If nothing is found, the image is subject to deletion needs its last known owner to be alerted that the image needs action taken. Additionally, this parameter can be used to check if the image is still being URL-linked periodically. This should help people digging through Special:UnusedFiles.

Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Creator supports.

Oppose

1. Megadardery (talk) This is a too extreme approach to such a simple subject, especially considering that most if not all the Not-unused images are Userspace/Help/Policy/Shroom images, not related to the mainspace at all. The solution is far simpler, ignore the file and move on if you are clearing the Special:UnusedImages.
2. Walkazo (talk) - Per Megadardery, and per myself and Tucayo in the comments. This is unnecessary at best, detrimental at worst.

Comments

"Any image with {{not-unused}} without specifying where the file is linked to is subject to an investigation where the file is being linked to. If nothing is found, the image is subject to deletion." I can't agree with this part, sorry. I'd rather err on the safe side and keep the files than delete them just because we're not sure where they're being used. --™ The 'Shroom 18:12, 20 January 2016 (EST)

It was inappropriate to mark someone's PI for deletion anyway: if {{not-unused}} is being used in conjugation with any other image designation tag (Shroom, Awards, PI, MaroWiki, BJAODN, Template), then there's absolutely no reason to assume it's not legit (while actually suspect images should be dealt with on a case by case basis). The vast majority of the relatively small handful of images with the template are clearly Shroom backgrounds anyway, and so are found in the css rather than a given page, while others are awards images and will only be linked to externally on the forums. If the Shroom folks or whoever want to specify what issues special edition backgrounds are used for (for example), they can use {{aboutfile}} or just type it into the Summary - either way, no need for an input in this template. - Walkazo 18:36, 20 January 2016 (EST)

I've seen both {{shroom-image}} and {{not-unused}} be used on 'Shroom images. {{shroom-image}} already states not to mark it for deletion if it appears to be unused, making the additional {{not-unused}} redundant. Also, I am talking with Henry Tucayo Clay (talk) about making sure the apparently unused {{shroom-image}}s stop appearing in Special:UnusedFiles. As for Henry Tucayo Clay (talk)'s concern, I guess we can adjust the proposed policy to alert the user first that their image needs action taken within a certain time frame. I don't know how long that should be though. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 20:00, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Having the not-unused template for 'Shroom images is still useful because it means all url-linked images are grouped together, rather than being cut into two separate lists. Plus, extra warning signs never hurt anyone anyway. And just skip over appropriately tagged files appearing in the unused category: no need to bend over backwards when common sense will work perfectly fine. There's not that many not-unused images to worry about. - Walkazo 20:22, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, you are right. Most images tagged with {{not-unused}} are 'Shroom images anyways BUT for those 'Shroom images that appear in Special:UnusedFiles, the way that MarioWiki is setup, only 1,000 unused images are stored in the cache and the cache is refreshed once every 24 hours. A fraction of that 1,000 are 'Shroom images. I think those slots could be better used for files that need review. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 20:35, 20 January 2016 (EST)

We can't review 1000 images at a time, so as long as images are gradually investigated and dealt with, new files will cycle in regardless of the ~40 legitimately unused images squatting on less than 5% of the spaces: really not worth fretting over. - Walkazo 20:46, 20 January 2016 (EST)