It seems to me that the 'orpan' list as it stands is useless because it doesn't track references to the image by direct url in the english wikipedia, and it doesn't track ANY reference to the image in any other wikipedia either...
I agree; the "orphaned image" list is useless, and in any case I don't see that much of a problem with a useful image that isn't currently linked to an article, especially if it is known that it is in fact free--and image is, in a sense, an article in its own right.
I'll make a note on the orphaned image page to that effect.
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Karen AKA Kajikit kaji@labyrinth.net.au wrote:
It seems to me that the 'orpan' list as it stands is useless because it doesn't track references to the image by direct url in the english wikipedia, and it doesn't track ANY reference to the image in any other wikipedia either...
I agree; the "orphaned image" list is useless, and in any case I don't see that much of a problem with a useful image that isn't currently linked to an article, especially if it is known that it is in fact free--and image is, in a sense, an article in its own right.
I disagree; it's not "useless", it's just of certain limited use -- like everything else.
An image's being on the list doesn't guarantee that it isn't used somewhere (on the English wiki via a click-link to the URL, or on other language wikis), nor does it guarantee that it shouldn't be used in the future. What it _does_ do is to narrow down a 'short list' of things that _might_ be not being used.
Like the article orphans page it lists things that _might_ be junk to be deleted, or _might_ be useful stuff that should be further linked to. It's a starting point for further investigation, not a deletion list.
I'll make a note on the orphaned image page to that effect.
Here I agree wholeheartedly.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org