Template talk:Commons category

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also Wikipedia:Sister projects


I think the colon should go. In prose writing, a colon separating (in this case) "related to" and the object is not accepted. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You got that right! Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
It's a job for {{Commons}} though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
Change has finally been made over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_16#Link_templates_for_other_Wikimedia_projects. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Cat for empty parameter 1[edit]

I propose to track uses of this template that don't have an explicit Commons category set. The purpose is to prevent page moves from changing a valid use to an invalid use, by filling in the parameter 1. Code is in the sandbox. You can try it in the newly created testcases page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Should we be doing the same to {{Commons category-inline}}? Keith D (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If they don't match, then the link goes red on the wikipedia page and someone will see that and fix it or tell someone who can - in which case one would be better searching for commons category redlinks rather than all links. It doesn't help at all with catching this problem and only serves to bury them in a very large list of valid links, and to make things worse, it wastes the time of new editors that could be doing other tasks that are more pressing. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@NiD.29: I have never seen a redlink produced by either {{Commons category}} or {{Commons category-inline}}. Please give an example where one is shown; or where one was shown in the past but has subsequently been fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - I've seen no redlinks on empty Commons links. And I think that's something that should be tracked for easy cleanup purposes. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My mistake as I thought I recalled seeing a redlink before but they won't create now as clicking the link generates a page doesn't exist page - wondering though -
Why not run a regular expression on every en.wikipedia page to extract the {{Commons category}} or {{Commons category-inline}} link strings (and all variations), or if not found, the name of the page, then cross reference to a list of wikimedia Commons page names to eliminate all the entries that have non-redirected wikimedia pages, which would then leave just the problematic links that need to be fixed? Is there a reason this wouldn't work? A separate listing could then be made of just those pointing to redirects, so they too can be fixed. By relying on the text in the tag rather than letting the tag generate it automatically, it greatly increases the likelihood of a typo, which unless every page is then rechecked, will point to the non-page again. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please don't use the term "wikimedia", it's ambiguous - as I stated at User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Commons template fixing?. If you mean Wikimedia Commons, then call it Commons, as most other people do. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixed - now can you answer the question? - NiD.29 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong edit[edit]

Maybe this made it wrong? Newone (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong? Keith D (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted the doc on "use colon"[edit]

I reverted the doc which claimed "use colon to put this template all by itself". Simply you can stash it in the last section, regardless of the presence of the "external links" section, as written in WP:SIS#Where to place links. Or, you can use {{commons-inline}} like:

--Ahora (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why italics?[edit]

Why is the category rendered in italics? (I think this occurs in {{Commons}}.) {{Commons-inline}}, IMO correctly, doesn't do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013: Check Wikidata errors[edit]

Update: See new comments below. Legoktm (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add a snippet of code that would check for errors in the data stored on Wikidata. This won't change the page text in anyway, besides adding a tracking category. This would have the benefit of correcting errors that are present on Wikidata as well as errors that may exist here on the English Wikipedia. Wikidata data was imported from multiple wikis, so by identifying these errors, we can potentially correct them on multiple wikis extremely easily.

{{#if: {{#property:P373}} | {{#ifeq: {{#property:P373}} | {{#if:x| {{{1| {{PAGENAME}} }}} }} | | [[Category:Articles where the Commons category differs from Wikidata]] }}

I haven't created this category yet, so if the accepting admin could create it and add {{hiddencat}} to it. Legoktm (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm test driving this on the Dutch Wikipedia. It's a bit more extensive. It adds 5 possible categories:
  1. Local link same as link on Wikidata (1 is set). Good! At some point in the future we want to remove the local contents (move to 3)
  2. Local link different as link on Wikidata (1 is set). Need fix!
  3. Local page title same as link on Wikidata (1 is not set). Good! All done
  4. Local page title different as link on Wikidata (1 is not set). Need fix!
  5. No link on Wikidata, we need to import something
You might want to wait a bit until we got all the bugs out of it and just copy that code. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow great. Sounds like a good idea :) Legoktm (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Very nice idea, I like it! -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 12:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This is very cool. Once you folks work it out I’ll copy it to the French language Wikipedia as well. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, modified it a bit to only work in article and category namespace. Should be in a includeonly section:
<!-- Some tracking categories to see if we're ready to switch to Wikidata -->
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{ns:14}}=<!-- Only articles and categories. -->
 | {{#if:{{{1|}}}
  | {{#ifeq:{{#property:P373}}|{{{1|}}}
   | [[Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata]] <!-- We want to end up here -->
   | [[Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata]] <!-- Figure out the best link -->
  | {{#ifeq:{{#property:P373}}|{{PAGENAME}}
   | [[Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata]] <!-- Ending up here is just fine -->
   | [[Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata]] <!-- Figure out the best link here too -->
 | [[Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata]] <!-- These we still need to import -->
Feel free to improve the naming of the categories. What do you think? Is it ready?
A note, a small number of pages will end up in the wrong category, see Bugzilla: 47619. Multichill (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, great. I've re-enabled the editprotected template and will create those categories shortly. Legoktm (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done James F. (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Woo thanks! Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories is slowly being populated :) Legoktm (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to extract this code to some generic template as similar stuff might need to be done in a number of other templates. --DixonD (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but let's take it one step at a time and see what happens. We'll probably have some nice lessons learned before we mass enable something. Multichill (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ben & Jerry's matches with "Ben &#38; Jerry&#39;s" so most titles with ampersands and apostrophes are listed as different than on Wikidata as false positives. --Vriullop (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See my earlier remark and Bugzilla: 47619. Multichill (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's the same problem as {{PAGENAME}} that encodes some characters. I've made a simple conversion at ca:Module:Encode according with mw:Manual:PAGENAMEE encoding and it matches correctly changing to #ifeq:{{#property:P373}} | {{#invoke:encode | pagename | {{{1|}}} }}. --Vriullop (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This is really great. – SJ + 15:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the category being added every time someone uses Visual Editor (e.g. [1]) and is it really necessary? DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The category should not be added directly to articles in this way as it is a tracking category added via the template. May be it is a problem with the visual editor that should be reported at WP:VEF. Keith D (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2013, pagename encode[edit]

Please, update from sandbox. Parameter is encoded as a pagename via Lua avoiding false possitives in Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata. See Wikipedia:Lua requests/Archive 3#Pagename and three special characters. Vriullop (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Syntax error[edit]

If you add {{commonscat}} with no additional parameters, then the link goes to [[Commons:Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]. The link should go to [[Commons:Category:{{#property:P373}}]] instead. The error is here:

|Category:{{#if:x| {{{1| {{PAGENAME}} }}} }}<!--

These lines should probably be

|Category:{{#if:x| {{{1| {{#property:P373| {{PAGENAME}} }} }}} }}<!--

or similar instead.

Example: The article Free Art License has {{commonscat}} without additional parameters. d:Q152332 tells that the Commons category is Commons:Category:FAL, but the template links to Commons:Category:Free Art License instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - as far as I know there is no agreement to use wikidata entries in this way. Can you can point to some agreement on this? The entry can be corrected by piping to the correct page in the article. Keith D (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Calling this a "Syntax error" is a bit weird, this might be the next step, but that needs to be discussed first. I rather keep it like this for now and do things step by step. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
People have been removing category names from the {{commonscat}} template, so I assumed that consensus had been established, but that the template contained a typo. See for example the article Free Art Licence which now points at the wrong category because a user removed parameter {{{1}}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
People shouldn't be removing the parameter, unless they are replacing it with a better parameter. Every page using {{commons category}} is placed into one of the five subcats of Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories; those without the parameter are also placed into Category:Commons category template with no category set. The aim is to depopulate the latter and certain subcats of the former - possibly as many as four of the five, the exception being Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata‎. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought that's exactly Wikidata's purpose; the template {{Authority control}} uses it that way. Stefan2's proposal should be implemented. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on the comments above, I got the impression that the template isn't ready for this yet. If someone currently uses {{commonscat}} without parameters, but Wikidata lists the category name as different to the {{PAGENAME}}, then Wikipedia and Wikidata disagree about the name of the Commons category. It may be necessary to check and correct these template calls first. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Placement in "See also" section[edit]

In nearly all articles I've worked on, the template is placed in the "references" section (usually the last section on the page in articles without an "external links" section).
As soon as references are displayed in columns, though, the template placement becomes a problem, as it is then in one of the phohibited placements that shows up as an additional column by itself. And in articles with a multitude of references, columns display better.
It works and looks better in the second-to-last section, always the "See also" section. Here it not only displays perfectly and fills up some white space in the process, but it's also right on topic as a "see also" item. See South African Class 6E1, Series 10 for a trial run example.
Would there be any WP:MOS objections to making this standard practice? André Kritzinger (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See "Links to sister projects" in MOS:LAYOUT. Keith D (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Just came across that too. Thanks! André Kritzinger (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that this template's doc page and WP:ELLAYOUT already cover all of the problems described by Andre Kritzinger - is there anything missing from those? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Asked too quickly - found the answer, thanks. André Kritzinger (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag with bad wikilink[edit]

Almost the first thing on the Template page is a flag (bar? label? banner?) that says

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Commons category.

(I think the link is an internal wikilink ([[...]]), but I'm using an external link ([...]) here, with the URL as it comes out in the rendered page, namely



It yields the wikiversion of 404, "This page does not currently exist." --Thnidu (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

When the template is used on an article, it derives that link either from the first supplied parameter, or if there isn't one, from {{PAGENAME}}. Since {{PAGENAME}} at Template:Commons category is Commons category, it constructs the link accordingly. Part of this is done in {{commons}}, which uses the internal link syntax, so you get [[commons:Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]commons:Category:Commons category. But if used without parameters on an article like Paris, you get commons:Category:Paris --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64, but can it be fixed? I still don't understand it. Can you or someone else make it work right? --Thnidu (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please give an example of a page where it is broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Right here, on the page we're Talking about. This page where we're talking is a Template talk page. I said "Almost the first thing on the Template page…" So:
  1. Go to Template:Commons category.
  2. At the top of that page, on the right, is a box with the text "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Commons category."
  3. The last two words, "Commons category", are highlighted as a link. Click on them.
  4. You'll be sent to a page with the wikiversion of 404: "This page does not currently exist."
--Thnidu (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That's just the template page. I meant an actual article where the link isn't working as it should. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry for wasting your time, and I feel so dumb. I was focusing on the first header below the page title, "Template documentation", and I didn't recognize that that link-box is (the rendering of) the template. I was interpreting it as applying to the page. And you were making it clear already ("When the template is used on an article"). I wish we could just forget the whole thing. --Thnidu (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Introductory text[edit]

Hello, would it possible to adjust formatting of the template, so names the introductory text will be displayed as follows

"Wikimedia Commons
has media related to
[Name of the author]"

as also recently processed on the similar template such as Sister project links, please? As the moment in most cases the names result in appearing in two separate lines with first names of authors being displayed at the end of one line, while their surnames at the beginning of the following, for a change (see an example). MiewEN (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to me that this template is merely a wrapper for the template {{Commons}} and it needs to be fixed there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: I see... OK then, I will post the request in there. Thank you for the information. MiewEN (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose simplify wording of location[edit]

Template:Commons category#Location currently says:

... this template should be placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists.

However given that:

... box-type templates such as {{Commons}} ... have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) ...

Wouldn't it be simpler to just remove the reference to "external links" from Template:Commons category#Location? E.g.:

... this template should be placed at the top of the last section on the page.

Likewise for Template:Commons#Location (and possibly other similar?)
Mitch Ames (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've made the change. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Also to Template:Commons. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: This is sensible, but what happens when somebody add a section at the bottom? E.g.,
  1. There's no External links §.
  2. Someone adds this template at the top of the last section, likely References.
  3. Someone else adds External links and doesn't notice that the template is now misplaced, or sees the template but doesn't know about the placement rule.
--Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Presumably the same thing that happens when someone edits any page in such a way that the new version no longer conforms to WP:MOS - another editor will notice the non-conformity and fix it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion[edit]

FYI, Category:Commons category template with no category set, which this template populates, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Use wikidata[edit]

I've put code on the /sandbox that will use the category defined in Wikidata if no parameter is given. The exact logic needs to be defined. It will check in this order:

  • If a parameter is given it will use that, otherwise
  • if P373 is defined, it will use that, otherwise
  • it will use the PAGENAME.

Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You can see the effect of this change on Tarinkot where I tested this, and which now has the correct link to the commons category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I support this change, and am happy to carry out the task of applying the code to the live template once it's agreed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
What happens when there are multiple entries on wikidata? A cause of may errors I have had to fix. Keith D (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
What happens if there are no links on wikidata and if there is no commons category with the pagename used here on en-wikipedia? I've tested this on Adair, Oklahoma with this change. I was not able to find out what changed, especially the link to the non-existing commons-category 'Adair, Oklahoma' continues to be displayed.--Robby (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If no parameter is used and there is no field on wikidata, then it will default to the page name (which may or may not actually exist on Commons). So there is no change in that regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, another question for you - Can the template be modified so that if it IS using the wikidata info, it suppresses Category:Commons category template with no category set? Your current example at Tarinkot still has the tracking category, which obviously it doesn't need in this instance. Avicennasis @ 08:38, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 08:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that could be done if desired. There are actually a bunch of more specific tracking categories for this: see Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, Tarinkot is no longer in that category. That was a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a question - in the event of a pagemove, how quickly is wikidata updated? Avicennasis @ 23:58, 4 Tishrei 5776 / 23:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it's instant. Avicennasis @ 00:09, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We would need to have a much wider discussion on this before any implementation is contemplated. Keith D (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keith, please don't be a stick in the mud. If you have any real reason to oppose this, then let's hear it. Can you clarify what you mean above by "multiple entries on wikidata"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Cannot see how can clarify but it is when there is two or more Commons Category entries on Wikidata for a particular item. On the other matter I just think that there needs to be a wider discussion on this rather than on this talk page, unless there is some wider publicity pointing to this discussion. Keith D (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an example of this, because I have never seen it. I think in this case the first value will be returned, unless one of them is given a higher rank. If you have an example we can test this. I assume that this would mean that one of the entries was an error? In which case it should just be removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know of any cases where two Commons category pages are linked from the same Wikidata item (in fact, I don't think that it's possible to do that), but I know of several cases of two pages on commons in different namespaces that are related by name. For example, Oxford is at d:Q34217 which links to c:Oxford (a page in mainspace, known as "gallery" space at Commons); and Category:Oxford is at d:Q8707649 which links to c:Category:Oxford. This commons category is also linked from d:Q34217 through the P373 property of the latter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is entirely normal and there are properties like P910 (topic's main category) and P301 (category's main topic) to link these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not have any examples of it, but I have come across it regularly over the last couple of years while trying to reduce category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata. Usually as a result of importing from 2 different wiki's, vandalism or duplication. You could easily create one as a test. Keith D (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have no examples of the alleged problem, and given what MSGJ says about how the software would deal with such a hypothetical issue, there's no need to hold up this change, and we should go ahead. Other templates have been made to call values from Wikidata, without any drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done, in the absence of any reason not to. Please revert if this breaks anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. I'll see about getting a list of valid pages to @Caliburn: once the category levels out a bit, and we'll see about adding the rest to wikidata. Avicennasis @ 10:54, 8 Tishrei 5776 / 10:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There's an unnecessary double test, I amended the sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should categories always be specified?[edit]

Hello! Regarding this edit, I do find that reasonable because it prevents issues when articles become renamed, which doesn't happen that often, though. However, other editors seem to disagree on that (pinging Thumperward), but we even have a bot (AvicBot) that goes through Category:Commons category template with no category set and sets the category names. Should we discuss the whole thing? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I think so. Face-smile.svg But I think this may bump heads with the wikidata discussion above. Avicennasis @ 05:22, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 05:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I don't see why Wikidata should be part of it at all. IMHO, that just mangles the whole thing with no true benefits, makes it much more difficult to track and review changes, etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The advantage with using Wikidata is that it is possible to make one change which then benefits every single Wikipedia. I don't think it is any harder to maintain, and far from "mangling", many people would see this as simplifying the whole situation ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, yes, using Wikidata should be helpful. However, what I really wouldn't like to see is enforced removal of manually specified categories so the ones from Wikidata are used, which has been the case for the {{Official website}} template. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've had multiple long and pointless discussions with Dsimic in the past about his deeply idiosyncratic approach to explicit rather than implicit coding (he completely rejects WP:NOTBROKEN for instance) and am not prepared to hash that back out here. Anyway, the CfD for the associated category was inconclusive. That strongly suggests that there should not, at this time, be any sort of move to mandate that which was not previously mandated, especially when WikiData (or out-of-band systems in general) are the best solution in the long run. I'll be changing the documentation back shortly, as it's obviously distasteful to enact changes like this by fair accompli. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. As shown above, Wikidata doesn't catch everything. And making this optional allows for link breakage in the future, which is a net negative. Can you explain what the benefits are of leaving this optional? Because I'm not seeing any. As far as the documentation goes, it should have been changed back in May 2012 when Category:Commons category template with no category set was created. The whole point of the tracking category is preventative maintenance on sisterlinks. It's already helped to fix a bunch of broken links on different pages, and I have no reason to see why it can't continue to do that. Avicennasis @ 09:39, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmph. Well, if your bot is doing its job properly then the documentation shouldn't need to mandate including the label anyway, as that obviates the need for said bot. I'm prepared to compromise to the extent of changing the docs to say "you can leave this off and a bot will add it automatically", but the present wording (edit warred back in, as usual, by Dmisic) unhelpfully implies a new burden on editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If that's a "burden" to you, it doesn't imply that everybody's point of view is the same. By the way, I'd appreciate if you would try not to pick on me on every possible occasion; what I did here was pretty much fine and according to the WP:BRD guideline. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, as well, I hardly thinks this counts as a "burden". But thank you for your compromise. Avicennasis @ 17:45, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 17:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Avicennasis: when your bot adds a parameter to the template, does it carry out any checks on whether the link is actually correct? If not, would this not be cementing in an error to the article? If yes, that is great and if you are a bot wizard it would be even more fantastic if you instead add it to the relevant wikidata item. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, AvicBot does do a check to make sure the Commons category exist. I admit it would be handy to add it to Wikidata, though I'm not that familiar enough with the infrastructure there yet to figure out how to code that part just yet. Avicennasis @ 10:25, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That's brilliant. Of course your bot is not clever enough to determine if it is the correct page, so there will inevitably be some that need to be left for human review. And I also note that some links are to category redirects - does your bot detect these? We could probably work on clearing out Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata and Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata to start with. Would you be willing to work with someone experienced with running bots on Wikidata to tackle these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You can never fully clear out Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata as that contains articles that have more than one call to {{commons category}} with different targets that is not handled by the wikidata check. Keith D (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We can do our best, though. (Though, do pages really need more than one call to Commons?) @MSGJ:, Yes. he follows category redirects to the correct pages. He also figures out disambiguation categories and reads deletion logs in cases where the category was moved. I'd be more than happy to work with someone on a Wikidata bot. Avicennasis @ 17:45, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 17:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Caliburn: is CaliburnBOT able to help with this? Avicennasis @ 18:34, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ran into a problem while developing the bot. The problem was that many of the instances of the template were in fact invalid, and linked non-existent categories. If your bot can check if a category exists, then we can do somewhat of a merge. If we can somehow rectify that then I can continue running the bot. <-- should've read the whole thread before. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can have AvicBot go over them and provide a list of valid ones. Due to the BFRA, when it finds certain, unfixably-broken links, it's not allowed to delete the template - that part has to be done by hand. But I can easily generate a list of pages that are fine to copy over. Avicennasis @ 21:44, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thumperward, what's wrong with you? I've never rejected the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline, in fact I've put it into practice numerous times. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata transfer workflow[edit]

This section is to discuss the workflow of transferring data to Wikidata and resolving conflicts. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Caliburn and Avicennasis: do either of the following look like a task you could do? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I can pass valid links to @Caliburn: for his bot to resolve these, sure. Avicennasis @ 09:18, 12 Tishrei 5776 / 09:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Caliburn seems to be busy. If you'd like to compile your list Avicennasis (starting with the first batch below?), then if there's still no request from Caliburn I may post at d:Wikidata:Bot requests. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey @Avicennasis:, any progress? I know these categories are ridiculously huge. Could we start with a smaller list to test the process? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing concrete. I haven't delved into this too deep yet, but have hacked together a simple script to attempt some of this work. There's still a bunch of little bugs to work out before I'm confident enough for actual deployment yet. Avicennasis @ 10:07, 4 Cheshvan 5776 / 10:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata[edit]

  1. If parameter is passed to {{commons category}}, check if it is valid.
    • If yes -> add that value to P373 and move on
    • If no -> remove parameter from template
  2. Check if {{PAGENAME}} yields a valid commons category
    • If yes -> add PAGENAME to P373
    • If no -> remove entire template?

Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata[edit]

  1. Check if P373 gives a valid commons category
  2. Check if the parameter passed to the template gives a valid commons category
    • If both parameter and P373 give valid categories -> leave for human review
    • If P373 is valid but parameter is not -> remove parameter from template to fix
    • If parameter is valid but P373 is not -> replace P373 with value of parameter

Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata and Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata[edit]

I don't think we need these tracking categories now. If P373 is defined and no parameter is passed then it will use P373and ignore the PAGENAME. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Mobile visibility?[edit]

Someone removed this template here citing lack of mobile visibility as a reason. Is the mobile invisibility intentional? If not, please sort it out for this template that is used on 500.000+ pages, or clearly deprecate it. Is there any (more general?) discussion about this issue? In the mean while I'll restore it to the page where it was removed. Clearly any issues are not to be resolved by one-by-one removals of the template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: "Someone" is Omnipaedista (talk · contribs), have you discussed with them? The non-visibility in mobile is because of this CSS rule associated with the sistersitebox class:
.content .sistersitebox, .content .tmbox, .content .ambox, .content #coordinates, .content .navbox, .content .vertical-navbox, .content .topicon, .content .metadata {
    display: none !important;
But if this non-visibility was unintentional, the solution is to fix the relevant CSS rule, not to alter articles one by one to the detriment of users with non-mobile hardware. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Re. "have you discussed with them?" – @Omnipaedista: I referred them to the discussion I initiated here.
From Redrose's reply I learn it seems to have been intentional. If someone wants to change the sister site link visibility on mobile for List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, without updating the CSS, please discuss at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(outdent)As one can see from the edit diff, I did not remove the template. I converted the box form of it to the inline form of it to allow mobile visibility. The point is that transwiki links are vital to Wikimedia projects and should be visible on both mobile mode and desktop mode throughout Wikimedia projects. As far as I know Wiktionary and Wikipedia are the only projects were box forms of transwiki templates are used as an alternative to inline text forms of transwiki templates. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But why alter articles one-by-one? Why not go to the root of the problem, that way you can fix half a million pages with one or perhaps two edits? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Well, that would require community consensus (are there any objections to mobile visibiliy of box templates?) and the technical skill of knowing how to alter the CSS code. Also, there should be a note about this issue in the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I posted at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#More boxes hidden in mobile, where PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) replied. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that there should be a talk page here on Wikipedia where issues of this kind could be sorted out/expained. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:VPT perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Eliminate some white space[edit]

Many categories that use this template have too much white space. For example: Category:Education in Missouri. Can this e fixed? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

1) In that specific case, it would help a little bit if the template is placed at the very top; it would then occupy the same vertical space as {{cat main}} on that page. 2) {{commons category-inline}} is a more compact version. 3) Omit altogether because it's included in the links on the left hand side under "other projects". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Commons categories and Wikidata[edit]

Please note that I opened an RfC on possible usage of Wikidata in representing Commons categories, as linked above.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Display issues[edit]

This template isn't displaying properly in my browser over the last day, but it doesn't appear to be the fault of the template... It shows the text small and without the icon when viewed with the rest of the article, but if I preview the section on its own while editing, it's fine. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Please give example pages where you see this problem; also, which browser? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64, I'm getting it on every page that uses the template, such as Achilles and Academy Awards. Here's an image. I'm not getting it when logged out so I possibly need to hunt for a user script. Latest OS X, latest Chrome. czar 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot access that. Please use the WP:WPSHOT method. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That screenshot doesn't display the Wikisource icon either. However, when I look at Achilles now, both boxes display in the usual way, with icons, and I can't remember ever having seen them otherwise. Have you tried it when not logged in? Using a different browser? From another device? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories for deletion[edit]

Please provide input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_21#Category:Commons_category_with_page_title_same_as_on_Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)