Template talk:Information/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Add optional "Assessments" parameter

Example

Description
Date
Source
Author

Discussion

{{editprotected}}

Code to be added (after </table>): {{{assessments|}}}

Field would only show up if an assessments parameter is passed a value (which would be {{assessments}} itself) as it appears above. This is to make sure assessments template(s) always appear after Information template. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think anything like this should be part of the template–it is an info-box, with a user-defined content. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User:Petrus Adamus --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You do realize, in terms of appearance nothing would change, right? The idea is to enforce assessments template be put below {{Information}}, not above. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't enforce people using the argument to this template any easier than you can enforce people putting it below the Information template. I also fail to see a good reason to add it to this template. 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done. Please obtain consensus before adding {{editprotected}}.
As for my opinion: I don't think this is a good idea. This template should stay as simple as possible. Multichill (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Empty permission parameter

The documentation says that an empty permission-parameter is presented as "See below.". This does not seem to be true. --Bensin (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It was changed after a resolution on COM:VP. The documentation must be updated. -- Rillke(q?) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

use of "License" instead of "Permission" parameter

Lately I was doing a lot of adding of "no license" templates to images with no license, and noticed that a common mistake made by many people is the use of "License" instead of "Permission" parameter, see here. I do not know how often that happens, but I run into it few dozen times in last few weeks. I would like to propose to either add "License" as alternative name to "Permission" or at least create maintenance category to catch those cases. --Jarekt (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer a maintenance category or link. --Leyo 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer to add license as an alternative name, as it is simpler and sounds reasonable. However it has been argued that "permission" should contain things like OTRS and not the license proper (though I do not thik it makes any sense and it does not match the template doc)--Zolo (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That actually is my point. Only OTRS should be inside the information template, but no license templates, especially if they are long. --Leyo 19:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that long license templates do not look very good inside {{Information}}. But I do not think it makes sense to have the OTRS inside the template and the license out. Inside is more visible than below, so we should put more important things there. License templates are much more important to the final user than OTRS (OTRS are for maintenance only, and final readers should not have to be bothered with that)--Zolo (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I do not think we need to debate proper placement of licenses in the image (in "permission" field or outside of the template). A lot of ink was spilled on that discussion and as a result large fractions of the images use both system. I think both systems are here to stay, no matter what anybody thinks or wishes. In the mean time I was trying to figure out what to do with images that mistakenly use "License" instead of "Permission" parameter to store licenses and as a result the license is not displayed. I will start with a maintenance category to see how many images might be affected. If number is small enough (as I hope) we can easily replace "License" with "Permission" field. --Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done See Category:Information template using 'License' parameter. The images will start filtering in slowly. --Jarekt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

span class="description"

{{edit request}} Often leads to invalid HTML, HTML-Tidy them moves the span to an inner element and the mess is complete. See e.g. Template talk:Description#Inconsistent HTML tags

Therfore I suggest changing <span class="description"> to <div class="description"> which is allowed having div-children. -- Rillke(q?) 23:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


I do not know much about different HTML tags. Why do we even have <span class="description">, are there any programs that use those? --Jarekt (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's part of the emitted microformat; the suggested change won't harm that. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking or External Linking for the Author Field

For this page:

File:Syriancivilwarcollage2.png

I was wondering if it was reasonable to go and wikilink (or external link) for the names in the author field.

I picked a few random pages, and saw whether this was done or not.

File WikiLink External Link
File:Entrée Institut de France 23 quai de Conti.jpg Yes
File:Edificio principal, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-21, DD 04.JPG Yes
File:Nubes Mammatus en Yacanto, Córdoba, Argentina.JPG Yes
File:Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM without hood.jpg
File:Weatherreports Zugspitzplatt Bavaria Germany 20101006.jpg Yes
File:Dolphin A.JPG Yes
File:(Monte Carlo, from Fort Antoine, Monaco (Riviera)) (LOC) - The Library of Congress.jpg Yes

So I think it is reasonable to go ahead and add wikilinks or external links in the author field.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Has been done for this particular file:
File:Syriancivilwarcollage2.png
Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikilinks would be preferable, but for images copied from flickr, and similar sites we often use external links. --Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
okay, thanks for the feedback. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 22:15, 1 February 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)

Symbol keep vote.svg 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)

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)

Examples for other_versions

Can I get an example of what to put in other_versions? I'd like File:President Bush holds Jessica McClure during the Midland Community Spirit Award Presentation in the Roosevelt Room at... - NARA - 186402.tif and File:President George H.W. Bush holds Jessica McClure in the Roosevelt Room at the White House (1989-07-19).jpg to reference each other. TJRC (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done by someone already. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

German Translation

{{Edit request}}

The term:

  • "Dieses Bild verfügt über keine Beschreibung oder es fehlen wichtige Informationen."

is not good and should be:

  • "Dieses Bild hat keine Beschreibung, oder es fehlen wichtige Informationen."

or:

  • "Bei diesem Bild fehlen eine Beschreibung oder andere wichtige Informationen."

Reason: "verfügt über" is baroque blabla and redundant for "hat" (engl.: "has"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.206.247 (talk • contribs)

The translation is at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wm-license-information-description-missing/de. Can a German speaker edit it, if the proposed version is better? --Jarekt (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Related question: Do we need the second part, i.e. (in English) “This file has no description, and may be lacking other information.”? --Leyo 14:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, not really but you have to discuss this with Siebrand or Multichill. I don't want to waste my time running against walls. -- Rillke(q?) 12:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. Also, "Image" had to be replaced with "File". -- Rillke(q?) 12:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding TemplateData information

Hello there - as part of a GSoC project, we're probably going to want to change this template to have TemplateData information in it, so we can automatically determine the information we can/should include in the UploadWizard details forms. This is part of a grander scheme to shift away from hard-coded support for Commons-specific templates and towards more configurable forms, as well as towards supporting multiple templates (so pictures and other image types could also have their own forms, in time, and artwork and books will be our first targets for expansion). If someone more experienced with this particular template wants to do the TemplateData spec, that would be great, else I'd be happy to draft it and push it once it's ready. --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when is TemplateData activated here? Will we get IntelliSense soon?
But seriously, I would like to see this integrated into Template:TemplateBox instead to be messed into each template in JSON-format. Would this be possible? If, at all, please create a template/LUA module that builds the JSON. JavaScript object notation -– I love it, but I doubt that the default wiki user does. They will mess with the quotes, with Array and Object brackets. -- Rillke(q?) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if User:Krinkle has any plans for something like that, I guess you could ask him. For now I've put a beta version into Template:Information/sandbox/TemplateData and I'd be willing to explore how to flesh out the descriptions (I'm still not sure whether they're supposed to be wikitext, or what, but like I said I'm willing to play with it) and I think it's generally a good plan to move some of this infrastructure stuff into machine-readable formats. --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally machine readable data is important and useful, yes. But adding redundant information isn't. I think a LUA module could do the job and Template:TemplateBox must be rewritten as VisualEditor will also access this data, I guess. -- Rillke(q?) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I copied this to {{Information}}'s documentation and did a null-edit to the template itself. API result. Ricordisamoa copied a LUA-JSON module here and I just tried it: It seems to work: {{#tag:templatedata|{{#invoke:JSON/usetest|test|description=This is a description}}}} -- Rillke(q?) 10:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Helpfully, gerrit:71915 is adding an extra string type so we can represent things that are short-form text. Ideally date would be included as this type, if you wouldn't mind another update...but the patch isn't merged yet, either, so wait for it please :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Voilà! Migration is in progress. -- Rillke(q?) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And now also Commons:TemplateData. -- Rillke(q?) 21:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Detect missing information

I often found the word "unknown" as author or source data (eg.[1]) and this is enough to fool the template and avoid the {{Source missing}} or {{Author missing}} categorization. I'm a bot operator, so I could blank any blatant nonsense from author, data, source and description field parameters... but in my opinion we should also modify this template in order to immediately detect some obvious unacceptable values. Eg. "no", "none", "unknown", "I don't know", "foo", "empty", "nobody", "internet", "web", "?", "??", "missing". If there is enough consensus I can both prepare a modified version of this template and run the bot in order to detect and blank a broader range of nonsense data. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unknown" author is an legitimate statement, for many types of licenses. For example if it is {{PD-old-100}} work created in 16 century, {{Anonymous-EU}} work or {{PD-Polish}}, {{PD-GermanGov}} or many other types of works. However "Unknown" author and CC or {{PD-old-auto}} would be problematic. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
For the “author” field, many variants should be replaced by {{unknown|authors}} or removed (depending on the case). There is also a lot of nonsense in the “other_versions” field. --Leyo 14:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance category for pages using nonexistent parameters

In de.wikipedia, file pages using nonexistent parameters within Template:Information are categorized into a maintenance category. It is done using Module:TemplatePar. I suggest the same approach for Commons. Thoughts? --Leyo 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe we can detect it, but I am afraid that we will just find another huge number of images with that issue, and than someone will have to fix them. So in other words there is no need for maintenance category if someone is not going to be working on fixing them. And we do seem to have a lot of existing maintenance categories that need emptying. Category:Media without a license: needs history check, Category:License review needed or Category:Creator template maintenance comes to mind. So many maintenance categories - so little time --Jarekt (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There are indeed likely to be many file pages affected, but IMO such a category would provide a good starting point for semi-automatic fixes. In most of your examples, the fixes need to be done manually after careful review. I guess that there are e.g. many cases with spelling errors in parameters or “[Ll]icense” as a parameter. --Leyo 09:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I created Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter for the parameter errors. --Leyo 15:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What about including templates transcluding Template:Information as done for Template:Book, here too? --Leyo 08:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There are no templates in the category yet. I had fixed a few before. I'd guess that there are many user templates producing errors, but I fear that if we extended the check to the user name space, we would get lots of sandboxes and similar into the maintenance category. --Leyo 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Parameter 1 errors

Parameter 1 errors make up a large fraction of all errors in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. They are usually caused by an incorrect use of or missing special characters, whereas the other errors occur from spelling errors or the inadvertent use of non-defined parameters. What about adding 1= to the list of optional parameters and to create a subcategory for these errors? Category:Pages using Information template with parameter 1 errors? IMHO this splitting would facilitate fixing the errors (semi)automatically. --Leyo 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No opposition, neither to the splitting nor to the category name? --Leyo 20:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support for split and GA candidate.svg Weak support for category name. I can not think of better category name, but this one might be hard to understand for people not familiar with the topic. The split will probably require changes in Lua code. may be we can detect duplicate parameters as well (like 2 conflicting authors, etc.) --Jarekt (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What about Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors then? What would need to be done is to add 1= to the list of allowed parameters.
According to User:PerfektesChaos (creator of Module:TemplatePar) detecting duplicate parameters is not possible in a similar way as we do with undefined parameters. --Leyo 10:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors would be better, I think. However I still not sure, how are you planning to implement it. My guess is that you are going to add 1= to the list of allowed parameters so we do not detect it as error, but we will add {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[[[Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors]]]]}} to detect it's presence? --Jarekt (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is my plan. Like this we would not capture empty parameters 1 caused by a duplicate pipe any longer. This may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. --Leyo 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
What about
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<span style="color:red">Syntax error in [[Template:Information]]: “{{{1}}}”</span>[[Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors]]}}
or similar? Displaying the value of parameter 1 would allow users to find the reason quicker. --Leyo 15:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I would suggest removing the {{#if:{{{license|}}}|...}} block at the same time. --Jarekt (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Done, but the effect will take time to show. Unless a bot touches all files in the parent category…
There is an unwanted line break in the error message (example). One option would probably be to replace the “ ” by '' ''. Does anybody have an alternative solution? --Leyo 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} @Leyo: I think it would be better to detect empty parameter 1s (example). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999, All empty parameter 1s as in ("{{Information|") were removed several times by me and the others, but there is always more when you check in a few days. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
IMO my edit may be undone once we've cleaned up the legacy cases. But for now, it helps for (semi)automated fixing. --Leyo 13:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

License

Detached from section above:
Also what should we do with Category:Information template using 'License' parameter. Do we still need it as a separate category? It seems like people often add "license" instead of "Permission" (it makes much more sense for storing licenses). We could either add it as an alternative to "Permission" or remove the check since it is already done through Module:TemplatePar. Too bad about detecting duplicate parameters. --Jarekt (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As I do not like license templates in the Permission field anyway, I would prefer not to add “License”/“license” as alternatives.
I guess that after having cleaned up the hundred legacy cases, we do not need Category:Information template using 'License' parameter anymore. --Leyo 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I have clean them up once or twice before. It is a common error to make. I am neutral about license templates in the Permission field (although I do not use it in my uploads), however that is where many people place licenses. We are not going to change that. --Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How can we get rid of the 7 remaining files? I don't know why they are in this category. --Leyo 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File_can_not_be_edited_due_to_blacklisted_external_site --Jarekt (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Licences for coats of arms

  • Apparently the presentation of coats of arms is free in any single wikipedia, why not in all of them at once.
  • One more aspect of this topic: Coats of arms are a kind of a logo. Recently, the copyright for logos has become stricter in Germany, due to a decision of a court of justice. So I phoned to the association of designers about the presentation of logos for presenting their bearers. The answer was that using the logo for a report on the institution or comapny, the logo has been designed for, is a case of freedom of press. Licence fees only have to be paid, if you use the logo for another desire.--Ulamm (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting but I am afraid this might not be a right place to discuss it, since this forum is mostly to discuss technical aspects of the information template. I would try Commons:WikiProject Heraldry. As for licenses on coats of arms, my understanding is that whoever draw them is the copyright holder even if the design might be in public domain. In that respect they are different than logos. As for no license fees for logos if used to illustrate topics related to the company they were designed for. That is not good enough for the inclusion on Commons (or wikipedia), since we only take content released under free licenses, that would allow any use. See COM:LIC. --Jarekt (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
To me it is a question much wider than heraldy. Almost every company busy in production or transport has its logo. The company buys the full rights for this logo in order to use it on each item produced, or on each coach and each ticket. And WP usually presents this logo in its article on this company.--Ulamm (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest to move this discussion to e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Leyo 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)