Template talk:Extracted from

Editor parameter

I would like to see the optional ability to add a parameter editor = to the file, or are we saying that it is implicit that the person that has uploaded the file is the person who did the extraction. Billinghurst (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not also a parameter "summary of the modifications made" as is available in Template:Retouched picture? I tried to expand the documentation with examples, and noticed parameter 3 is undocumented. I guess it is for arbitrary wikitext to replace the image thumbnail. -84user (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

code

Does the "#ifexist:" serve any purpose in : {{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[{{#ifexist:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|original file]]|}}}}} or can I replace it by {{{3|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|File:{{{1}}}|File:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}|100x100px|original file]]|}}}}}?

--Zolo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it avoids problems if you add/remove the "Image:" prefix. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actual images

→

In my opinion the two b&w images of Chandler B. Beach included on the left side of the box are pointless and misleading. I suggest to replace them with the actual source->extracted images. Here is the modified template: User:Basilicofresco/Template:Extracted from and here you can see an example. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Support, I've always wondered why static images were used. Your suggestion gives the reader information and reduces the image count. -84user (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And I had to revert this change because all the extracted images (multiple hundreds, maybe even some thousand) were listed in Category:Pages with broken file links. Pleas re-do this change showing only the source image. It's pointless to show a thumb of the extracted image at the page of the extracted image. --Denniss (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

for me was better than the previous version, this is unclear, at least the first part (but that's just my opinion)--Pava (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and the current version does show an image of the original as well so the only improvement may be the placement of this image. Again, there's no ned to place a thumb of the extracted image on he image page of the extracted image, especially if it creates a lot of work for others (for me in this case, while working through the cat mentioned above with some thousand images, about 25-33% were caused by this template). --Denniss (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If there were broken links the template had to be improved. Now it will not create a link if the filename is wrong. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Basilicofresco: I don't like the new version, because it makes sense to have explanatory images, while it doesn't to re-transclude the actual image, and because {{extracted image}} is using the same design.    FDMS  4    16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi FDMS4! In my opinion is very nice to see both the source and the extracted image together at the same size. In this way the reader is able to understand the relationship between two images in a blink, without reading. Moreover it is useful to avoid mistakes like File:AbdurRahmanKhan-A.jpg: now, with both the images at the same size, it is obvious that image was not extracted from File:Abdur rahman.jpg. On {{Image extracted}} I would use the same style: the original photo and one or more extracted images. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, but now the source file thumb is (and has to be as there now are two images) much smaller, so the reader t be able to find out a lot about the source file without having to click on it (and it's now taking longer to find out which one actually is the source file as there now are two images).    FDMS  4    19:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we are talking about extracted images, and not just derivative works, is always pretty obvious which one is the source and which one is the extracted. Even on small thumbs. Moreover there is an arrow between the two images. Well, the arrow is actually quite small... we could increase the size. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Few months later the template was reverted by User:Denniss in order to show again the two pointless images of Chandler B. Beach. What does exactly mean "creates too many problems (bad MW behaviour I assume)" ? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this template version added almost all new uploads into Category:Files with broken file links and they would stay there without further edits. This is not acceptable for some cosmetics/flavor layouts. It's more than sufficient to show the source image. --Denniss (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple: we can just remove that two misleading images. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to take another image as this rotating icon. -- User: Perhelion 13:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Ok, what do you think about this one? Do you prefer any other image? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Basilicofresco: Yes, it's a bit better, but also not that much suggestive. I would like to see this in Tango style. PS: Additional there could be some stylized zoom effect, to show the priority of the cuttet part. -- User: Perhelion 12:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Namespace?

Why is there a namespace-check? If we can see in the /doc and in categories for example is it not working correctly: Category:Fleurons_for_Évocations_(Lemerre) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 11:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"image" → "file"

Would anyone mind if the word image was changed to file? This template is often used for images that have been extracted from DjVu or PDF files so it always looks strange to me to say that it's extracted from an image. It's somewhat correct, but misleading. Thanks, The Haz _talk 18:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree and done for En and De. Anyway this template should use Autotranslate! ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I agree about autotranslate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmat2 (talk • contribs)

Still working for me (tested: en-gb + de), if anybody seriously needs the template data (parameters) in German please holler (oder probier den Vorlagendateneditor einfach aus, viel kann da nicht kaputt gehen). –Be..anyone (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Equal sign in filenames causing problem ?

I'm trying to use the 'Extracted from' template and it works great, except in case the original filename contains an equal sign (i think), for example : extracts from Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (1994) (18410394402).jpg The result is empty : as you can see in this example, is there a way to escape het equal sign ? or am i using it wrong ? Thanks, Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, you can use {{tlx|1==)}} for {{=)}} with a verbatim "=", ditto 2= for the 2nd parameter, etc. –Be..anyone 💩 23:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Extractions from page-based documents

Hi everyone, when images are extracted from PDFs or DJVUs it is important to link them. One way is to use this template. However, what is missing is a parameter to define the page the image was extracted from. Would it make sense to introduce such? --Arnd (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Source" or "Other versions"?

Which is the correct field of the Template:Information to put {{Extracted from}} in? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen it most often in other versions, but don't think there is a consensus that this is where it must be placed. Senator2029 17:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignored by= parameter?

While editing the doc subpage to move the examples out of Template:TemplateBox (where they weren't formatting correctly), I happened to notice that the {{Extracted from|Media:LA2-NSRW-1-0007.jpg|by=LA2}} example doesn't format any differently from the preceding examples — the by= parameter appears to be ignored.

Is by= supposed to do something? Or has it only been retained for legacy/compatibility purposes, or something like that? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the issue. The by= parameter was missing from Template:Extracted from/en. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I submit a comment?

I'm just wondering why Parameter 2 expands to wikitext. I simply wanted to tell why I made this extraction by telling "Edges trimmed straight" here. Karsten Meyer-Konstanz (Diskussion) 09:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Amalie Vanotti - Meersburg, Blick auf Felsen und Oberstadt, 1891 (beschnitten)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyer-Konstanz (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent issues

As of recently, the template seems to be bloated with multi-language links to things like Template:Extracted from/it and Template:Extracted from/sv. See literally any file where the template is used, and compare {{Extracted from}} to its counterpart {{Image extracted}}. Can someone fix this? --Animalparty (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed @Animalparty: It appears that was a template coding bug, unintentional, that was fixed by Jonteemil over the weekend. 👍 FeRDNYC (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Changes from <onlyinclude> to <includeonly> should be challenged, and in this case the better fix would have been to revert the change. The two tags do different things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Template for deleted items?

Since this edit, the template now automatically uses {{Extracted from deleted}} if the source image is missing. (Before that, it only put them in a tracking category Category:Extracted images with broken file links.)

I think this is a mistake - there's no way of guaranteeing that the source image was always deleted for an unrelated reason, and in many cases what we have is a simple crop that has the same underlying problems (lack of permission, etc) as the source image. I don't think we can say they're all good so perhaps this template should not be automatic?

@Sarang: who added the template originally. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: I agree with the above— the source image can get deleted for e.g. no permission, and the extracted image is retained, and now automatically claims that The source image was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image. (Example right now: File:Joseph R. N. Maxwell, SJ photograph.jpg.) Micler (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons Maintenance Templates table

Hey all. I'm not very familiar with the source code for templates - can someone help me fix this one so it shows a preview in the Commons:Templates/Maintenance table like the Image Extracted template counterpart above it shows? Thanks for your patience. - Corqe (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This template is not a maintenance tag, so would not typically show on that page. Also to note that each of the templates you added all have mandatory parameters, so such additions would be needed to have them display properly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

added an option to show a specific page in a djvu or pdf file

I have added the "page" parameter which can be used on djvu or pdf files to show the specific file extracted. Doing that in the presence of /layout and /(lang) templates adds a level of complexity with {{Autotranslate}}. I know that it is working in English, and I have updated the docs, though I cannot confirm that it is working in non-English. To note that it actually doesn't need to be translated as it uses a default component of mediawiki image handling, though with the way that we force layouts, it may require the parameter in every language sub-template. Thanks if you can check.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, finally my 2017 request has been implemented. Thank you, billinghurst. Maybe it would make sense to mention the page (if available) in the template text and to use the parameter for the little preview image so the page from where it has been extraced is shown. Regards, --Arnd 🇺🇦 (talk)

@Aschroet: I did update the documentation with the parameter and an example at the bottom. If you seeing non-English pages, I would appreciate a check that it is functional.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)