Commons talk:Template standardization

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Sounds like a good idea. Some of the icons I don't understand, however:

  • Applications-office.svg for queries. Maybe a question mark instead?
  • Measure.svg for legal disclaimers doesn't make much sense. {{Personality rights}} and {{FOP}} use Nuvola apps important yellow.svg, which I find clearer.
  • 48px for licences is also strange. It gives the impression that the licence is unknown. Actually, I quite like that we use different icons for {{GFDL}} and {{CC-BY}}, for example. That way, one can see at a glance what the licence is. Having the same colour scheme for all the licences would be good (and is already in place, though in a less straightforward way), but I'm against having a unique icon. Also, I think the PD box should have the same colour scheme than the licence boxes (the current proposal has them with different background colours). Pruneautalk 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Different licence tags should use different images, I'm not sure anyone's saying they shouldn't. The image was probably just a placeholder. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Honours star[edit]

The honours star says it will be used for honours "such as" featured images. But it is already used for featured pictures, and there is other honours-type content such as COM:QI and COM:VI where the use of this star would be misleading and would conflict with symbols already in use. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Firstly, you can change the icons at runtime. It's not like they're locked to that icon when you use them, these are just defaults. Also, I used the question mark box for License because its also sorta like that on the English Wikipedia (but I didn't want to upscale their current "question mark license" because its not an SVG and we're using different icon sizes. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll - left bar or not?[edit]

Just randomly had some ideas for the image message box, which one would you want better? ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to adopt Ambox, etc, I say adopt it as is, rather than developing a graphics style that's similar but different. I find the left bar has grown on me and would favour keeping it. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I also prefer ambox, though I don't feel very strongly about this. Pruneautalk 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like them all, but the bottom one appeals to me more. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Top one looks best. I never liked the side bar. It's goes against the traditional/MediaWiki style and it doesn't look right for right-to-left languages. Let's stick to the Tango/Gnome icon style (or other theme like Nuvola). Visual clues and color is extremely important on a multilingual site. I hope someone goes to work on this (as he says from the depths of retirement). Rocket000 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


It may be a good idea to create/use an existing icon scheme for all boxes. So for example using File:Commons-emblem-copyright.svg for all types of licensing which uses a (c) already, just tweaking the colour. Wuzur 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And the new autotranslation...[edit]

Will this affect anything related to this? ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It should make it easier to implement (less templates to convert). Rocket000(talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to do something about these templates[edit]

The templates {{ombox}}, {{ambox}}, {{mbox}}, and the like were made to demonstrate what could potentially be our main standardization methods, but we need to either adapt them now or delete them. Having them just sit around here causes problems:

  • Upload bots copy all templates used on the description pages of other projects to our description pages. They comment out templates we don't have, but since we have these they leave these useless boxes to clutter our image pages. See File:Bahram Bayzai.jpg, File:SOKO J-21 Leteeć zvezde.jpg, etc. Almost all uses are like this.
  • Users unfamiliar with Commons use these templates regardless that they say not to.

They've been messing up things here long enough. What's our decision? Rocket000 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I gypsy-rigged our Ombox locally so that this can be fixed by weeding out the conflicts so we can move them to proper non-conflicting names. and delete the redirects. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I really think there's still some hope for this standardization project, but more people need to get behind it. I don't want to delete anything but I think I need to do some renaming. (Thanks for making that category. I'll try and get a bot to go through them all and remove the empty templates.) Rocket000 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So speedy deletion...[edit]

We're used to having the big and large speedy deletion notices, but in order to make them fit with the new style, we'd either have to change them to use this, or change the style of the deletion notice to kinda "emulate" it. I was kinda thinking along the lines of this, stacked alongside an example just for show:


This talk page may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

The given reason is: Copyvio.

Usage: This template {{speedydelete|specify a reason}} should only be used for obvious cases. Remember to specify a reason. Use {{delete}} for others. There are other different kinds of deletion requests. Please use an appropriate one for your reason.

Administrators: Delete this if it meets the appropriate criteria. }}

  • In the case of copyright violations, notify the item's uploader by placing the following on their talk page:
    {{subst:copyvionote|Commons talk:Template standardization}} -~~~~
  • In the case of derivative works, notify the creator or uploader with:
    {{subst:derivativenote|Commons talk:Template standardization}} -~~~~
  • If a page is outside of the project scope, notify the creator or uploader with:
    {{subst:project scope|Commons talk:Template standardization}} -~~~~

Appeal: If you disagree with the speedy deletion of this talk page, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.

Note: To speed up the speedy deletion process and help administrators, consider using one of these more specific templates:
  • {{copyvio|reason or source}} for obvious copyright violations
  • {{bad name|correct name}} for files you uploaded with incorrect names, and are preferably unused (check usage).
  • {{duplicate|other file}} for files that are exactly the same as other files

See the Deletion guidelines for more options and information.

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | اردو | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Only 2 lines are actually changed here, the styles, and the image. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is too much pink for me. Rocket000 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Template is becoming prettier! Can I ask page (or gallery) to get used icons? I hope template standardization would make good result. Cheers.--Kwj2772 (msg) 06:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some icons are from GNOME Desktop icons. Also see User:ViperSnake151/CommonsEmblems-seealso. Other icon galleries: Tango icons (pretty incomplete so see Category:Tango project) and my own gallery. Rocket000 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The wrong approach[edit]

I just realized the main problem with this proposal. It's namespace based instead content based. We're using the Wikipedia approach. The reason it works for them is that the image namespace isn't really important there. But here, it's basically our mainspace. On Wikipedia they have all kinds of templates for their mainspace. Cleanup, navboxes, infoboxes, stub templates, etc. They obviously don't all use the same format. And who would want them to? It would be too much of the same. One style does not fit all. This proposal is suggesting to make all image boxes the same. For example, certain templates go inside others like {{description missing}} inside {{information}}. I think it would look bad if both used {{gibox}}s. There are template like {{assessments}} that wouldn't really work with it. There are many templates that show other versions of an image instead of an icon. There are some templates that would take a lot of work and cooperation to convert since bots need them a certain way. The proposed templates are just not that flexible (and why should they be if the point is standardization?). I think the boxes for other namespaces would work, but for the image namespace we need to create a few separate meta templates. This would make it so much easier to standardize. Rocket000 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree. Furthermore other Commons stuff like /lang linnks, RTL support, {{lang}} and 100% (not 80%) width needs to be added to the templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)