Template talk:Duplicate

Different formats?

What about different formats? eg. Image:Air Force One on the ground.jpg, Image:Air Force One on the ground.png. The template should state whether or not this is the right tag for cases like this. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it:

Duplicate

For images that show exactly the same thing, though of differing qualities. Maybe the images are exactly the same file with different names. Maybe they are exactly the same photograph but at different resolutions, maybe exactly the same image but different raster formats (PNG vs JPG), maybe the same vector image but different formats (PDF vs SVG).

Redundant

For images that show the same concept, but in slightly different ways. A diagram has been redrawn with the same concept, but different art, different lettering, or different arrangement of elements, or a photograph of the same building from slightly different vantage points, or whatever. — Omegatron 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this definition is that flags typically show the same thing but the quality and detail can have huge variance. To some people the slight difference in a shade of red is a trivial matter, but to other people it is very important. So I'm not comfortable with flags being marked duplicate, or coming under that definition. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this put images in something like Category:Duplicate images or something? Putting it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion implies that they should be deleted right away, but all uses have to be replaced first. A speedy tag should probably be added after it's been orphaned. --24.46.201.42 08:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

99% of people who tag stuff speedy don't check-usage it. It's the responsibility of the deleting admin to ensure the image has been removed from use. Even if we required that people replace uses before tagging stuff for speedy, they never would, so it would be the same situation as now. Also, this template is often used by people who are "renaming" their own image. Therefore often the badly-named image has never been used. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

new grafic link without a "point"

(feel free to correct my spelling. ) I set the new dublicate a line below and delete the "point" from the end of the sentence. The reoson: I copied everytime the "point" and had somme errors. Now it is easier to update the links by copy and past. If there is a better way, please tell me how! (De En-1) --Mjchael 19:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When deleting, use this reason:

For the deletion comment could someone change it so that it automatically generates a wikilink to the file in question i.e. change it to

duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]
/Lokal_Profil 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

that is adding the code

<tt><small>duplicate or a scaled down version of <nowiki>[[:</nowiki>{{{1}}}<nowiki>]]</nowiki></tt></small>

to the template so that a plain text copy of the text gives a wikilink. /Lokal_Profil 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Consistency (Change the layout)

Dear Administrators,

Why don't you change the layout in order to keep the consistency with Speedy Request {{Speedydelete}} and Copyvio {{Copyvio}}?

Please refer to {{Duplicate/ja}}

Followings are very smal things, though...

• Deletion Guidelines : ALL languages don't have to be shown. User can click "Language Changer Bar" at the bottom.
• Be more clearly: UPPER Messages are for READERs, MIDDLE are for MAINTENANCE Staff, and LOWER are for ADMINs without mixing up.
• Explain the usage simply: The explanation should be OUTSIDE of the main box. The main Message Box is automatically shown on all tagged pages; Whom is it for? Without making READERs confused, Admins or People helping maintenance can come to check the Usage details here.

What do you think? --SantaClaus 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to add image to review dupes more easily

Please just copy the source code between the lines below. See an example below the code block (category stuff removed). It was taken partially from {{Superseded/en}}. Thanks. Siebrand 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

<div style="clear:both;"></div>
{| {{PD-Layout}} id="duplicate"
|-
|{{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|[[{{#ifexist:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|right|new file]]|}}}}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|64px|left]] This image is '''an [[:Category:Duplicate|exact duplicate]] or scaled-down version of: [[:{{{1}}}]]'''<br /><span style="color:orange">'''There should be only one copy of an image.'''</span><br />''After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|speedily deleted]]''.{{Clr}}
----
:<small>* [[:Image:{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Image:Gtk-go-forward-ltr.svg|→|12px]] [[{{{1}}}]]</small>
----
''If you are the uploader of this file, and it's not yet used on other projects ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Image:{{PAGENAMEE}} check usage]), consider using {{tl|badname}}''
<br/>
<small>'''Admins:''' Follow the directions on [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]]<br />
Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced! Only use for images that are ''exact'' duplicates! When deleting, use this reason:</small>
:<small><tt>duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]</tt></small>

----
<center>{{Duplicate/lang}}</center>
|}</div><includeonly>
[[Category:Duplicate|{{PAGENAME}}]] 
</includeonly>
<noinclude>
----
Use this template to tag exact duplicates with '''{{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}}'''.
If you are the uploader and the this file is not used ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Image:{{PAGENAMEE}} check usage]), consider using {{tl|badname}}.
[[Category:Problem tags|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

---

This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: [[:{{{1}}}]] There should be only one copy of an image. After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be speedily deleted. * [[:Image:Duplicate]]  [[{{{1}}}]] If you are the uploader of this file, and it's not yet used on other projects (check usage), consider using {{Badname}} Admins: Follow the directions on Commons:Deletion guidelines Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced! Only use for images that are exact duplicates! When deleting, use this reason: duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:{{{1}}}]]

---

Use this template to tag exact duplicates with {{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}}. If you are the uploader and the this file is not used (check usage), consider using {{Badname}}.

---

Speedy deletion

Can some sysop remove "After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others should be speedily deleted." from the template, see Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates. /82.212.68.183 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It has apparently been done. Michelet-密是力 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I might miss something but the sentence is still there (3rd line). This said, all I see in Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates is a discussion with no clear consensus. I'm quite interested by the redirect solution instead of a deletion, but before changing the template, shouldn't you wait for the conclusion of this discussion to be inserted in Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates ? — Xavier, 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This change is still needed.

Commons is a image storage for the Wikimedia project. That means that Commons should store the images that are needed at Wikimedia projects. One very important feature at Wikipedias (and other projects) is the ability to cite specific revisions of pages. If such pages contain images that are later deleted, red image links will appear in those revisions. For images that should never have been used in pages (bacause of copyright or other reasons) that is not a problem. But for duplicated or renamed images there is usually no real problem with the images, so they should still be available. Currently it is not possible to use image redirects so both files need to be kept. At least until image redirects are working, and then the duplicates should be redirected. If the images are deleted before that, it will be very difficult to restore the duplicates and redirect them when redirects are implemented.

(Of course there can be copyright or other real problems with duplicate files, but then they should be deleted bacause of that and not beacause of duplication.) /Ö 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to change the text to: After replacing all instances with the preferred image, the others maybe will be deleted by an Admin. --GeorgHH • talk   20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done I think that's as much as we can change without having a larger community discussion concerning the deletion of duplicates. I think the issue is people are thinking these are the same as superseded images. That's not what this is for. A duplicate is a duplicate, not another version. It's getting harder and harder to replace all uses, so I don't see to many being deleted anymore. Rocket000 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to CommonsDelinker

I ammended the tag with the universal replace command of CommonsDelinker --ALE! ¿…? 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, as we have the "Image:" part also in the argument it does not work of course. So I tried

<nowiki>{{universal replace|</nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}|{{#replace:{{{1}}}|Image:| }}{{{1}}}}}

but that did not work either because #replace is not implemented. So how could one do something like that? Please help! --ALE! ¿…? 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How's that? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Wikimedia not wikimeida =P ./Lokal_Profil 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Badname -> Bad name

{{Badname}} is now called {{Bad name}}. Please change the text accordingly. — Xavier, 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could a bot change all the usages accordingly, please! --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed some pages, especially where the template is just mentionned between nowiki tags, but I already did most of the work. I'm just stuck with protected pages like this one. I'd be glad if you could help. — Xavier, 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-exact duplicates

What about when we have images that are not exact duplicates, but are clearly redundant (i.e. multiple digital versions of an old panting)? I'm not saying that one of the images should be on a speedy-delete track, but surely there should be a process for eventual merging, no?--Pharos 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If they are non exact duplicates, such as SVG vs. PNG vs. GIF, they are not duplicates, and not redundant. Deleting the images without first checking their actual use in ALL Wikimedia projects will harm those projects. You need to check ALL usages; and make sure that the proposed replacement image is compatible with its licencing terms for each relevant Wikimedia project that use them.

Note that the automated deletion of duplicate images has been disabled, because it harmed projects, where some people were incorrectly using this template. Duplicates have to be manually checked, and there are existing bots that periodically extract lists of these images, these lists being posted in a Wikipedia or Commons project, managed by voluntary people participating in each Wiki. These bots don't necessarily run on all wikis, you need to contact the bot maintainer if you want lists posted for your wiki, and the bot also needs special authorization according to the wiki policy. (Don't assume that what is valid and managed in English Wikipedia applies also to all other wikis, because they don't necessarily have the same amount of administrators or maintainers able to do this work).

If the image is in Commons and complies with Commons licencing rules, then they should comply with all Wikimedia projects, but the reverse is not necessarily true: it may happen that an image from an existing Wikipedia was moved to Commons, despite it's not suitable for Commons with its licence, but acceptable in some Wikipedia. In that case, the move to Commons should be cancelled, and a request for deletion on Commons should be performed, and the image relocated back into in the Wikipedia project that needs it (make sure to preserve the licencing terms, because some Wikipedia projects may possibly not have the licence template, so the licence template used should be copied as well in that Wikipedia project, if it is compatible with its policy).

If the Wikipedia projects is strict and adheres strictly to the Commons rules, then the image should not be moved back to these project, instead the articles in those Wikipedia projects using it should be modified to disable the inclusion of the non-compliant image (anyway this image will be deleted from Commons, and a red link for a missing image will appear in those projects...) -- Verdy p 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really understood my question. I was asking about multiple digital versions of a {{PD-Art}} painting, which would not have copyright issues anywhere. The multiple digital versions were created by different people, so they're not "exactly" the same. But one version is clearly superior to another; I guess this depends on what the definition of "exact" is.--Pharos 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In general with art it's best not to delete any version because it's very subjective, determining which is the most true to the original. I mean if you have some that have tiny dimensions they are usally fine to delete, but for hi-res stuff, even if one seems garish on your screen, it's best not to delete them. Just link them to each other in the other_versions field in {{Information}}. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, If you really wanted to delete one you thought was awful, you could nominate it for deletion the regular way - definitely no speedy tags for this situation. But generally I think it's not worth the bother... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's profitable to host obviously inferior versions, because people will end up using them on the projects anyway out of ignorance and inertia. This would be different from a case where there is actual disagreement about which version illustrates some particular point better (for example, garishness or mutedness). For example Image:Boston Tea Party-Cooper.jpg and Image:Boston Tea Party.jpg, where I think the first is clearly superior because it includes the whole original page, and it's at a higher resolution.--Pharos 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image redirects

This template needs to be updated now that image redirects are possible. /Ö 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you like to change it? Image redirects are nice, but I don't see how they would change how we handle duplicates. Samulili 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After the image is deleted, a redirect can be created in its place. Superm401 - Talk 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a fouth step: "Redirect the deleted image page to the kept file". This is an improvement in many ways

• Most importantly it will make it possible for reusers of Commons content to have reliable source links for the images they use.
• It will stop old page versions on Wikimedia projects to have broken image links just because an image is renamed or duplicated.
• It will not break image links if Commonsdelinking for some reason misses some use of an image.

/Ö 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Duplicate and redundant categories

Please see Template talk:Category redirect. We are discussing whether Template:Duplicate should be used for redundant categories that are unlikely to be used. Superm401 - Talk 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stopped working

I reverted the latest edits. The template stopped working (no image was shown). Multichill (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Same file in different lossless formats?

Should this template be applicable to files containing the exact same data in different lossless formats? User:Cecil apparently doesn't think so. I find this interpretation a bit strange, given that using this template for scaled-down versions of images is explicitly allowed, but I'd like to ask for some clarification from the broader community here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this message the standard message, the dupes-tool creates for the comment-line. If is not my thinking, but a general consense which was created in a discussion which fills several KB. I also first asked another admin about his opinion, because I could not confirm if your file really contains the same stuff since I was not able to open it with a standard ogg-player. So no, I don't replace stuff that somebody else could still convert into a less defective and more user-friendly file than yours. Any actually we don't delete anything at all, we just hide it from the view of users. Down-scaling is done by the software itself so it does not make any sense to keep two files that have exactly the same result when presented in the projects. -- Cecil (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, so be it: I can certainly file ordinary deletion requests for such files just as easily. (I just wish the closing of deletion requests on Commons didn't resemble a Poisson process quite as much as it seems to.) Anyway, just for the sake of curiosity, would you happen to have a link to the "discussion which fills several KB"? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Add documentation subpage

{{Editprotected}} Could somebody add a documentation subpage and transfer the directions, categories and interwikis to it. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Add new Picture

{{Editprotected}} I would propose a more clarifying image . --Perhelion (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Protection lowered, edit as you see fit. --Mormegil (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, it was never protected. You may can vote for another picture below. :-P -- Perhelion (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why protected?

It hardly qualifies as something that needs protection --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Agreed, protection lowered to semi. --Mormegil (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sort order

Is there any reason that I should not change this template to sort these images by date last modified ? That would mean that images in the category would be initially sorted by the date that the template was added, so that new additions would go on the end (and image pages that had been edited since the addition of the template would move to the end again too). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To minimise edits to the template, I would probably add the proposed new image, above, at the same time. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This would may need more opinions (it could improve). Another Question, why we can't see a thumb (right) from the duplicate? -- Perhelion (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see any reason not to make the changes as the template is not transcluded in a huge number of pages at the moment (about 45), we'll see how it goes :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Is there a way of updating the link in the fourth admin point so that it opens up a page where #REDIRECT[[File:{{{new_image}}}]] is already included in the edit box similar to how text is already added to the edit summary? /Lokal_Profil 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore that, just spotted teh Process Duplicates link =) /Lokal_Profil 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

SVG check

Should we add a check to see if the replacement file is SVG and the templated file is not? Train2104 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorporate requestor into box display?

In the body of the template, would we be able to substitute into place the username of the person making the request? There are numbers where the contributor has requested; and some where we have a contributor making numbers of incorrect requests. It would be nice to be able to more readily identify such requests from the request box rather than having to fluff around. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- User: Perhelion 13:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not read this!

Just kidding. I noticed that Category:License plates has 1000's of near duplicates in a few of the sub-cats I looked at. Is there a way a bot can go through it and tag all the low resolution ones? I don't know if it better to leave them taking up WMF storage space, or actually spend hours deleting them. Perhaps we could use the category clean-up as punishment for borderline users that want to shorten a block, etc. Is there a way to 'lock' the category so we need admin permission to add to it? Is there a way to put a big 'We don't need more here!!!' message when someone tries to add one? etc, etc. I just thought I would post here because I didn't want to ruin anyone's day at the pump.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what “near duplicates” you mean, but… Deletion won’t stop the files “taking up WMF storage space” – deleted files are not really deleted, just removed from public display, they are still stored and can be undeleted any time. And no, there is currently no (simple) way to lock a category. --Mormegil (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bots cannot determine "near duplicates" or determine what is "near enough" to delete, and as Mormegil pointed out, deletion doesn't save any space on Wikimedia's servers. We also don't punish users here – blocks are only to prevent continued disruption, and category cleanup work requires editing privileges, so it isn't an option for blocked users. Notices like {{Nopenis (category version)}} exist, but tend to have no effect on uploads, and once a file is uploaded, it should be categorised even if there are many other files in the appropriate category. In some densely populated categories, there are subcategories for low-quality files, e.g. Category:Cygnus olor (low quality). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding about punishing users with it. I thought that some images could be totally deleted for some reasons but I could be wrong. Could we have a bot post a 'no more penis' type message to the talk of anyone that adds images to the category? I was also thinking a bot could re-categorize any of the smaller, low resolution ones into one category. Then there may be a way to take a quick look at them and see if they have any unique value. If they don't, there may be a way to permanently delete all images in that category at least. It just seems strange to me that we have so many. A friend just got a unique plate that I was going to upload a picture of. I discovered that there are many very similar to it already, so I didn't even bother taking a picture of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion considered harmful

This has probably been raised before, but I simply cannot understand the desire to speedy delete scaled down versions of images. Even for bit-wise identical images, deleting will not save any Wikimedia disk space, but only save some administration work (if any) which I suggest is better solved with an image redirect. Scaled down images serve useful purposes: reduced network bandwidth, CPU usage, and electricity consumption, for example. Commons should act like a repository and not risk breaking incoming links from outside (which I have seen happen), or risk deleting images that are in actual use, or likely to be in use. Accordingly, I am removing this template tag from the image File:PIA15689-4619.jpg. A community discussion on the purpose and use of this template would be welcome. For example, changing the template to inform (rather than force) users of alternative (possibly "better") images would better serve the Commons mission, in my opinion. -84user (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the maintenance cost of having multiple scaled-down versions is much higher than you make it out to be: keeping categories, descriptions, translations, etc. in sync is a nightmare, and if different project use different versions of the same image, all this work is duplicated. Kind of defeats the purpose of Commons, having media resources centralized so that every project can benefit from the improvements of others.

The saving bandwidth argument doesn't hold either, very few people would download the full size original (and if they do, they'd most likely want to have the highest resolution possible), and viewing the file page uses the same amount of bandwidth no matter how large the original image is; if someone has to go through three or four images before finding the largest one, that's not saving any bandwidth either. The CPU argument, I can see, but are we so short on CPU cycles? Thumbnails are cached, so they only need to be generated once. The same goes for electricity consumption. Unless lack of resources really is a pressing concern (in which case there should be a broader policy on the subject), I think the current policy is fine and should be applied.

As for breaking incoming links, that's what redirects are for; delete the duplicate, and replace it with a redirect to the "master" version, it's as simple as that (works for deleting images that are in use too, BTW). Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You still can download any scaled-down version you like to save bandwidth, e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/PIA15689.jpg/2000px-PIA15689.jpg What about breaking external links, it's a bug, I think: bugzilla:35721. --Trycatch (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bump in, but what about File:PIA10245-Martian landslide.png ? Should files lik these be deleted? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a totally different case. --Leyo 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate image, different license

We should first try to figure out, if possible, whether either of the licenses is clearly wrong, and if so, delete it as the copyvio it would be. (Of course, this is often a non-trivial exercise.) If this is not possible, maybe we could delete one of the images and edit the licensing terms of the other to include the other licensing info. People make mistakes choosing license and undoubtedly some people do so at random... Perhaps the other image should be simply linked to using Template:Other versions. Or maybe just ignore the whole mess... What do you think we should do in such a case? Palosirkka (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Very inconsistent maintenance behavior (fileformat)

Some admins remove this template (without convert in a normal DR, anyway simply remove duplicate tagging is a form of annoying admin-chicane) simply because different file-format, but other postulate this active. Which I mean is the plausible and reasonable way!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Example how concrete (or bent) the Commons policies are (used). I really mean this nonsense need an end on Commons. -- User: Perhelion 22:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Admin-link Edit-request

{{Edit request}}

Please add

{{{1}}}⇓ Challenge speedy deletion
start a regular deletion request/discussion insteadx Remove this tag

as in similar templates, compare also one section above.

<!-- -->{{X-To-DR | regexp ={{{X-To-DR-RegExp|<nowiki>/\{\{\s*(Duplicate|Dupe)\s*([^\{\}]*)\}\}/</nowiki>}}} | templateName ={{{X-To-DR-Template|Duplicate}}} | declineReason ={{{X-To-DR-DeclineReason|<nowiki>Not eligible for Duplicate deletion. If you disagree, nominate for deletion.</nowiki>}}} }} ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Perhelion: I see the buttons without adding {{X-To-DR}}, when adding the template i see it two times. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, then it seems only visible for admins!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- User: Perhelion 13:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding two further parameters to this template

I would like to argue in favour of adding another two parameters to this template:

{{Duplicate |1= |2= |3= }}

2: Reason for deletion of this copy (not the other one), e. g. "later upload", "unsuitably scaled", etc.
3: User signature: --~~~~

--Furfur (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Support ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  07:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Lotje (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Fauvirt (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- User: Perhelion 13:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicates of self

{{Editprotected}}

Please add a maintenance category like Category:Duplicates of self to track "This image has been marked as a duplicate of itself. This is ineffective."

At least one Admin has deleted the wrong (IMHO, I tagged it) duplicate and left a mess. Rather than fixing the mess, CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) made a bigger mess in this edit. This resulting version should really have been in a maintenance category, rather than merely stating "This image has been marked as a duplicate of itself. This is ineffective."   — Jeff G. ツ 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jeff G, IMHO this CAT is not really needed as Duplicates are a high frequented maintenance category itself. The big red warning on the template itself seems for me fully sufficient. Your example seems also a very rare case. @Deleted file: @Dyolf77: had ordered the CD. So is here still rework needed, what was on the deleted file better, the name? PS: @AQD I see %USER% is not working (I had really expected it works without testing) I will fix this immediately. -- User: Perhelion 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -- User: Perhelion 00:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Logging

A deletion because of a duplicate template leaves no trace behind. This is undesirable, in the case an administrator deletes a file assuming it is a duplicate, but where in fact it is not, logging is required. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Such deletions leave log entries in our deletion log. Such log entries are supposed to be tagged "removal of duplicates" by filter 57, but that tagging appears not to be happening. I support changing the template to support uploader notification like {{Copyvio}} using parameters "'talk_tag': '{'+'{subst:speedynote|1=%FILE%|2=This file is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of %PARAMETER%.}}'," and "'talk_summary': 'Notification of possible speedy deletion for duplicate %FILE%'," (copied from my work at User:Jeff_G./common.js). Pinging @Rillke, The Evil IP address, Mentifisto, and Perhelion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The deletion log is hardly sufficient. If I am missing a file, I must must be able to bring back the name of that file, otherwise this log is of no use. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: You can scroll through your upload log 500 files at a time looking for redlinks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I mean. Problem, a couple of years ago I uploaded a denoised and descratched photograph and because someone said it was a duplicate it suddenly got deleted and replaced by a scratched original, without me being notified. How do I recall the name I gave that photograph years ago? How do I even know it got deleted? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a concern - I am sorry, I do not know what a possible solution might be - there might be better locations to ask the question - commons is filled with vast numbers of images that need attention - unless it was an automated method or system re the logging - I cannot image anyone will be able to help you. JarrahTree (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion at Commons talk:Deletion policy, but with very little response. The duplicate template should at least leave a message on the talkpages of users who have the file in there watchlist. But better is to treat this as a normal DR so the uploader is able to have his say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please fix this? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Identify incorrect uses of {{Duplicate}} semi-automatically.

Per Commons:File types, it's often desireable to have both a PNG (lossless) copy of an image, and a JPEG that will actually display correctly on Wikipedia because we've all collectively given up on them ever applying appropriate sharpening to PNGs. Also, a source file for an SVG shouldn't be deleted because an SVG now exists. To avoid these situations, couldn't we just add some code to compare the file extension of the page they're put on with the file extension of the supposed duplicate, and throw up an error with different text if it's cross-file types? Outside of maybe the case of extremely scaled-down duplicates, I can't see any cases where cross-filetype deletion would be so obviously a correct usage that Speedy, as opposed to a proper deletion review, is the correct answer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden and those of you who haven't given up, please see Phab:T192744.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion of that... About a decade ago, back when we still used Bugzilla. And several times since. I'll believe in progress on that when I see it. I've never really even been convinced the supposed use cases for unsharpened PNGs really look better unsharpened. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this could be possible, by comparing the extensions of the tagged file and the linked file using Module:String. pandakekok9 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And it's indeed possible. My code for Template:Duplicate/layout can be found at User:Pandakekok9/sandbox (permalink). pandakekok9 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-fill the redirect page

Following up from #Redirects, the link in item #4 when recreating OLDPAGENAME is:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/OLDPAGENAME?action=edit&summary=Create%20redirect%20for%20deleted%20duplicate

which pre-fills the edit summary but does not pre-fill the editor box itself with:

#REDIRECT [[NEWPAGENAME]]

According to mw:Manual:Creating pages with preloaded text, it should be possible to simplify this mindless copy/type/paste step, given that the template knows the NEWPAGENAME. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with documentation

I cleaned up the documentation for the template but I'm not sure if the parameters are correct. Can someone help me check?

--Hongsy (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion template tag

{{Edit request}} This template is a deletion tag, but it does not transclude , making it more difficult for bots and automated tools to detect. Please add {{Deletion template tag}} to the template (it's an empty tracking template, so exact position does not matter). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello everybody! I believe the following sentence could be added to the template text to prevent duplicate files from being uploaded by the Flickr2Commons tool: "If this file is an upload from Flickr with the same name as the source file, a redirect must be kept to allow the upload tools such as Flickr2Commons to identify duplication." Regards, Sturm (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sturm:  Support, perhaps we can quote "When in doubt, leave a redirect." per COM:FR#Leaving redirects guideline. Who is not leaving redirects, and why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not something unusual. This is not about sloppiness or bad faith, but many users have no idea that deleting and not letting the redirect link negatively affects the project. Take, for example, this recent case. Regards, Sturm (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)