Template talk:Description missing

categorisation routine

Can the categorisation routine for this be improved? At the moment there are lots of items in Category:Media lacking a description which have a description but no author. I've spotted a few item where I could usefully add a description, only to find they actually have one but are missing the author. eg All those Euro coin pictures. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Railwayfan2005 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Waldir 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the author is missing, please can the media be put into an "Author Missing" category not into the the "Description Missing" cat. Railwayfan2005 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I started work on that a couple weeks ago and ended up not managing to finish... it will be quite easy, just have to change the template for that section and create a new cat. I'll get to it as soon as I have ten minutes free :D -- Editor at Large • talk 05:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we should go about this. We could just add:

{{{category|{{ #ifeq:{{{1}}}
| author information
| [[Category:Media lacking author information]]
| [[Category:Media lacking a description]]
}} }}}

because "author information" is what {{Information}} adds. Really, we should just create a {{Author missing}} and change the Information template. Rocket000 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, made it. Should I injected into {{Information}}? I'll wait a bit in case any improvement need to be made since information is very heavily used and I don't want to upset the servers too much. Rocket000 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Railwayfan2005 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It's in there now. Rocket000 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Blue Hole of Belize -- Scant Content and Horrid Grammar

On the page noted in this subject line, namely your entry concerning the Great Blue Hole of Belize, the following applies. First the data are scant. Data being a plural, the use of the verb "are" is correct! And on the page cited, a reference is made to "this media"! Like "data" "media" is also a plural construct so the reference should be something like, "media are..." So let us not be guilty of wrecking the English language further. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.233.16.157 (talk) 10:40, May 1, 2008‎ (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}}

This template still has parameters {{{1}}} and a {{{category}}} that I suppose is from when it could be used as a generic template (for description, author or source missing, see the discussion above for instance). The wording also still reflects that. This should be changed, in line with the similar templates {{Author missing}} and {{Source missing}}, perhaps to something like

"This media is lacking a description.
Please edit this page and provide a description."

Please update the template to remove the parameters. The wording might have to be discussed before a change. Waldir ^talk 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The category parameter is unrelated. It's in most templates as a category-suppressing method (e.g. to prevent the template from adding the tagged page to any category by setting it equal to an empty string). But you're right, the {{{1}}} parameter is no longer needed so I'll remove that and I've got something better than that {{{category}}}. Rocket000 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I modified {{Author missing}} and {{Source missing}} to include your "something better" =D --Waldir ^talk 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Standardization

I propose a meta template to be created, {{Data missing}}, which would include the html code for the box used in this template, in {{Author missing}} and in {{Source missing}}.

It would be something like

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="cleanup" style="text-align: center; background: #ffe; margin: .75em 15%; padding: .5em; border: 1px solid #e3e3b0;">.{{{text|This media is lacking information. Media should have a summary to inform others of the content, author, source, and date if possible. If you know or have access to such information, please add it to the image page.}}}<br />{{#if:{{{template|}}}|{{lang links|{{{template}}}}}|}}</div><includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Media lacking information|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly><noinclude>

----

Any media bearing this template are automatically added to the hidden {{{category|[[Category:Media lacking information|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}, which is a subcategory of [[:Category:Commons maintenance content]].

[[Category:Media cleanup templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

</noinclude>

then it would then be used like this (i.e. to get something identical to the current version of the {{Author missing}} template):

{{data missing

|text=This media is lacking '''author''' information.

|template={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}

|category=Media lacking author information

}}

Much more simple and clear, and provides a way to standardize these very similar templates. So, what do you think? --Waldir ^talk 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do that, but if we're going to do any standardization we should do it for all clean up templates (most have the yellow box, which is what we'll stick with.) I'm thinking about adding a new class to the site's CSS, (with this style: text-align:center; background:#ffe; margin:.75em 15%; padding:.5em; border:1px solid #e3e3b0;). I want to see if there's some current style maybe we can convert before adding anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see... then perhaps (besides replacing the hardcoded css with a class, which I agree) we could convert {{Cleanup image}} (btw, why does {{Cleanup}} redirect to it and not the other way around?) into a standard meta-template which would then be used in other specific templates with proper parameters, in a fashion similar to the depicted above. That would standardize the format, add the language links (and, if possible, automatically add the internationalized templates to Category:Internationalised media cleanup templates, as it seems some aren't, I'd guess because their categorization is done manually atm), etc. --Waldir ^talk 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've kinda be everywhere with improving and organizing templates. I'm still planing to do the meta-cleanup template. After some talks with someone that knows more than me about CSS vs meta-style-templates, I think we should stick with just templates for cleanup tags. Here's something I threw together: [1]. Nothing finial just some ideas. Feel free to work on it. I got too many projects I'm working on on Commons, so it might take me awhile to get around to finishing. Also see the version of {{Translated tag}} with an autocategorizer in it. It does everything. Categorizes the tagged templates into Category:Translated (something) templates, the local language cat or optionally a local sub-cat (see {{Translated tag/local category-ja}} where I started one local scheme. It also categorizes pages other than templates (should be empty)... That's probably my main focus right now (if I had one) or more work on categorizing (which I could really use help with to finish). Rocket000 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rocket. I need you to clarify your message a bit. You say "I think we should stick with just templates for cleanup tags". First of all, wasn't that the original idea? I mean, I proposed the "data missing" tags, then you proposed all cleanup tags... it was never suggested to dive into other templates, like, say, notice or maintenance as you have in the sandbox you linked. So what exactly did you mean? Anyway, have you found a class that can be recycled, or will you create a new one?
As for the categorization, it seems to be a tough issue on its own, perhaps we should standardize the css first and then work on that. Waldir ^talk 13:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant meta templates instead of CSS. We should use a single style template to standardize cleanup tags. The "notice" and "maintenance" were more or less to put some text in those. At the time, I was think of "notice" types of "cleanup" messages like {{Cleanup image done}}. And see {{JPEG version of PNG}} where I did a trial version of the green one. The alternate colors were just an idea, but that shouldn't be the main focus. Rocket000 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and once we get everything using this meta template and finalized then we can add a CSS class if we want (there's a 30 day cache). Although, we don't even do this for our license templates which are used a lot more. I didn't find a suitable class to recycle, but here's something else I'm working on (far from complete). Rocket000 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess {{Cleanup}} cannot be used for this purpose, as it is used widely even though it is a redirect. So what do you think, something like {{Meta-cleanup}} or something? It could receive a "type" parameter which would determine the color. If you're ok with that I can start working on it and standardizing the existing templates. I can see you have a lot of projects going :) --Waldir ^talk 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Rocket000 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian version

Can you please add the Macedonian interwiki for Template:Description missing/mk. Thanks --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

French version correction

{{Description missing/fr}}

The correct sentence is: " Les images doivent avoir un résumé pour informer les autres sur leur contenu, sur leur auteur, sur leur source et sur leur date si possible. "

Off course i can't modify it directly. 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As per /doc, this is translated by a Translatewiki.net message, you have to login that site to correct. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

International

Is with "Description" every language or mainly English (as principle) is meant? Because I see more exotic languages or Chinese, is this Template not suitable? --Perhelion (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See also

No see also? Hyacinth (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Categorisation + See also link

{{Edit request}} Hello, I suggest adding Category:Message templates and Category:Missing information (with sortkey ‘τ’) to the template doc.

And under "see also" I suggest adding
* {{tl|No documentation}} – for templates
* {{tl|CatDescription missing}} – for categories

Thank you! --W like wiki ^{good to know} 21:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@W like wiki:  Done, thanks for helping! —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: ok, nice! And what about adding * {{tl|CatDescription missing}} – for categories? And second: Why not categorising this template in Category:Message templates and Category:Missing information as requested? Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Unloc doc page

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page.
Administrators: Please apply <nowiki> or {{Tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.

---

Fulfill this request after checking that the code is safe

Raymond

Hello, I understand to loc the template code, but the doc page should be editable, this is more common on commons. Thx --W like wiki ^{good to know} 21:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: And for what use is parameter 1 for? ... Description missing ;) --W like wiki ^{good to know} 21:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if not entirely removed, I think the main template’s protection could be mildened as well – it has only about 800 transclusions since the Lua version of {{Information}} doesn’t transclude it automatically.

The parameter |1= stands for nothing, it just hasn’t been removed when copying the copy template… Now I removed that as well. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: no description

{{Edit request}}

Hello, just an idea, why not bold the "no" as well?

Thx! --W like wiki ^{good to know} 15:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@W like wiki it seems that the same way is used in {{Source missing}} and {{Author missing}}. As nothing is broken and was used for a long time, I would have kept the template as is rubin16 (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@W like wiki See my answere Template_talk:Source_missing#Layout_update_and_highlighting_the_key_message Raymond (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rubin16: Thank you for your answer, but sorry, what you are saying "thinks are so for long time" is the dead of every improvement! So in my humble opinion all three templates need an update: It has become common on Commons that templates with such an importance (all are Media cleanup templates) are looking a bit different. At least like:

This file has no description, and may be lacking other information. Please provide a meaningful description of this file.

Other similar examples:

{{No documentation}}

This template currently has no relevant documentation. Any editor familiar with the purpose and usage of this template is requested to write some documentation.

{{Datasource missing}}

Datasource (reference to visualized facts) is not provided for the data that is visualized in this self-made work.

{{No source since}}

This media file is missing essential source information or appears to have an invalid source listed. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information. Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added on 1 January 0023. Administrators: Check the history to ensure that information has not been removed through vandalism This file has a talk page which may contain important information Check the usage of this file in other Wikimedia projects This page was last edited by Raymond (talk | contribs | logs) Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use {{subst:nsd}}. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader manually.

 

/\{\{\s*([Nn]o[ _]source(?:[ _]since)?)[^\{\}]*\}\}/no sourceThis file has a [[Commons:Source|source]]: ⇓ Challenge speedy deletion
start a regular deletion request/discussion insteadx Remove this tag

{{Wrong license}}

This file may not have the correct information on its copyright status. This template should be used when a file's licensing information seems to be incorrect or inaccurate, to prompt discussion or review by other editors. An experienced editor should contact the uploader and add the proper license tag, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Notify the uploader with: {{subst:Wrong license note|1=Template talk:Description missing}} ~~~~ If this file has insufficient source information, use {{subst:nsd}}. If this file does not have a sufficient claim of permission, use {{subst:npd}}. If this file is a blatant copyright infringement, use {{Copyvio}}. If this file is non-free per Commons:Licencing, start a deletion request. Items tagged with this template are sorted into Category:Items with disputed copyright information.

 

Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)