Template talk:Information

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

Can we add {{Private correspondence}} to the list of acceptable options in the Source field?[edit]

{{edit request}}I've been wondering how to handle a recent concern I've had with how to properly fill in the |source= field for an image I uploaded when the author had given his permission in a private OTRS message and wished to remain confidential. I was eventually informed by LX that the correct option to use would have been {{Private correspondence}}. It would have been great if I could have found this right here in the Information template, and I would like to request that it be added to the description of |source= here so that it won't be so difficult for editors in the future to find. Can this be done? KDS4444 (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears I was able to do this myself after all. This edit request may be ignored. KDS4444 (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing dates[edit]

Hi all, i'd like to find all files with missing date. Is there any easy way? Maybe we could add a category similar to when the author is missing. --Arnd (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, missing dates are not a big problem, compared to missing author or source. --Leyo 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
i know, but is this a reason against having such a category? I agree that a warning on the description page is not required. But a maintenance category would help at least me in reducing missing date. --Arnd (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am indifferent here, weighing benefits and costs. Other opinions? --Leyo 21:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, i think i can generate such a list also by parsing a Commons dump or something like this. --Arnd (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If "missing dates are not a big problem", why is this field declared to be "required"? Currently I'm working at an upload tool. This tool can give user warnings, if required fields are empty. Therefore I need to know, if "date" is required or not. --Hasenläufer (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we should either have a date or a {{unknown|date}} template signifying that date of creation is unknown. Also photographs uploded under {{PD-old}} or similar templates should not use date of the upload in the "date" field. That said I do think that date is required in the same sense a license is or an author or copyright holder for copyrighted files (like Creative Commons files). Lack of date should not be a reason for deletion (except if it is required to validate license). I am OK with Arnd proposal to track images without date, although I am not sure what to do with such images. --Jarekt (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Therefore the documentation of this parameter's status should be changed from "required" to "recommended". Right? --Hasenläufer (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Done --Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Hasenläufer (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata item[edit]

I remember I has Wikidata items added to some of my files, but I do not remember which files that were, and I can not find out now what is the appropriate template field. If someone remembers what the field is, could you please update the template information? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We do not have wikidata field for {{Information}} template but {{Artwork}}, {{Photograph}} and many others have one. --Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Probably it was Artwork, i will search.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Image generation[edit]

Currently only Other fields can be used for Image generation information; Other fields 1 is not an acceptable option.
Much more sense would give a new parameter, located between Author and Permission, like

<!-- Image generation -->
{{#if:{{{imgen|{{{Imgen|}}} }}}{{{demo|<noinclude>1</noinclude>}}}|
{{{imgen|{{{Imgen|}}} }}} }}

This Imgen would

  • be at a better location (near the Autor),
  • don't waste the "other fields",
  • use a shorter and easier to type parameter name
  • have an own, mnemonic identification useable for further maintenance
  • like in {{COAInformation}} and {{Map}}.

Can we discuss that? At the sandbox an example is inserted. sarang사랑 09:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

All other parameter names are words, while your suggested name is not easily understandable to anyone. I'd suggest to leave the template as is. --Leyo 10:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And how about the name "Image generation" ? It's coding would look like

<!-- Image generation -->
{{#if:{{{Image generation|{{{image generation|{{{Imgen|{{{imgen|}}}}}}}}}}}}{{{demo|<noinclude>1</noinclude>}}}|
{{{Image generation|{{{image generation|{{{Imgen|{{{imgen|}}}}}}}}}}}} }}

(without the understroke-variations, IMHO not necessary). At testcases an example is shown. sarang사랑 06:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)