Template talk:Information

Frequent errors with the Template:{{Information}}

Items from wikimedia, other projects and sister wikis should be expressed by an internal link and never by a URL.

date

As its name says, a date should be a date – and not a timestamp. Templates like e.g. ISOdate or Upload date will generate the correct format.
The rather incorrect parameter e.g. yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss won't disturb and is corrected with the next cleanup.
But only the date-format yyyy-mm-dd can be displayed correctly in the users preference and translated into national languages.
Year, month and day (month an day optional) of the date should never be written as 04.05.06 or 7/8/09 — even the cleanup script will have problems to interpret and correct it !

source

Best will be to use a template – e.g.

• {{Own}}00 – the standard; other "own" templates are e.g.
• {{Using}} – when an URL (or an explanation) follows
• {{Based}} – when one or more files should be specified (optional with their creator and/or file display)
• {{Taken}} – when a camera should be specified (or {{Scanned}} when the file results from a scan)

The source field may also bear the specification of attributed files.

author or artist

The standard is to specify a wikipedian with the Template:{{U}} or one of its variations - they comprise other namespaces and projects, e.g.sister-wikis;
everywhere instead of a (single) user a user list or a Creator can be specified.
When an SVG file is the result of a conversion from a raster image, the Template:AutVec can specify both users (or user lists) and the raster original (or file list);
it is a bad style to specify original file[s] and their creator[s] otherwise and more complicated !
Whenever possible, author/artist/vectorizer should be a linkable item. Never use "me", "myself", "own" or other non-informative nonsense !

---

---

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

{{Section resolved|1=~~~~}}

0

Accessible description field needed

There needs to be a way to enter an accessible text description of all images. I suggest adding an "Accessible description" parameter to the template. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: it's not clear to me what the problem is you are trying to solve. Can you elaborate? Multichill (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Bild Ixh mit 14

Ich habe die Lizenz von meinem Vater der leider 2 Monate vor meiner Geburt verstorben ist geerbt, und möchte dieses Bild mit Lizenz CC-0 veröffentlichen. Dieses bild ist für alles und jeden nutzbar. Ich Abby1097 die Urhaberin dieses Photo gebe jeglichen Rechte an Commons frei. Abby1097 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

<translate>について

テンプレートの解説の翻訳を、<translate>で行ってほしいです。日本語に翻訳したいのですが、現状ではそのやり方がよく分かりません。 シェン,アーナリー,ン,アーバァ. (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Change target for auto-categorization

Per CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/09/Category:Images without source, Category:Images without source is to be merged into Category:Media without a source. To that end, Module:Information (line 183) needs to change from source='Images without source' to source='Media without a source'. Josh (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Multichill and Jarekt: Would you be able to take on this edit, or know who would be able to? Thanks! Josh (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Josh I think it would be better to keep files with different issues separate. Category:Images without source is a category used since 2007 by variety of infobox templates to flag files where those templates detected empty source field, or lack of matching SDC data. To change it we would need to track down the location in {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, etc. where it is specified. Category:Media without a source is a meta category organizing subcategories of files using {{No source since}} template. Files in both categories rely on different triggers and dumping 32k files with empty "source" to a category for files with {{No source since}} template will make it harder to tell what needs to be fixed. The consensus in this discussion was reached when a single user agreed with IP, I think we need more broad consensus that the current state is a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It makes sense to me. I'll reopen the CfD, and would appreciate if you could contribute there (or with your permission, I will quote your response there at least). Josh (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Multichill and Jarekt: See new CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Images without source. Josh (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

template to add <has parts> and/or <part of>?

I have come across many images cropped form one big image. The property <Other versions> is used denote relationship which I wonder of its suitability, see Stanford's map. I believe that the property "Other versions" does not adequately communicate the relationship among the various image files cropped/excerpted from its larger file. I would like to suggest that the WD's has part(s) P527 and part of (P361) are rather relevant in this WMC repository. ShiehJ (talk) ShiehJ (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@ShiehJ: I use CropTool for cropping, and {{Extracted from}} and {{Image extracted}} or dFX to preserve source links. Perhaps we can use those to trigger such properties.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.I failed to convey the two qualifiers in the SDC, {{Extracted from}} and {{Image extracted}} when I first submitted my request. Thank you for pointing them out! One question, as I am not yet familiar with the WMC SDC query, will I be able to use them for query and result grouping? As for the dFX, I would think not. A derivative to me communicates a brand new work that is based on an original. For instance, a film based on a book. Such film is considered a derivative in my community. However, that may not be agreeable to you and others? Thanks so much for your help! PS: Appreciated very much the excerpted images provided me citation link to a couple of Wikipedia articles! ShiehJ (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)