Template talk:Information

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.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Broken microformat

{{Editprotected}}

This edit, citing this discussion, added <div class="hproduct"> and closing div at the end of the template. The addition was not mentioned in the cited discussion, and is ill advised; it causes the template to emit an incomplete hProduct microformat, when the template already emits an hCalendar microformat. The tag pair should be removed, ASAP.

The edit also removed <span class="summary" style="display:none">{{PAGENAME}}</span> , again not discussed, and that markup is, as noted in the template's documentation, required by the hCalendar microformat, and thus should be restored. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Over a year ago when I switched this template from wikitable to html-table, I was not intending to remove any microformat markup. I think that the most reliable way to restore those would be for someone more familiar with microformat to restore those tags in Template:Information/sandbox which I just synched with the current version of the Template:Information. Once there is a proposed new version, restoring such tags than me or other admins will have easier time modifying the template, without having to do it multiple times. --Jarekt (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

hProduct was made for people selling something while hMedia is what we want, I think. The issue is that we can't add an outer class to file pages and that the <a>-tag with rel="enclosure". An hCard (either as a template or as a preference) for each user would be also nice. I hope the last edit fixed both of the issues you raised (though the parser I used gave weird results [didn't notice the fn in hproduct]). If not, please let me know. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Display order author/source

Shouldn't we list author before source? --  Docu  at 15:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think, we shouldn't. "Author" has narrower relation to the permission (license). Source can have closer relation to the description (both can give answer "from where" the file comes). --ŠJů (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Uploaders are not Authors, Wikipedia is not a Source

It seems to be common that uploaders interpret themselves as sources by the act of uploading or acquiring the file, and label source={{own}} to all manner of documents clearly not created by them, even to, say, antique photographs. In a certain sense they are correct, but it helps no one that the uploader repeats that yes, they are in fact the uploader and the most recent source from viewers' point of view, and consequently fail to provide the authentic source. What is important is how and from where the uploader acquired the file. (right?)

I propose changing the template labels, or something in the upload process (in all languages) into more explicit, something that cannot be misinterpreted as "I am the source of this map done in the 16th century", or even "This file originates from my hard drive".

Another misconception that further obscures the origins of a document is mentioning Wikipedia as the source. What results is only a recursive link that points to itself. As with the file File:Einschienerp.jpg. This is only infuriatingly redundant, especially if a user wishes to know the source of a document and research for more information of it (like me, many times.)

In some cases the uploader simply doesn't exist anymore, which makes it next to impossible to get the correct information. That makes it even more important why these misconceptions should be eliminated even before the uploader presses on [Upload]. ~ Nelg (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Agree You are preach to the choir. Unfortunately there is not much we can do about it. --Jarekt (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)