Template talk:Pixabay

Rework of template

It has been requested on the Village pump to support also Pixabay videos (latest reaction: Special:PermaLink/218304227#Pixabay video URL). While investigating, if and how this could be done, I noticed the template has some slight issues (note also Special:PermaLink/219432896#Template:Pixabay):

• You cannot tell it from the documentation, but if you look into the source you will see, that in fact you can add up to 3 Pixabay IDs (source of version Special:PermaLink/185954040), which means you will get links to up to 3 source files. But the phrasing of the language sub templates is only for one file, so either the language sub templates has to be adapted or, much simpler, this ability has again to be removed. Instead, the source files, itself from Pixabay, could be separately uploaded, get the Pixabay template, and the combination of both could point to them with the template {{Derived from}}and get itself the {{Cc-zero}} license template.
• For maintenance and potential enhancement regarding video files it would be better to add the URL to the main template.

Thinking of all this I've created a set of sandbox sub templates and a testcase page here, cf. Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Pixabay/. On some uncritical parts I simplified for testing purposes. What I noticed just after creation, the Pixabay URL and the according parameters could even get more simplified by getting rid of the language specific parts, because this does Pixabay alone, see yourself: https://pixabay.com/ – https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#usage If there is no serious concern I will in some days:

1. for all files with more than one Pixabay source (6 at time of writing, cf. search results) do the steps written above.  Done, Speravir 03:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
2. copy the code from sandbox into main template, adapt all existing lang templates and update the documentation, of course.  Done, Speravir 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

— Speravir – 23:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I’ve simplified the code just now, because the language specific parts in web address are not necessary, as shown above. — Speravir – 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Template rework is done. Videos can safely use it now. — Speravir – 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Integrating License review into the template

I created an improvement of this template in the Sandbox. It integrates the License review feature into the template, so, a few more parameters has been added. It works just like the {{Indian navy}} tag. Please discusse this change in order to move to the main template. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think, this is a good idea. Since the name of the reviewer is optional, the phrasing should be adapted for the confirmed state, though – I made an according change to the English sandbox template (note also the change with   and removing a space char before, necessary because of the following comma). For the layout: Why not add a general text (in English) as default (both confirmed and unconfirmed states without user and date) instead of “Text”, despite that usually the English lang version will be used as default? For template {{PBLR}}: Why not replacing the date like in {{Lrw}}? This method is my opinion better readable. — Speravir – 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

For the general text as default confirmed and unconfirmed, I considered that (just like {{Indian Navy}}, but I preferred to fully internationalize the text, including the license review part. And for the date, I adapted your edition to use the {{Date}} template (and yes, the ~~~~~ was a bad idea). I think that the template is ready to be moved for production. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the way you’ve chosen is also in my eyes better. Regarding the texts in the layout I forgot, that there is already the upper license part where also simply “empty” is inserted into the layout template, but never will be seen under normal conditions. Nonetheless I slightly changed the phrasing for both states. Also I had to revert my change in the english subtemplate, I obviously had not read the template code carefully enough (the addition for the case no name was given), a look into the testcases would have revealed this for me (I did not save my test from today); I resolved the redirects, though. In regard to the upper part in the layout I have another idea: There are not that many language sub templates, so I would suggest to change the parameter text into something like license_text to make this clear and also to adapt it to the parameters introduced by your enhancement, Amitie. This would also help to better distinguish it from the text parameter for the included message box. And the 5 tildes are not a bad idea, but the way you've had split them, was hard to understand. By using the {{Date}} template I now have the funny situation, that I get the English text with a German date. Well, for German readers this will be solved later … BTW I do not understand the way the {{Empty template}} is used, but I see you copied it from {{Lrw}}. I did not save tests, though, probably that’s the real issue. ;-) — Speravir – 17:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from my suggestion I think, too, the changes could be inserted into the real template set. But note, that I had commented out the categories in some places. — Speravir – 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: Alas, my first intention was right: If a language sub template exists, but this is missing the parameters for confirmed and unconfirmed text, the content from the layout is shown. So it had to be enhanced. — Speravir – 02:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Amitie 10g, regarding the replacement of existing license reviews: Will this be done with a bot? One of yours? Do not forget, that there are files waiting for review ({{LicenseReview}} without parameters). — Speravir – 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm still finding a solution. I could use a custom bot to find and replace everything. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I’ve added {{LicenseReview}} with VisualFileChange, so it could easily be removed again for all files, where this template is unchanged. And actually after a bit thinking I believe, it should be possible, too, to move the {{LicenseReview}} parameters user and date to the respective {{Pixabay}} parameters (using the RegEx abilities if VFC). The issue I observed last time was, that VFC not reliably enough marked only files with this template (or without, as I needed it). Oh, before saving I just see, that in the moment there is only one image with the bare {{LicenseReview}} and this has a deletion request (search results). — Speravir – 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition: This works in VFC for all files, where {{LicenseReview}} comes straight after {{Pixabay}} (RegEx engine has to be active, of course)

• Pattern to match: /(\{\{[Pp]ixabay[^\}]*)\}\}\n*\{\{[Ll]icenseReview[^\}]*?\|user=([^\|]+)(\|date=[^\}]+\}\})/g
• Text to insert instead: $1|status=confirmed|reviewer=$2$3.

But there is a certain unknown amount of files, where {{LicenseReview}} is on another place in the description wiki text, these must probably later manually be changed. — Speravir – 22:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll start the migration to the new template using PassLicense. I'll categoriuze the files into a temp category called Category:Pixabay files for migration to be easily listed for PassLicense, and migrate them manually. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I’ve asked it on another place, as well, but: What is PassLicense?

Amitie 10g, there is an issue we both did not notice: In {{LicenseReview}} the date is expected to be added as ISO date. This is not converted now on migration. Either all ISO date occurrences have to be converted now separately or, much easier, we adapt {{PBLR}} and lang sub templates to the LicenseReview style, cf. {{Lrw}}, |date={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#time: Y-m-d }}, and {{LicenseReview/en}}, reviewed on {{ISOdate|{{{date|}}}|en}}, and the documentation, of course.— Speravir – 01:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Village Pump, the migration is done. As you mentioned about the parameter date, feel free to edit the layout to accept the date in ISO format and display in the local date using {{Date}} (I'm going to do other stuff) (I already undo my changes to {{PBLR}} to provide the date in ISO format). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. For future reference see also Special:PermaLink/226710981#Migration of Pixabay files to the new template (proposals under village pump, what Amitie was speaking about). — Speravir – 02:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploads without this template

@Josve05a: User:Pixeltoo is uploading files from Pixabay without using this template (example). May you please talk to him?--Hilfsdienst (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date

The cutoff date in the template should be in 2019, not 2018. Just corrected this. SuperJedi224 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Better wording for review template?

At a recent undeletion request, the issue was raised that the text of the "review passed" portion of this template doesn't correctly reflect reality. The current text reads "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, was reviewed on [date] by reviewer [username], who confirmed that it was available on Pixabay on that date." At issue is that this wording doesn't correctly reflect the website's updated licensing, nor how any reviews after the change (9 January 2019) are actually engaging with the files they're reviewing.

As far as I understand, files uploaded to Pixabay before they changed their sitewide license on 9 January 2019 were licensed under the irrevocable CC-Zero dedication. That this applied to all files on the site means that the only pertinent information is when the image was uploaded, rather than that is was available at a certain date. To that end, I propose updating the text of the review passed template (the green box) to read something like "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, was reviewed on [date] by reviewer [username], who confirmed that it was uploaded to Pixabay before 9 January 2019, when Pixabay switched the old sitewide license for all uploads from Creative Commons CC0 to the Pixabay license which does not meet the free content licensing requirements for Commons. Because this file was first subject to the irrevocable Creative Commons CC0 dedication, it may continue to be distributed under the terms of CC0." Or similar! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)