Template talk:Information

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Information has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.
Please test any changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in a user subpage, and consider discussing changes at the talk page before implementing them.

Discussion of formatting for Description field[edit]

There is a proposal for a style guideline that would affect the Description field of this template. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Formatting_of_image_or_media_descriptions. Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

'Editing undertaken' parameter[edit]

I'm uploading a large number (~500, maybe more later) images with metadata including phrases like "Editing undertaken: Unsharp Mask, Shadows/Highlights". Please add an |editing= parameter, so that this can be recorded separately from the description of the subject. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There already is {{retouched picture}} for such cases.    FDMS  4    12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is, but it is not part of this template, I'm asking for a parameter into which that could be inserted, rather than including it in the description parameter. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK such templates are usually put below the infobox.    FDMS  4    22:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
+1. No new Information template parameter please. --Leyo 08:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Replacing uncommon replacement!?[edit]

I saw newly somewhere a discussion to replace uncommon information templates like User:Bdesham/Information (due the newly #Fake machine readable data). Can someone say more? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Using user namespace templates in files is often problematic. The templates are often not maintained, not internationalized; they have unexpected behavior; files can not be easily edited or corrected; they do not include current standard of machine-readable metadata, etc. Some user namespace-templates are better than others. The most problematic are license templates since either author or some vandal can change or remove licenses from large number of files, without any trace in the file history and hardly anybody will notice even if the file is on someone's watchlist. See also this issue that removed license templates from thousands of files. Other problematic type of template are some home-brewed infobox templates used instead of {{Information}} template. A much less problematic type of user namespace infobox are templates like User:Bdesham/Information which are just personalized versions of {{Information}}, which is used to do the final formatting, internationalization and machine-readable metadata handling. I still prefer to replace them with simple {{Information}} (or other standard infobox templates). --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jarek. There are myriads of user templates, which makes maintenance and internationalization difficult. --Leyo 08:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Parameter "Title"?[edit]

All CC licenses prior to version 4.0 require the attribution and naming of the "title" of the work. This parameter is included in {{Artwork}} and {{Book}} but not in this template. I think an addition of such a parameter would be most welcome. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Or does anyone know if "title" in the standard license requirement can be interpreted as meaning the name of the file proper? Many thanks in advance?--Paracel63 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK the attribution term only has to include the title if provided. I'd consider the filename to be the work's name unless semi-automatically generated. Content creators can specify a work's title using {{title}} in {{information}}'s description field.    FDMS  4    15:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)