Template talk:Deletable file-caption

Template:Deletable file-caption is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

link to discussion/reason

Could this template be expanded to include:

a link (or instructions) on how to find out more about the particular deletion (even if its "click on image to find more information").
a way to incorporate which of the speedy deletes is proposed.

Novice editors won't know this stuff. I was a bit slow to sort it out and I've been here a while. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above comment. There should be a link to information / guidance stating the reason for proposed delition of the caaption. In any event - can an uncaptioned image be retained in an article? 3ig-350125 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm

{{editprotected}} The caption gives the impression that the image will definitely be deleted, even if it is not given a rationale. Could you please fix this? IntfictExpert (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For requests to edit protected pages write {{editprotected}} to get the attention of adminitrators. I've added it this time for you.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "It will be deleted" to "It may be deleted". —Bkell (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper usage

This should be in addition to, not in place of, the existing caption. Do not put use a vertical bar (pipe, etc.) before the template. --Nricardo (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated link needs fixing

This template currently generates a link to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images and media. Back in January that section was renamed from "Images and media" to "Files." I just added an anchor to the "Files" section so that users clicking on this template's outdated link will now arrive at the right section. But it seems like the template should be updated. Somebody wanna make it link to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files instead? —AtticusX (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image --> file

{{editprotected}} Should be modified to say "file" instead of "image". Powers ^T 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

{{editprotected}} Could a {{Main other}} be wrapped around the category. It's currently full of non-articles and thus difficult to navigate. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I decided to make the edit, this looks like it makes total sense and should have been done a while ago. I'm still considering whether or not we want a 2nd cat for other pages? It would be easy to do but I'm not sure how much benefit we would get. As always the template and cat will take a short bit to propagate. James (T C) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... kinda done. Going to do a bit of a reorganization later on today and switch them all into sub cats of "pages with images for deletion" after discussing it with people on IRC I think that is the best move in the end (people especially wanted to catch templates/userboxes). I'm leaving this one as is for now but will come back this afternoon (4-5 hours from this time stamp) to set that up and will do the same thing on the speedy which also populated the category so that it ends up working. James (T C) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I was only sure that the items couldn't stay in the "articles" cat, but splitting it is probably better and makes it easier to navigate. {{Cat handler}} might be useful for the categorization. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

date parameters for maintenance tagging?

With over 2,000 pages now transcluding this template, it seems like it would be helpful to be able to add maintenance date tags (e.g. {{deletable image-caption|date=September 2010}} to add the page to Category:Articles that include images for deletion since September 2010 and the like. It would make it a lot easier to navigate around the cleanup categories.

Any thoughts or objections? Since the template already uses one unnamed date parameter, it might be better to use "since=" as the new parameter name, to make it a little clearer what the date means. {{deletable image-caption|October 1, 2010|date=July 2010}} looks a little confusing. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just go with daily categories, like: Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and then just have a single parameter. get a bot to run through it quickly and convert the existing cases, (and add it) for those pages so that its a more streamlined process similar to the existing dated tracking system used by other tasks. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's an excellent idea. Thanks, let me look into this and propose a template code change. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I have a revised template available at User:Twp/Test Deletable image-caption. Per Δ's suggestion, it uses the existing unnamed parameter (if present) to add the article to by-month categories. If no date is supplied or if it cannot parse the date, it adds the article to the existing undated category. I have tested it in my sandbox and found it to work as expected. Can an admin review this code and update the template if they find it acceptable? Tim Pierce (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to link to your sandbox, for those interested: Is it User:Twp/sandbox? —Soap— 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, am I understanding correctly that the template as it currently stands does not add the image to any category at all? All I see when I click on images with this template are things like "images with unknown source". —Soap— 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, User:Twp/sandbox is where I have been testing the change. I'm not sure that sandbox will be meaningful to anyone else, since I've tested the change several times in several revisions to make sure it works as intended. :-)

As it currently stands, this template adds articles to one of the following categories, based on namespace:

The proposed change would add the article, if a date is supplied with the template, to by-month categories like Category:Articles that include images for deletion as of September 2010, and so on for the other categories. If the date cannot be parsed or no date is supplied, the template will add the article to one of the existing undated categories. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the category goes on the article. I understand now. Last question I have is, are there any bots (or people) who depend on the categories being un-dated, the way they are now, and would begin to malfunction if we suddenly switched it with no announcement that we were doing so? Sorry to be so hesitant, I just want to be very careful here. —Soap— 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any bots that rely on this template -- the message is really for humans to follow to update articles with deleted photos. In fact, if this change is made it will have relatively little effect at first, since most of the templates now are undated. Only after we start to date more of them will the articles get recategorized. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Soap— 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption does not display in some cases

I believe this has to do with infoboxes, but in certain cases the template is not displaying properly. See [1] and [2] for examples (should be a caption below the image in the infobox for both cases). –xeno^talk 16:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It pretty much never shows up in these cases -- you have to put it in the Caption parameter to get it to display in an infobox, as far as I can tell.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"File" or "image"?

Is this template actually used on non-image files? The text it provides says that the "file" will be deleted. Some readers have confused "file" to mean that the entire article page will be deleted. In that context saying "image" would actually be clearer. If this is only used in association with images then there would be no problem saying "image". If it is also used for other kinds of files then perhaps we need to do something else. Dragons flight (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility

I think that the visibility of this notice would be enhanced by including an image such as File:Ambox warning pn.svg. Such a change would more readily alert editors to the concern(s) being raised, encouraging such concerns to be addressed. -- Trevj (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be applicable for inline templates

I wanted to use this notice template for the inline version of Template:audio, but I figured that the transclusion wouldn't come out good for inline templates. Should the template be modified to allow room for inline templates, or should there be a separate notice template for the inline templates? --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this example shows the use of "audio" template. George Ho (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletable image-caption → Template:Deletable file-caption – Template also applies to audio and video clips, not just images. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems reasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 21 January 2022 (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.

Caption being often confused with PROD tag

I've seen a bunch of editors removing this caption/inline template as if it were a PROD tag. I'm unsure whether the "View file page to object" message helps much, making me wonder whether they know how WP:PROD works. --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following in the sandbox in big size and bold font: Removing this caption template does not contest the deletion proposal. Alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

This edit request to Template:Deletable image-caption has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"View file page to object." → "Click on file link to object." or "Click on link to object." George Ho (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a revision showing comparisons between the sandbox version and the main version. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template does not work in the "caption" field of infoboxes

I'm assuming this is intentional, but I've noticed this template is present in several "caption" fields/parameters in infoboxes when the file in the infobox has already been deleted, had the speedy deletion tag removed, or replaced with a different file. I'm assuming the usages in this manner is erroneous since the documentation shows that the template should be used in the file link, not elsewhere. Is this a correct assumption? And if so, should this template or documentation be updated to state not to put this template in "caption" fields of infoboxes? Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not know how to fix the issue I mentioned above and since the issue has not been resolved yet, I have placed a warning in the documentation instructing users not to transclude this template in infoboxes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Never mind. Turns out this works as intended. It's just ... this template transclusion is not being removed from the "caption" field of infoboxes after the file has been deleted ... this needs to be fixed somehow. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...And just removed all the erroneous and/or expired transclusions; the amount of transclusions went from near 400 to less than 25. Steel1943 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still often confused as an actual deletion tag

People still remove this template as a way to challenge deletion proposals. I added another sentence for "F7" and "CSD", hoping to clear things up. Well, the way I edited looks messy, so I was hoping someone else here can help out. --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add another option of it called FfD because I'm nominating File:USS Gettysburg 1.jpg for deletion under FfD and wanted to notify the readers in the USS Gettysburg (1858) that this image is currently being discussed in FfD. The text will be like this: This file is currently being discussed by the community and may be deleted at anytime/or after specified date Thanks. Vitaium (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Vitaium: why not just use {{FFDC}}? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Because I don't know if that template exist but

Thanks, I will use {{FFDC}} template instead of this. Vitaium (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure! Paine 15:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]