Template talk:Original upload log

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

Should we start using this template?[edit]

Summary and licensing headers are already available in different languages. Should we do the same with the "original upload log" header? We already got 48 translations. If we do we have to update the transfer bots and update all old images. I think it's worth the effort. Multichill (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"{{Assessment}}" for e.g. File:GinkgoLeaves.jpg#Assessment could be another one.
BTW don't forget to update Commons:Guide to layout/File description pages. -- User:Docu at 21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The message is part of the wm-license extension, so it's at MediaWiki:wm-license-original-upload-log. This imho shouldn't be included directly, so I created this template. It works the same as {{Own}}. Multichill (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I hadn't looked at the wikisyntax of this template. {{int:wm-license-original-upload-log}} is too long and I suppose an inconsistency compared to the two others is an acceptable compromise. This also avoids the problem we still need to solve with the "int:license" header. BTW, would you make one for "assessment" too? -- User:Docu at 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Assessment}} is now ready for use too. Multichill (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ;) I had thought about the extension, but it's probably preferable to convert them first and move them later. -- User:Docu at 10:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If we want to improve the localization of original upload logs, we should go the full way and localize the actual logs and not only the heading. I created a quick example at {{oul}}. To see the template at work look at File:Dornburg.jpg. The file had one of those script created original upload logs, messy, bad formatting, unlocalized. Below the old log you can see the log created by {{oul}}. It looks similar (as far as possible) to the normal file upload history and is localized. The improved localization is especially nice with a non-Arabic decimal system uselang like Hindi. The date and dimensions of the file log are fully localized.
As most "original upload logs" are created by a small number of transfer scripts it should be relatively easy to change them by bot. --Slomox (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
.. and change the scripts ;) -- User:Docu at 10:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I filed a bug to change commonshelper and changed my custom bot. This should cover all new uploads (I'm not aware of any other bots using this).
Search and replace of the current usage it's easy, but probably best to combine this with all the other i18n edits. Multichill (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
What's with all the "#" signs there ? (permalink) –Krinkletalk 22:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't want to use a {{oul}}-like solution? --Slomox (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we can do that too, I would just not combine it into one template. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not? --Slomox (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Several reasons: Readability of the source code, and complexity with the [edit] links, perhaps more reasons but this comes to mind. –Krinkletalk 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So readability of the source is more important than readability of the rendered text? (btw: I do not agree with the argument in the first place, I think the old code is less readable in source than the oul code (see source of File:Dornburg.jpg), but that might be subjective.)
The [edit] links can be removed. That's easy to do. --Slomox (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


For consistency with the other headers, why not use {{int:original-upload-log}} (a possible redirect to the longer name)? It has the benefit(?) of reducing template calls and avoids the unnecessary links (one less heavily used template to worry about). Rocket000 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, for consistency sake. Rehman 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Should we add __NOEDITSECTION__ to this section/section header? --  Docu  at 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because that hides the [edit] link for all sections. As far as I know a magic word to hide it for one heading only is yet to be invented. –Krinkletalk 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone invents that, I would support this proposal. Multichill (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I thought it would apply just to this section. --  Docu  at 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)