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.

Expansion request[edit]

As a consequence, we need a new optional parameter, located and displayed after the Author, to describe the creation tool and, for SVG files, the W3C-validity.
The parameter name "Creation" will be fine, also as the label in the English version that can be nationalized easily. It may also correspond with the name of the tagging template.
Such an optional parameter allows a more unique appearance of the file description, without the need of using the {{Information field}} and {incomplete, or none) home-brewn translations of the label. sarang사랑 08:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. best solution: like {{Location}}, the tag about (SVG/graphic) creation can be coded following the Information box, and somehow it is afterwards inserted into the box.
  2. 2nd best: a new optional field like "(file} creation" allows the input of the information. It's display is located after the Author field, and the label is nationalized to the users language.
  3. 3rd best: a new optional field "Other fields 2" can be used, the information is displayed after the Author field. As a disadvantage compared against solution 2, no nationalization will occur.
  4. 4th best, without any expansion of the template, is to use Other fields 1 (where the information high above is too prominent) or Other fields (where the information far below disappears after long permission, derivation and other boxes).

sarang사랑 08:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Option 1 or 4 would be fine. --Leyo 21:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be my choice too. --Jarekt (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While with option 1 and 2 any nationalization can be done at a central place, option 3 and 4 leave it to the single case as an insular solution; that means, in (almost) all occurencies no translation will be done, and if somebody does it will cause very much effort, nevertheless it will never cover every language. While the content of the boxes is always nationalized, the "other fields"-label (parameter "name" in {{Information fields}}) isn't.
As an advantage for preferred option 1 or 4, no expansion of {{Information}} is necessary.
The disadvantage of option 4 is the lack of unique appearance, each file will show another layout. sarang사랑 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fake machine readable data[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved

The template uses the machine readable format defined at COM:MRD to mark author and source. When no value is supplied to the template, these fields contain a warning text, but still use the machine-readable markup, so a machine has no way of knowing that what it sees is not the author name / source. This results in strange attribution (see e.g. [1]) and makes it impossible to automatically exclude images with missing author/source from, say, article extracts.

Machine-readable markup should only be included when there is information to be read. For example, the author field could look like this:

<td {{ #if: {{{source|{{{Source|}}} }}} | id="fileinfotpl_aut" }} class="fileinfo-paramfield">{{int:wm-license-information-author}}</td>

--Tgr (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought we already did this, but apparently it's only for Permission. I'll go ahead and do it unless someone objects. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections. --Jarekt (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Done in the sandbox for now. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Tgr: I was about to do this, then I wondered if we wanted to do the same for the description field as well. I think it makes sense, and we might as well do everything at once to spare the job queue. Thoughts? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason not to. A warning about the lack of description is not a description. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Done in the sandbox. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The author uses {{Information/author processing}}. The ID shouldn't be used also if it adds {{Author missing}}. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure what {{Information/author processing}} does. We're already checking if the parameter is empty; What else can we do? I don't want to complicate the template too much. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case we only need that if the parameter is one or two hyphens, it adds {{author missing}}. It does other magic, but that's irrelevant here. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Tacsipacsi: Done in the sandbox, using these examples as test cases. It looks good to me now. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I simplified a bit, and it still seems to work. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Good catch! Thank you. I've gone ahead and updated the main template. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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)