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. - 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. -- 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? -- 16:38, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * Not until there's more support. You could ask or  for their opinion. -- 16:41, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * I think a better idea is to start a proposal. -- 16:44, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * Sure, that works too. -- 16:45, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Allow Additional Parameter to Specify Where the File is Linked
Specifically, I came across File:Shiver Snowfield Mirrored.png. It has both and  as tags. I couldn't find where the file was linked to. It looked abandoned. I tagged it with anyways. 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 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: Deadline: February 3, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Creator supports.
 * 2) - Given the change of wording so that images with this template cannot and should never be deleted, I will support. We don't need to retroactively add this to every single, unused image but having a parameter for specifications (as most other image templates do) makes sense and could potentially make some maintenance tasks simpler.

Oppose

 * 1) 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) - Per Megadardery, and per myself and Tucayo in the comments. This is unnecessary at best, detrimental at worst.

Comments
"Any image with 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. -- 18:12, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * It was inappropriate to mark someone's PI for deletion anyway: if 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  or just type it into the Summary - either way, no need for an input in this template. -  18:36, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * I've seen both and  be used on 'Shroom images.  already states not to mark it for deletion if it appears to be unused, making the additional  redundant. Also, I am talking with  about making sure the apparently unused s stop appearing in Special:UnusedFiles. As for '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. -- 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. - 20:22, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * Yeah, you are right. Most images tagged with 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. -- 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. - 20:46, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * I don't know how many 'Shroom Images are being flagged as unused and how the cache exactly picks 1,000 images of the almost 70,000 files we have uploaded to this Wiki (Special:Statistics). What I was talking about with on his talk page is to have archive pages that guarantees the image be used once to prevent 'Shroom images from ever appearing in Special:UnusedFiles again. Also, not using all 1,000 for legitimate cases of files needing review for reuse or deletion just means to me we are not at peak efficiency within constraints setup ATM. -- 20:57, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * Alright, a lot happened. Two points I have to make here: first, I still think alerts are unneeded and we should never delete an image that has this template, even if the user doesn't answer. Second, we will not be using the 23-archive system since but we may be making something else that would help; however, this is not a priority of the staff at the moment. -- 22:20, 20 January 2016 (EST)
 * Well then, the current wording of the proposal still stands, as it doesn't have anything about how much time has to pass for the unknown used image to be considered abandoned or unused. Assume the user's time is indefinite to reply. -- 22:36, 20 January 2016 (EST)

So. As another ops who regularly deletes images, I don't think we really need a parameter or whatever. In the past, I've asked folks to please simply leave in the image description what or where the image is being used so I can check, if needs be, years down the road to see if the image is actually abandoned or not. This was the result of a some user a bunch of years ago bullshitting some CSS sheets together just so his images were linked on the wiki, when the actual goal was to use our image storage as his personal photobucket account for off-wiki things. We probably wouldn't have even noticed it if it wasn't for the fact that this users CSS sheet existed, but was unused. Since then, I ask for the courtesy of knowing what you plan to do with an image. -- Ghost Jam 21:19, 21 January 2016 (EST)
 * The power of templates and MediaWiki scripting, I think it is possible to place a category, such as a category with the name Category:URL-linked images with unknown usage (maybe), kind of like how has Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template if something is astray. -- 23:18, 21 January 2016 (EST)


 * "when the actual goal was to use our image storage as his personal photobucket account for off-wiki things."
 * I actually laughed at this. That's so absurd especially how the user went through all of this trouble just to host some images. Why not, I don't know.... use Photobucket/Imageshack (before it went to the dark side)/Flickr/your email/etc.!? 01:00, 22 January 2016 (EST)
 * To go off-topic, Photobucket, TinyPic, and ImageShack suck now. I prefer to use Imgur now. :P -- 01:05, 22 January 2016 (EST)