Template talk:Non-free media data

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Author?[edit]

Why not have all the fields of Template:Information here? For example I know File:Mozilla Mascot.svg was created by Shepard Fairey, but there is nowhere I can add that.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My question too. Author and date are perfectly useful fields, but are missing here. This leads to unnecessary duplication and cluttering. GregorB (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add 'author' and 'date' paramethers to the template. — John Biancato 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Done The rows for the parameters will appear when the parameters are specified, and will be hidden otherwise. Please update the documentation. Anomie 13:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Name versus output[edit]

This template and the accompanying {{Non-free image rationale}} have "image" in their names but produce the message "Non-free media use data" and "Non-free media use rationale" respectively. Consistency in title and output would help make using them less confusing. I'm going to copy this comment to that template's talk page as well but please comment here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, there's a problem:

The latter is, as I'm sure you're aware, a different template. The redirect to it is currently used in about 5,000 places. We should replace those 5,000 transclusions and free up the name for this template; then the "image" versions could be converted to redirects, and everything would be consistent.

Afterwards,

Category:Wikipedia files that transclude the Non-free media rationale template with no Purpose specified

would need to be renamed

Category:Wikipedia files that transclude the Non-free use rationale template with no Purpose specified

and the template tweaked accordingly.

I think this is uncontroversial housekeeping, so I'm looking for a bot operator to do it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: A bot run has now concluded. I'll be checking in a month's time to see who's still using the old name, and notify them of the change, then again one more time a month after that, before making the switchover. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • As of 23 December 2012 there were no new uses of the old redirect on files, so I have now performed the above changes.  Done. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tweak to support bullet lists[edit]

Hi.

I'd like to propose changes of revision #658874413 of /sandbox subpage to be copied into the main template. Changes include changing three instances of <span>...</span> into <div>...</div> and adjusting the line breaks to allow bullet lists to be parsed correctly.

You can see the results in revision #658872442 of the /testcase page. For a good measure, I tested the changes against the Media Viewer through revisions #658875445, #658875809 and #658876293 of File:Image page sandbox.png. Well... That's all I could imagine in the way of taking precautions.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have also removed all of the <noinclude>...</noinclude> and everything enclosed by those, also all the <includeonly> and </includeonly> tags. Is there a reason for that? Also, instead of using <td><div class="fileinfotpl_desc">...</div></td> (and similar), would <td class="fileinfotpl_desc">...</td> (or similar) have worked? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A1: They are back. I created the sandbox by clicking on "Mirror" link. I noticed the absence of those items immediately, though I deliberately ignored it as lacking priority and practical significance. Template editors must focus on code quality first. I'll put them back.
A2: Cannot answer this without extensive testing. I can explain why, but I think I'd better spend that time testing and putting those missing items back.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: Since Redrose64 is so keen on perfection, I've gone ahead and not only restored the local <noinclude>...</noinclude> contents, but also implemented ancillary error checking statements for the remaining mandatory parameters. New test cases are available at revision 659005943.
Unfortunately, that means the answer to the question #2 is a resounding "No". Any attempt to implement that suggestion only complicates the code with very little gain. I've been thinking about overhauling this template with existing LUA modules that implement navboxes, but that's for another day.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed in the past that the "mirror" link doesn't do what it implies - instead, it sort-of transcludes, preserving triple braces. So I stopped using it: instead, I go to the main template, click "edit", copy the whole of the edit window to my clipboard, then return to the template view, click "create", paste and save. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for working on this, and thanks to Redrose for checking everything :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template for actual use by ordinary users[edit]

Since this has disappeared, and page is protected form same, I offer: Edit this to actually use it. Obviously I'm missing something, but my time for deciphering undocumented changes is limited....

{{Non-free image data
|Description       = 
|Source            = 
|Portion           = all
|Low resolution = yes
|Other information = 
}}

{{Non-free image rationale
|Article           = 
|Purpose           = 
|Replaceability    = 
}}

--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Non-free media data/doc was recently vandalized, but I just reverted it; do you think the existing documentation is enough for novice editors to understand?— TAnthonyTalk 16:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You bet; thanks for fixing it! I wondered what happened. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Resizing images[edit]

Can the information and link for resizing images be added to the ==Usage== table?

Currently the "Low Resolution" portion of the table explains that file size should be less than 0.1 megapixels. What is missing are the tools, shown in other articles, that helps to determine what size to make an image to fit within the guideline. For instance in Wikipedia:Non-free content, the "Image resolution" paragraph 2.5.2 shows both the calculation necessary and provides a link to the external tool to make the required calculation.

All templates are designed to make editing easier, but currently the information necessary to comply with one is hidden elsewhere. Providing the information necessary to comply with the template, or a link to that information, in a single location seems logical.

Possible solutions.

1. Add the following (or similar) text to the "Low Resolution" row of the ==Usage== table: "To reduce the size of an image to the correct size see the "Image resolution" paragraph in the article Wikipedia:Non-free content."

2. Add the same text shown in #1 above to the ==Usage== section.

3. Provide the information in the "Low Resolution" row of the ==Usage== section. Add the following text:

  • To scale an image down to a specific number of pixels, use the following formula or use this tool to calculate the image size.

4. Some combination of the the above solutions.

By providing this information here, it prevents an editor from having to go searching for the calculation or tool necessary to resize the image and also makes editing easier.

Note that some wording for proposed solution #3 and the math calculation were taken directly from the Wikipedia:Non-free content article "Image resolution" paragraphs. This was done without quotation marks to make the proposed solution easier to read.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)