Category talk:Unused files

Deletion
yes I know there is the special page, but I'm trying to empty the Special:UncategorizedFiles one (well, at least diminish its size) and if I don't put the not used ones in a category I will never know which one I have missed. In term I want to keep in this category only the files which are duplicated which is the case of the current color pages of this thread so they can be easily nominated for deletion. Kdom 20:19, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it have been better to name the category "Duplicate and Orphaned Files" or something like that? With a title called Unused Files, people would naturally assume that it's a duplicate of the special page.Mugiwara Franky 14:25, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * And should dublicated files not be delted? Why do we need two or more identical versions of the same image? El Chupacabra 17:07, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made it a bit too hasty, now that I have the ideas more clear, I would name it otherwise, but it is not possible to move the categories (also it seems a future advancement). That's why I have had a text that explain the object of this category better. If you want to change it while their is still few files in it, I have no problem with that.

Concerning the deletion, it is the ultimate motive of this category : to emphasize among all the unused files, the ones that can be easily deleted without much discussion. Kdom 22:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Such files should be put into the main Category:Candidates for deletion. Vandalic creations or wrong spelling redirects should be deleted without much discussion as well, but it's superfluous to create own categories for them. However, the Template:Duplicate for them is a good idea, because it allows us to distinguish them from other candidates for deletion. El Chupacabra 16:15, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * A category for duplicates, is kinda indeed a better solution to a problem than instantly tagging every image with a deletion tag. For vandalism, a prompt deletion is an understandable decision. For the rest however, deletion can really be a gray area. Some would require more of proper discussion for a decision to be made. Deletion really isn't a solution to every problem and finding alternative means to solve them can always lessen it to a point.Mugiwara Franky 23:35, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for a category for duplicates because there is no need in the dublicates. Why should we have two identical images with different names? I have the impresion that they are created accidently, when users upload files which already exist for a second time because they did not notice it. Categorizing all images would help to solve the problem, but the few already existing dplicates should be deleted. The duplicate template should distinguish them from other candidates for delition, but it should categorize them in the Candidates for deletion category. El Chupacabra 16:43, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The category help in retrieving them easily. Also, we agreed that the pages which are candidate for deletion need sometime a discussion which is less the case here. So this category allows to differeciate them. I made this category as a sub-category of the candidate for deletion one but I think it is still usefull to seperate them as they are not treated the same way. Kdom 18:40, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Kdom kinda has a point to a certain extent. There's technically a special function that identifies duplicates but that only goes so far especially if images aren't purely duplicates. A category for duplicates can help identify them more easily, the same way the candidates for deletion category functions for candidates for deletion.


 * Though lumping the duplicates together with the candidates for deletion together would somewhat be much easier, it's somewhat being a bit too deletionist I think. Besides there can be cases where deleting duplicates wouldn't be the best choice of action. For example:


 * a)There is an image found that looks almost exactly like another image except for a few minor edges and such. On further inspection, it's found out that while being almost identical to another image it's actually being used to show a different idea that probably wouldn't show up clearly in the other image. Like one image is showing a character while the supposed duplicate is focusing more on an ability or weapon of the same character.


 * b)In the same case as above, the duplicate image could simply be just changed into another image instead of outright deletion. In other words, instead of deleting the image, a simple upload of a better image showing the same idea would be much less of a hassle.


 * Both Candidates for deletion and duplicates can be solved by the same solution of deletion. That doesn't mean it is the only solution. The problems surrounding them can solved by other ways if they are examined carefully.07:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree that a category for duplicates is useful. However, we should name it "duplicates" and not unused files, in order to avoid some confusion. El Chupacabra 14:09, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I created and changed Template:Duplicate in order to replace this inproperly named category. I think it will take some time for category pages to update. Ruxax 21:43, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, categories' pages aren't updating. Is there some way to force it? Ruxax 21:40, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember we had a similar issue wrt gallery templates. It can take a while I'm afraid. Kdom 22:02, July 25, 2010 (UTC)