Category talk:Redundant

This category is quite useful, but it lacks some mechanism to decide which image (or article) should "survive" and which ones should be deleted. There are some obvious cases like Image:Barley.jpg and Image:Barley1.jpg where it is not hard to decide to delete the latter one. But what to do about Image:Alta komm.png and Image:Coa alta.gif?. I wouldn't want to delete any of them, maybe there is a complete series of coat of arms and I'm the one destroying it.

Or flag series like Image:Flag de-sachsen anhalt civil.png and Image:Saxony-Anhalt (Flag).gif. I have no idea what system there is concerning the flags and I don't want to look for myself, because this wastes quite a lot of time.

What I meant to say is that there are often people that do know quite well which image to prefer to another, for example because they were involved in organising them or so. These people should somehow say which image should survive and which ones not. Or some kind of votes or discussion? — Richie 19:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If check-usage says one image is used much more than the other, that makes the decision easy. Anyway, the categorization system is how we organize images, not the title. dbenbenn | talk 21:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What defines redundant?

There should be more clear explanation what is considered redundant.

Now for example is marked Image:Flag de-brandenburg 300px.png redundant to Image:Flag de-brandenburg.png, as they are same flag, but they are different verisions of the file. One is more than 7 times bigger than another. Both files are useful for they own purpose.

Same time we have here featured pictures which are basically same, just minor adjustment: Image:Castle Arenberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.jpg vs. Image:Castle Arenberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven adj.jpg. Why these are not redundant?

Pixel size of image (especially in cases where it is manyfold) can't be, in my opinion, reason for defining image redundant. Redundant images should be mostly the ones which are same file with different name.

Another thing: I have impression that there was sugggestion to mark both images with redundant template, now I see many cases where only one is marked, sort of deciding that one is superior to another. --TarmoK 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

When one image is a thumbnail of another, the thumbnail is redundant and should be tagged. When both images are the same but one has a clearly inferior title only it should be tagged.

What makes thumbnail redundant? There are needs for (good quality) thumbnails and so far I haven't seen almost any reasonable explanation why there is no need for thumbnail type of pictures, when there are (very) good reasons to have smaller size versions.

What defines "clearly inferior title"? personal opinion?

Many cases both versions have poor titles and it'll make more sense totally rename the file. But I'm in strong opinion that so long when there is no agreed naming conventions (aside some proposals) and what kind of files are most suitable in certain fields, one should hold back to delete (as well overwrite) files. Just mark the files (both of them) in question until there is common consensus. --TarmoK 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

When a picture has been nominated as a featured picture, it can't be modified. I think that's silly and annoying, but that's how it is. dbenbenn | talk 14:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why can't? Same way picture nomination is voted can be voted to remove picture if there is will to really make commons good repository and source of images (and other files). --TarmoK 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK if two images are identical except for size then clearly the smaller one is redundant. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep "thumbnail" images because even if the original image is 10000x10000 the Wiki software automaticaly generate images to match the size they are given in the article so if someone use [[Image:HugeHighResImage.jpg|20px]] then the software will generate a 20x20 version of the image (unles one already exist in the cache) and use it. The big original is not used directly so uploading different sized versions of the same image is totaly redundant. --Sherool 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to say but this view is quite narrow. Wiki software isn't magical, especially in cases where there is need for small size images and the "original" is huge size. Quality of this way reduced images is questionable, especially when there is more details and reducing factor grows. + file size issues, manually created version are in many cases better.

Question is not to upload different sized versions, question is: why here is this hostile approach to delete other people's work? if here is nice set of pictures of certain topic (e.g. flags or location maps) then why to destroy them? Why it so hard to let both versions to coexist? (and arguments about disk space are quite weak in these cases, this kind of files are significantly smaller than photos, which are for example about same building etc. with little different angle, which sizes are in Mb-s) I can think out only one reason for this kind of redundant/deleting/overwriting approach: hidden pleasure of destroing things what we all have inside, instead of spending one's energy to create something. ... Or could somebody give valid reasons why to have only one single version is best, so that it would justify deleting other good work done by someone.

And it would be nice to think that these files can be used in other places outside Wikimedia projects as well, and for example SVG isn't so widely usable --TarmoK 13:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The main reson for deleting redundant images is to avoid overhad of managing the same image several times. The idea is also to avoid spreading inferior versions. Also, no usable work should ever be destroyed: redundant implies, per definition, that an equivalent or better represetation of the original work exists on the site.

I agree the definition of redundant, but I don't see no place where this is clearly pointed out, what it means, I see here many cases where pictures are marked redundant just because other one is bigger. the definition of "better" should be clearly defined, your "better" is different of mine's.

Which involves to "overhead of managing", then my question is what is there to manage? if flag is created properly, then it stays this way. If country/institution decides to change flag/COA then we can't delete the "old" version here, we just need to add comment, and to add it to 2-3 pages isn't huge overhead.

If the flag/COA/map is incorrect then it should be deleted in other grounds. --TarmoK 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In practice, I see no point in having redundant images that only differ in resolution or file format. While it is true that large bitmaps get blurry when scaled down by a large factor, this will not often happen: drawings with a lot of details would be useless anyway if reduced that much.

Also, the scaling issue does not apply to SVG images: they can be scaled at will without any loss in quality (that's one of the big advantages of SVG). Also, SVG images can be used anywhere where "normal" bitmaps can be used, because they can easily be rendered as a bitmap. In fact, the wiki-software already does this, you can effectively download a PNG version of any SVG on this site, in any size you like.

SVG images can't be used anywhere where "normal" bitmaps can be used, try with normal Windows installation to open SVG, there is still time to go when most of image (showing) software will cope with SVG. ... this point you are correct that SVG in commons can be downloaded as PNG, with small remarks, the pixel size of image will be in "huge" SVG-s the one user (or admin) have chosen to show the images. and in cases of IE and SVG with transparency the transparent area is gray. ... It would be nice to have thise not so minor details explained also to so called "simple user" --TarmoK 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, hand-optimized scaled versions of bitmaps may be worth keeping. Especially site logos, etc. But this does not generally apply to maps, diagrams, etc. One instance where it would make sense are maps that are intended to be shown very small and are therefore labeled with relatively large text for countries, cieties, etc. But simply scaled versions make no sense. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that to add simply scaled version is not reasonable to do, but already existing sets is ok to keep, unless there is versions which are incorrect representation of "object" the are intended to show. And my point is also that first there is no clear definitions of "redundant images" and pictures which are not scaled down are marked redundant just because they look similar, when in fact they are different. Have a look: Image:Australia flag 300.png vs Image:Flag of Australia.svg (stars are in different positions, as well Union Jack lines don't match, one (or both) is just incorrect) or Image:British virgin islands flag 300.png vs Image:Flag of the British Virgin Islands.svg (different blue and it seems that SVG has incorrect one) --TarmoK 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting!

Could you please stop deleting images, just on grounds that there is another one in SVG! now is deleted Image:Commons-logo.png which is used in many places and said that this should be replaced with SVG version. SVG version "doesn't work" in IE (no transparency), so it is not suitable and so it doesn't make first one redundant.

All arguments saying that many copies are more to maintain are in my opinion pointless, what there is to maintain, if the image/logo is correct and properly done? Logo's etc. changing rarely and even if they change then it isn't so "huge" work to update max 3-5 versions of the logo --TarmoK 07:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What about categories?

This explanation is not very clear for what to do with redundant categories. Should they be tagged {{Redundant}} and {{Deletionrequest}}? pfctdayelise 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Empty categories can be tagged {{db|replaced by NEW CAT}}. Non-empty categories can be tagged with {{merging into|NEW CAT}}. User:dbenbenn 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cross images misleading?

I was just fixing links that were pointing to a flag that was replaced by a redundant cross image. To the ignorant, it would've looked like a real flag. Perhaps we can come up with some more obvious images...maybe something that says "IMAGE NOT AVAILABLE" or something with text. Comments, please. ¦ Reisio 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

English text isn't good, because the message needs to be clear on Wikipedias in all languages. I think the cross is reasonably clear. User:dbenbenn 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So we put "IMAGE NOT AVAILABLE" in all known languages, DUH! :p ¦ Reisio 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia exists in more than 100 languages. User:dbenbenn 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear instruction

I don't understand how to do the following: "If you are 100% positive that the image is redundant just overwrite (not delete!) the image with Image:Cross.png 1, Image:Cross.jpg 2, Image:Cross.gif 3 or Image:Cross.svg 4 and replace {{Redundant}} with {{Deleted duplicate}} in the image text." I could download the relevant image and then upload it over my duplicate. But, the parenthetical suggests to me that this is an instruction for administrators since I don't think other editors can delete images.
The larger issue is that I saw three alternatives for dealing with duplicate images; the db tag, the redundant tag, and page redirect. I wonder if a single, simple procedure could be agreed upon, please? Surely removing duplicates is one of the more common tasks faced by inexperienced editors. Can't we make it a bit simpler?
I added the redundant tag to Image:Boulder Glacier 3664.jpg and ignored the instruction to overwrite the image. --Wsiegmund 14:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A way to simplify this

User:Orgullomoore has developed a bot that can "orphan" an image that is about to be deleted (ie remove any links to it in any uses that show in CheckUsage). He says it would be very easy to develop a bot that substitutes an image for another one in a similar fashion. It seems to me this would be very useful for this category and especially for the SVG conversion. What do people think? Could we simplify and speed up this whole process? See User_talk:Orgullomoore#Orgullobot for more discussion. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have an active equivalent to User:RCBot/rename, yes. ¦ Reisio 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Red box misleading

The Caution red box is misleading: it doesn't explicitly mention the argmunents IMAGE and USER that needs to be filled, and the {{Deleted duplicate}} template adds (sysop) after the User indicating only sysops should perform this. ---moyogo 08:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rampant PNG replacement

Can we please calm down about replacing PNGs with SVGs? I've seen several people replacing PNGs with inferior or broken SVGs in an attempt to kill all PNG instances so they can be deleted. There's nothing wrong with PNGs. What is inspiring people to do this? It should be toned down.

See User_talk:Emc2#Gallery, for instance. Cross-post from Commons:Village_pump#Rampant_PNG_replacement — Omegatron 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)