Template talk:Information

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

Fixing linter errors caused by other_fields property[edit]

The template includes the other_fields property without wrapping it in <tr><td>..</tr></td>. This can cause different errors depending on the type of content that is passed in.

  • If a page uses this template and passes in text or other content via the other_fields parameter, it will get moved out and before the table (Ex: {{Information|...|other_fields=some text here}}.
  • If a page uses this template and passes in a table via the other_fields parameter, once Tidy is replaced, this table will be split at this point. (Ex: {{Information|...|other_fields={{Retouched picture|..}} }}. See this real example here.
  • If a page combines the two by wrapping the table inside a tag like a div, you get both fostering and breaking of the table with different results for Tidy and Remex. See this real example here.

So, please fix the template and add the tr and td wrappers. Tidy will be removed by end of June 2018. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

SSastry (WMF), "other_fields" parameter is a quite a nasty hack using Code injection, which unfortunately is also the simplest way we can write custom extensions to infoboxes. It was used since 2008 and should be a rarely used feature. According to the documentation "you have to use {{Information field}}" with it, and that template takes care of providing proper formatting. All the uses you mention above do not meet that requirement and should be fixed if observed in any file. --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Jarekt, Note that Template:Information field is generating <table>..</table>. You can nest a table inside another table only in a table-cell. So, you still need the surrounding <tr><td>..</td></tr> wrapper around the use of other_fields. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Scratch that. I missed the use of onlyinclude! SSastry (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case, once Tidy is replaced, and rendering on these pages (that use other_fields incorrectly) changes / breaks, editors might fix them. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
SSastry (WMF) So hopefully Tidy is not needed for pages that use "other_fields" parameter according to documentation. Other uses might generate invalid HTML. I wonder if there is a way to track those. More troubling issue might be with {{Building_address}} which is discussed here. That template relies on similar Code injection hack, is used on 657k pages and as far as I can tell produces invalid HTML. I can not think of any simple way to fix it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Tidy is being replaced by RemexHtml [1], so invalid HTML will still be cleaned up, but the cleanup will happen differently. The high-priority categories on Special:LintErrors show which those pages are and also what piece of wikitext is going to cause that. Note that the changed rendering is not necessarily "wrong", it is different, and in some cases, might be the preferred rendering. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for alt tags[edit]

{{Edit request}}

See here for original discussion.

I would like alt tags added to this template. Alt tags are a lot more universal than image descriptions, as they rely less on context. Combined with incorporation into Help:Gadget-Stockphoto, it could greatly increase the use of alt tags across all wikis, and therefore increase accessibility. Kees08 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Kees08, Your proposal, did not have a single comment. I am also not sure what are you proposing. I think you need to be more clear and build wider support first. --Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to break it down further. There are six parameters in this template. I propose adding a seventh parameter. The parameter would be named alt. The information contained in the parameter would be alt text, used to help those using screen readers.

When implementing media from Wikimedia Commons into Wikipedia projects, myself and others use Help:Gadget-Stockphoto. Automatically inserting the alt text into the gadget would increase the usage of alt text across the projects, and therefore increase accessibility of information.

@Jarekt: Did that clear it up? Kees08 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kees08 If we add new "Alt tag" than 45M images will be missing it. I doubt anybody will be adding them to very many old uploads. So for most images there will be no "alt tag". It might make more sense to write some gadget to automatically create alt tag based on description, but even that would be hard. There is also an issue with language, so the gadget would have to verify that the "alt tag" is in the same language as the project where they are adding the image. I think your best bet would be to wait for deployment of Commons:Structured data. It would be much more natural fit there. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Step two of the proposal was going to be to comb the Wikipedias with a bot for Commons images with existing alt tags. If only one article has an alt tag for an image, that one could be transferred to Commons automatically. If more than one exist, some sort of semi-automated process (probably where you have a radio list displayed next to an image and you choose the most appropriate one) could be used to select the best alt tag. Not to mention, I would add them to old uploads, and I am sure I would not be alone. I did not talk about this at first because I did not want to clutter up what I thought was a pretty straight-forward proposal that would help disabled people enjoy our content.
Yeah, it would have to span multiple languages, but that is the nature of Commons.
Reading up on structured data, that seems like a good way to organize data that already exists, but not to generate a lot of new data. Maybe I misread it though.
I think accessibility is really important, worded well by usability.gov: "By making your website accessible, you are ensuring that all of your potential users, including people with disabilities, have a decent user experience and are able to easily access your information."Kees08 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Kees08, The reason I thought structured data would be a good fit was that it is easy to add new metadata to the file and it supports multi language aspect of the data. However it might take a year or two arrive. Was your idea to display the Alt tags or just to store them? If you want just to store them than you can create a new template, like {{Alt description}} which does not show any visible fields and add it anywhere. Since most of us are not familiar with Alt tags, they would require much more explanations. Are interwiki links or hyperlinks allowed? What is the usual content of such tag and how does it differ from regular description? You can probably do a bot run for each language wikipedia without central storage. Write a bot to scrape existing alt tags from images on wikipedia and for each image found, look up if it is used elsewhere on Wikipedia and if so add the Alt tag there if missing. --Jarekt (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used[edit]

As discussed at Commons:Village_pump, Template:Information/author processing template is called by {{Information}} and adds Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used to files where name in the author field matches existing creator template. We had something similar for {{Artwork}} and {{Photograph}} templates. The problem is that {{#ifexist:...}} is an expensive code and for last 6 years all files using {{Information}} do that check. The purpose of the check is to find candidates for adding Creator templates, but the process can not be done by bot (too many people have the same names) and it does not seems like anybody is working on emptying Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used. I think we should remove it. Any objections? --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Optional Parameter requests[edit]

Can we have an optional "publication date" parameter for when publication and creation date are different? Also, since the "description" is for visual description like alt in infoboxes can we have a "notes" parameter that would be to note stuff like context of the photo or art, and it would be a parameter of the infobox? Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of {{Information}} is to provide bare basic. If you need mode we have {{Artwork}} for artworks and other objects, {{Photograph}} for historical photographs, {{Book}} for books and other printed material, {{Maps}}, etc. See Commons:Infobox templates for details. --Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
None of the have those things separated out.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose inclusion of location parameter[edit]

Propose to add the parameters of the 2009 {{Information2}} to this one, adding a "location" field to this by default. The location field could take any input, include a string of text, a Wikidata item, {{Institution}}, or {{Location}}. Various people have proposed this often over the years. It seems that there is some resistance but I fail to understand it and maybe someone else can clarify.

{{Information2}} has been available as an option since May 2006. It has 1400 uses as compared to 42 million for the default template. Problems with Information2 is that it is in limbo between approval and being fringe. As I show below with the list of links, location seems like a popular field request for the information template.

This is not the most urgent request because the 2017-2019 roll out of Commons:Structured data seems likely to change the interface anyway, but I thought that it would be useful to check in about changes for now and to get advice about current best practices.

My own project need is to mark collections of images depicting museum objects and archival documents which are from single institutions and not art. My preference would be to incorporate an {{Institution}} template somewhere that says that an object is at an institution. The objects I am considering are texts and objects from science museum collections.

Here are previous conversations talking about either putting location in the {{Information}} template:

Here is one more discussion from the art template seeking a use for museum objects which are not art:

Thanks Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Example case[edit]

Consider File:Informed Consent Agreement Between Antonio Benigno and Walter Reed (English).jpg. I have some archival documents like this and a collection of medical devices in a university collection. I would like to note somehow that these objects are at the university, or even a particular collection.

Right now I just have an institution template in the description field of the information template. What better way is there for images of this kind of content? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

wikidata[edit]

May we have wikidata parameter as it is in Template:Artwork ?. Is there some alternative template with this parameter, instead?. Thanks, --amador (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In case of {{Artwork}} wikidata parameter has clear meaning: an item which stores metadata for a given artwork. {{Information}} template used by great majority of files, is meant to be used mostly for photographs taken by the uploaders and 2/3 of images on Commons use one of CC license templates( mostly used by such files). Such files do not have associated items on Wikidata, and the danger is that people will be adding Wikidata items for subjects or creators instead. --Jarekt (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

machine-readability[edit]

I noticed that this template adds all pages with the parameter "Author" capitalized to Category:Files with no machine-readable author. If the parameter is lower-case, then everything is OK. Could anybody with edit rights resolve this issue? --Jarash (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Transcription parameter[edit]

Please can we have a |Transcription= parameter, like in {{Artwork}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Artwork doesn't have a transcription field. Did you mean the inscriptions field? I don't think it make sense to add an inscriptions field to the Information template as it intended for items with basic information. However, if you can't use {{Artwork}}, don't want to use {{inscription}} inside the description, and you need to add an inscriptions field to {{Information}}, you can use the other fields field to add a custom field. For example, you could do something like the following:
{{Information 
 |description    = 
 |date           = 
 |source         = 
 |author         = 
 |permission     = 
 |other versions = 
 |other fields={{Information field |name={{int:wm-license-artwork-inscriptions}} |value={{inscription |1=example inscription |position=bottom right}}}}
}}
RP88 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant |inscriptions=. Thank you for the work-around, but a dedicated parameter would be far less kludgy and so more user-friendly. My request stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)