Commons talk:Templates

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

Page divide[edit]

This page needs to be split and probably reorganized. I loosely assigned the templates and many might be better classified as talk page messages to emphasize the correct placement of editor-only notes. I will probably get to it eventually, but would love some help. (with templates in general, not only their organization) - LeaMaimone 22:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what do we need a page like this for? all language templates are here Schaengel89 @me 19:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Redundant content moved here.[edit]

Current information from Wikipedia-en. It is far from finished. Numerous templates are either not here yet or lost in the abyss that is Allpages. Commons most likely doesn't need the division that Wikepedia has, but some would be nice - at least seperating the "editor messages" from the "reader messages". And then there's standardization... I'll work on it. Please help if you'd like. -- LeaMaimone 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Templates are used within articles to provide a consistent look to the messages placed into them. Changes to the look, wording, or style of the message can be implemented quickly, because templates are rendered for the reader when the article loads.

Note: "msg:" can now be dispensed with when placing a template in an article. For example, use {{stub}}, not {{msg:stub}}. Spaces and national characters in the name are allowed, e.g. {{train topics ąåä}}.

== Instructions ==

See also m:Template.

When you add new template messages to this page, please help keep the tables in alphabetical order.

===Multilingual tables===

===Multilingual headers===

=== License === For a list of licenses see the image copyright tags. These are also shown visually in Image copyright tags visual.

New templates[edit]

I've created or revised several templates related to image cleanup. See Commons:Images for cleanup, and if necessary please update this article accordingly for me. Thanks. Deco 05:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary subst:[edit]

I've tempoararily subst:'d one of the tags on the page to be able to remove it from Category:Images with unknown source as of unknown date 2006 while I'm clearing it out. I'll revert it back to a direct transclusion when I've finished. Essjay (TalkConnect) 09:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Arts templates[edit]

I'm looking for that art-work information template that is used on so many pages. Also for the "creator" template for individual artists. Could these all be here, please. Cheers, JackyR 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


For the Religion?-- Ruanda

Problem tags[edit]

Should the templates at Category:Problem tags be added to this page? Jeepday (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They can be, although we'll need to split it up soon. I'm trying to get them all categorized first, then I was going to work on the documentation. Rocket000 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a list the Categories, for now? It would make it easier to find the templates until you get the documentation completed. Jeepday (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Commons:Template_standardization - your thoughts? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory information[edit]

How do I state that an image has contradictory information? For example, Image:Finland roundel WW2 border.svg is described as both a nazi and a non-nazi swastika. Andjam (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


I would like to modify Template:Insignia/layout to show a generic Coat of Arms, like the one on en-wiki (en:Template:Insignia). The proposed layout is the following:


Alemannisch | Boarisch | Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Schweizer Hochdeutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Қазақша (кирил) | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Yorùbá | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Are there any objections? Sv1xv (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I edited the template and added the image, it seems it works ok. Please report any problems. Sv1xv (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
That particular image is kinda light. The older version would be better at this size. Maybe there's another image out there that would look better? Rocket000 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I uploaded the old image as a separate file. Here is how the template looks now:


Alemannisch | Boarisch | Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Schweizer Hochdeutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Қазақша (кирил) | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Yorùbá | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

I also increased the size to 80px, as the template loads more lines of text than the one on en-wiki. Sv1xv (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Seems a little big but if it has the text to fill it, I guess it's fine. Rocket000 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does these templates have a purpose?[edit]

User:Joshbaumgartner has creates a buch of templates Category:Aircraft image templates. In my oppinion thery are only eycandies, they don't have no value. Categories do the same, but better. Maybe we should delete this.--Avron (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they mostly provide interwiki links. I think it is useful. --Jarekt (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't need interwikis on images.--Avron (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, these templates are useful. They help indicate aircraft types and operators in a coordinated way. But if somebody would have come to me and asked me "hey, we need some template magic for providing information on aircraft types and operators, do you have any idea?", my approach would have been completely different. I would have created a one-liner just saying "This image depicts ... XYZ". I wouldn't have provided interwiki links, cause these are just one click away at the gallery page about the operator or the aircraft type. I too would leave out the image to make the templates simple and plain. Instead of creating templates for every single type and operator I would have created exactly two templates. One for type, one for operator. Type or operator would have been an argument to the template. That would have localisation advantages. At the moment 76 templates need to be changed to localize all information. With the parametrized design this number drops to two. If languages want to use differing strings for type and operator (I guess most Latin script languages don't want to, but non-Latin most likely will) we need to create an additional subtemplate for each language that maps English type and operator names to the localised ones. But it'll still be much easier than maintaining 76 or an even more increased number of templates. --Slomox (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I created some basic templates. This is the result for an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 707 of the Egyptian Air Force:
Aircraft type Template:Aircraft typeTemplate:Aircraft type
Operator Template:Aircraft operator

The templates support three languages at the moment:

Template:Aircraft operator


Template:Aircraft operator

Low Saxon:

Template:Aircraft operator

What do you think? --Slomox (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that interwiki links are best handled by refereeing to appropriate gallery pages with interwiki links. I also agree that 2 templates: {{aircraft type}} and {{aircraft operator}} are better and more easily maintained than several dozen templates. However I think those 2 templates are still to wordy. Text "Aircraft type: This image depicts an aircraft of the type: Airbus A320" would be more clear and easier to internationalize as "Aircraft type: Airbus A320". Same think with the operator. So the 2 new templates would only provide translation of the airplane name and the operator and even that might not be necessary if the gallery (one click away) have multiple translations. --Jarekt (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox and the templates are a very bad approach. I hope really that won't spread out. At first the users want to have unified information (Template:Information) in the image pages. This isn't possible when we start to provide for many topics own infoboxes. At second, images often cover several topics. For example in File:Stryker MC unloading from C130.jpg I reverted the infobox aircraft image to normal image because it depicts also an armoured fighting vehicle. I don't want to see image pages plastered with multiple infoboxes, like aircraft image, armoured fighting vehicle image, soldier image, airport image. This is a dead wrong approach. But I rally hope somedy Category intersection is made available.--Avron (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the content list is gone?[edit]

It would be very useful for this huge page. Is there a hidding var(tag) in a template? --Perhelion (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there for meWeird. Added it manually--DieBuche (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


It seems there is no "verification needed" template. But I think somethiung like this is very much needed for image desriptions. As we're working to improve image descriptions, making them more extensive, dubious information will creep in that requires fact-checking. Consider for example File:Reitter-1908 table69.jpg, image 1a. These are probably the moutparts of the female, seen from below. But I am not really sure. Until a coleopterologist comes along, the identification would be tentative, and this needs to be remarked lest we introduce errors to Wikipedia. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Use {{Disputed taxonomy}} or {{fact}} --DieBuche (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

metadata linking[edit]

"Authority control" refers to controlled (i.e. curated, edited) list of authorities: i.e. authors of works. The issue, then, is metadata that links an image on Commons to the information about the subject in the catalogue of the relevant museum or art gallery.

Jarek is working on templates to make this metadata capture/linkage easier. If you'd like more information on this, please ask him or look at his recent changes, especially Template:Authority_control. Sumanah (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio Maintenance Tags[edit]

There seems to be a number of good maintenance tags for image files, but are there any for audio files? I would like to tag

as being of low quality, but couldn't find a suitable tag other than {{cleanup}}.

Matt Heard (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference books as source[edit]

Scan from the original work

Hollands TuinLink back to Book infobox template
Hollands Tuin-cover.jpg
Subtitle De Westlandse Tuinbouw van vroeger tot nu
Editor Jan Barendse
Publisher Bond Westland
Year of publication
Place of publication 's-Gravenzande
Language dutch


I've created a scannedbooks template for a couple of scans I wanted to upload. I thought the {{Book}} template was inappropriate since the illustrations weren't first published in the books I got them from. I've used it at this file for example. The wikitext would nead some brushing up if others were to use it too, I'm posting here to see if anyone would be interested in that. --Vera (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Lovely! Should we also use the template for book covers? --Kolja21 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So far we used Template:Cite book for that purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Historic maps[edit]

I'm looking for the template that says: This is a historic map/graphic, do not change! I've seen this kind of template but can't find it anymore. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen template like that for archival descriptions of photographs, but not for maps. --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Merge}} is broken[edit]

If someone want to tackle that one: {{Merge}} template is broken, and has been broken for a while, since someone rewrote it as {{Merge}}, {{Merge from}}, and {{Merge to}}. In the current state it is unclear if the first input needs to come with or without the namespace: Some links work with one format and other links with the other. What is was is that English version is different than German, so fixing links in one breaks the other one. Good project if someone wants to learn more about the templates. --Jarekt (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time please notify the one who rewrote it, me. To "fix" {{merge}}, one doesn't have to be a template syntax expert, but familiar with these languages. For more, please see Template talk:Merge#DO NOT USE.    FDMS  4    01:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Lua error: too many expensive function calls[edit]

FYI: Cross talk link: → Module talk:Fallback #Lua error: too many expensive function calls User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  16:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new SVG conversion icon[edit]

I hope this is the right place to offer this suggestion, which is to replace the file Converted to SVG.svg:

Converted to SVG.svg


1. The circle path seems to highlight the "pixels" (which don't look satisfying either imho), but if there is something that needs to be highlighted it's more the circle path and not the pixels, I think.

2. An icon/pictograph like the one needed here is supposed to give the viewer the right impulse of its meaning at the first glance, but here it seems difficult to identify what's meant by looking at the picture only (at least to me).

Therefore I suggest to replace it by the following one, which I hope would do a more adequate job:

SVG Conversion suggestion.svg

--Partisan1917 22:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Partisan1917: This is what the {{Convert to SVG}} template looks like with your new icon:
SVG Conversion suggestion.svg
All images in this gallery could be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file. This has several advantages; see Commons:Media for cleanup for more information. If an SVG form of this image is available, please upload it and afterwards replace this template with {{vector version available|new image name}}.
I like the idea and the use of the gradient, though the pixeled circle almost looks like a normal circle at that size. I'll try decreasing its "resolution" so it's still clearly pixeled at small sizes. SiBr4 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What about this:
SVG conversion suggestion 2.svg
All images in this gallery could be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file. This has several advantages; see Commons:Media for cleanup for more information. If an SVG form of this image is available, please upload it and afterwards replace this template with {{vector version available|new image name}}.
SiBr4 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful improvement! I am happy my idea found a friend :) --Partisan1917 11:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr4: So how do we proceed now to change the template? Don't we have to put the image to a vote somewhere or something like that? --Partisan1917 05:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I kinda prefer the older icon, I don't know - it just looks cleaner to me. But I do agree with the highlight thing, maybe thicken the line of the vector circle and that should make it more obvious? Domdomegg (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way "cleaner"? The "unclean" look of the "pixel graphic" is intended. --Partisan1917 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using {{SVG}} too much?[edit]

Maybe we should try to reduce the number of images classified as this, and have a rule e.g. only notify the user if it is only used on 1 user page or nothing. Otherwise it seems to be generating an impossible backlog of probably useless images. I'd like to hear what others think. I know you can sort by top 200 etc. but those often just bring up a load of icon sets which would be a pain to do if you did them one at a time, and doing them all would also be a load of effort. Maybe a images sorted by number of times used? Domdomegg (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, that there are subcategories?
The backlog will stay huge, anyway. The only solution would be to pay some graphics designers to vectorize the top 200 in all categories.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Taxonavigation Templates[edit]

I don't really speak english, but I have created the Category:Species of Gastropoda and the [[:Category::Genera of Gastropoda]] categories, but doesn't worked, like the Families of Gastropoda. Please help me. Thank you! --Patko erika (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Liné1, may be you can help with this one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I see that you modified Template:Gastropoda. I will correct the changes you have made, because you broke other automatic categories.
Something important is that once you have done such changes, you have to wait a few days before wikicommons puts something in your automatic category.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! And thanks the Bivalvia's categories too. --Patko erika (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have one more question, could you please make some changes, to put the template the category automatically in the above category? For the example if I use the template in Category:Conus abba, then put the category in Category:Conus. Thanks! --Patko erika (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry my friend, I did not understand your last problem.
I would prefer to talk in my discussion page.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

I've put a template help request on the Village Pump where it's not getting much traction; maybe it would have been better to post it here. Schwede66 18:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Panorama : template with raw HTML[edit]


we currently have issues with correctly conveying an immersive panorama (360 or even full spherical 360x180°) to the viewer. They are presented with an equirectangular view which is misleading and is not what shall be viewed.

I'd like to have a template for that:

  1. it shall be based on the current panoviewer, which is based on Pannellum
  2. because it's bases on pannellum, it would allow any framing and offer the possibility to drag right from the frame to move the point of view.
  3. it shall fall back to a plain picture if the browser doesn't support it.

And in very short, it should be handled like how Facebook handles 360 panorama in the webpage and app (we have to keep in mind that wikipedia is viewed on mobile devices too)

So my questions :

  1. Is anyone capable of writing such a template quickly?
  2. if not, I can try. In that case, can we use raw html in templates? I remember raw html could be enabled or disabled and I doubt it's enabled on Commons or wikipedias.
  3. In case it would be necessary, where can I get special access to wikimedia's servers to fine tune tools or plugin? I don't want to harass the maintainer of Panoviewer user:Dschwen.

Maybe this should be handled by MediaWiki software itself.

Thanks for your help - Benh (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like {{pano360}} we had for 8 years --Jarekt (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No, that one only creates a link. I would be much better that the pano viewer can be embedded in articles - Benh (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Pannellum seems great. I hope someone can implement it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Interpolated images[edit]

Some images uploaded here are upscaled from lower resolution images. Unfortunately I may not be able to find the original and therefore the best I can do is tag it and hope someone comes forward with the original.

The problem is currently the closest template is blurry. While it is true that the images are blurry I believe it would be better have a new interpolated/upscaled template so these images can be identified easier.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic12228 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Over-sharpened images[edit]

Another possible category of images that I noticed is over-sharpened images. This when there is evident haloing caused by using too strong of an unsharp mask on an image. The solution is to upload the original. Sonic12228 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)