This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There would be no harm to combine that. The {{Featured picture on project|enwiki=1}} switch could be considered a current featured and a {{Featured picture on project|enwiki=2}} could be considered a former featued. -- Catちぃ？ 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
{{QualityImage}} can probably be incorporated into this template too. {{Featured picture on project|com=0}} -- Catちぃ？ 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to work towards a single unified template for all the "awards" but maybe we should focus FP and POTY templates for now. If we bring {{QualityImage}} into this, I would like for it to be used when it's only a QI too. Also, I would like to retain some of the characteristics of these other templates (i.e. the colors and logos), which so far you have done, but things like {{QualityImage}} have a much different style.
If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.
As you can see the template can be used without parameters for other awards. -- Catちぃ？ 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so right now it the image should be a FP somewhere at least. Hopefully my template categorizing efforts paid off and all the award templates are in Category:Marker templates. (There's also FP, QI, VI, POTD, and MOTD template categories).
I think it is a reasonable idea to combine the various FP variants into a single multipurpose template. However, I oppose the idea of making a combined award template covering FPs, QIs, VIs and what else. I have several reasons
The bg color and logo color of the FP, QI, and VI templates are different but matched such that it gives a coherent and aesthetically pleasing impression. I am having quite some problems imaging a multipurpose award template which gives a combined aesthetically pleasing look unless the existing award templates are simply stacked on top of each other and the paramaters for each template is just added as one long series of parameters
A multipurpose award template has to support the same parameters as the existing templates for linking to nomination pages, overloading default subpage names with names of edits when relevant. Some of these numbered parameters will have meaningful default values when not specified. If we are to combine all parameters into one award template we will have to have named parameters, which gives a much more verbose and complicated format of the parameter calls
QICbot will have to be modified as it has the responsibility of tagging QI images.
In the future VI will be bot-assisted too. By putting all awards into one template, the logic for including VI award will be more complicated as either it will have to create the multi-award template or add a VI award to an existing award template.
In conclusion I do not see any benefits by making a multiaward template, except perhaps a consistent ordering of the awards on the image page.
So, sorry, Rocket and Cat. I know your intentions are good, but I just cannot see how a multi-purpose award template can work and be a benefit for the Community. -- Slaunger20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty relaxed:-) What triggered me was the phrase Personally, I would like to work towards a single unified template for all the "awards"... and I was just expressing my concerns about this idea stating explicitly what I see as being problematic in doing that. As some of these issues are non-trivial ones, which may not be immediately evident to anyone thinking about such a proposal, I felt it justified to state them. I support the initiatives concerning unified categorization. -- Slaunger20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I guess I didn't word that right. I just meant something like a template which calls other templates. Something to give us a consistent template order and to keep them all together. I think it make updating easier too. Just change a single digit instead of the whole template when something becomes a former whatever. I mean it could all be contain in the same box, but like I said I would like to retain some of the characteristics of these other templates such as QI and VI (colors and logos). Rocket00023:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what problem is solved by merging all award templates. I think it is better to use different template for different awards. That will make code on image pages easier to understand. It is much easier to understand what {{Quality image}} means, than to understand {{Featured picture|com=2}}. It is of course not necessary to use exactly those parameters for the template. But I think that a template that handles all "awards" will necessarily be a complex template with many parameters and complex syntax. Swedish Wikipedia has the page "Wikipedia:Krångla inte till det" which means to not make things more complicated than is needed. And I think that is worth considering here too. So unless there is some real problem that is solved by merging the templates, I don't think it should be done, and if there is a problem, simpler solutions should be considered. (It may be a good idea to merge former featured picture template with this template, but I think the parameter "com=former" would be much better than some arbitrary number like "com=2".) /Ö21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. The names of the parameters can be renamed. "com=1" is a temporary name and can be changed. -- Catちぃ？ 08:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
One problem it solves is some image pages were getting swamped with these templates. As more and more Wikipedias start tagging their FPs, it starts to get a little silly. Something like a POTY is likely to become a FP at every project that has such a process. It's not just feature pictures. Or Wikipedia. Wikinews has a template now. It also keeps things standardized so we don't get more templates like {{WPFP}}. Rocket00023:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. {{WikinewsPOTY2007}} can be included within this template with trivial effort. I'll work on this now. -- Catちぃ？ 12:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
On a second thought this may not be wise. Wikinews has only one awarded image. They do not even have featured images... -- Catちぃ？ 00:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What it can't handle (for now)
Wallpaper (wide and non-wide) from English wikipedia
I couldn't find such a template either. I added just in case it might be used. It can stay as unused code until a need for it arises. Featured pictures originally did not have "formerness" either. -- Catちぃ？ 10:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. I realized this only applies to Commons' FPs, so I just added the subpage parameter to this template. Rocket00002:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the nomination pages should be renamed to the filename of the successful candidate. -- Catちぃ？ 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be fine with that, but I don't think everyone would appreciate a lot of renaming of archived nominations to names of images they didn't technically nominate. The subpage parameter would still be useful like for when the images get renamed. Rocket00005:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you insist on covering VI, subpage is needed as there can be more than one VI nomination page per image (one per scope), so enforcing subpage=image will not work as there is not a one-to-one relationship. -- Slaunger05:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If VI/QI are to be included (which I don't like the way it is now), then it should call the VI/QI templates themselves or at least modified versions of them. Rocket00008:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My idea was one template per scope since it is one nomination subpage per scope independent of other scopes. See the discussion on COM:VIC where examples are given. -- Slaunger11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please restore the "Template: Featured picture mul" to its original form, as it is the only one supported by some consensus (though minimal) and I would like to insert it in my FP pictures -- Alvesgaspar15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the same template. -- Catちぃ？ 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure it is. You yourself decided to resize the star. It isn't a barnstar. -- Catちぃ？ 00:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Subpage name of VI
Nomination subpage name of VI is not Commons:Valued images candidates/. It's a Commons:Valued image candidates/. :) -- Laitche (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
rm support for VI
I would appreciate if an admin could remove functionality from the com3 and V2 parameter and remove that from the documentation as well.
The template links incorrectly to VIC subpages and does not categorize and sort the images properly in the right subcategories of Category:Valued images. This is much better handled automatically by substing in {{VI-add}} instead.
Also, as discussed previously the assessments template is in the first place ill suited for handling VIs as a single image can be VI within more than one scope. This is better handled and maintained by having several instances of the VI template.
There was one image page, which used the com3 parameter (redundant to the existing {{VI}} template). I have removed that. Thus no functionality will be broken in existing use of this template by removing the com 3 support.
Thank you, Rocket! Is there by the way one can be granted access to doing edits on protected pages like this without being an admin? I mean, I could have probably have handled this myself, but I have no wish to go for admin. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no fixed naming convention for the FPC pages, thus you need to have an extra optional parameter, which can specify the subpage, when it deviates from the default (or when an alternative file is promoted with a different file name). I recall the creator of this template, White Cat mentioned at some time, that pages on en should be moved to such that they followed a fixed naming scheme, and there has been a (quite inactive) thread about this at WP:FPC. Personally, I am of the opinion that it is not a good idea to move pages around just to make life easy for a template, but that is just an opinion. IMO there should be an extra parameter, which optionally can override the default file name convention. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added a nomination page parameter for en.wp. Use |ennom=full pagename. I really wish this got finished. I'll have to finish it up if no one else wants to work on it, I guess. There's a lot of broken links out there... Rocket000(talk)06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to work on it, but since it is indef fully protected, it sort of makes life not so easy. And since I am not interested in doing an RfA just to be able to edit protected content, well... And since the cretor has resigned his adminship he can't help either... it is the curse of protected content... -- Slaunger (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I know. I would unprotect it if I could. Along with many other things. Preemptive protection's just wrong and unwiki-like, but those of us that think this way are now the minority. Rocket000(talk)08:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I find it OK, if such heavily used templates are protected from editing by anonymous users, could one not compromise on opening up for registered users to edit templates such as this (or grant selected permission to experienced users as noted above)? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, we've grown past the purpose where anonymous vs full make a real difference: we've started gathering the attention of people who are malicious rather than just confused. We do have a method of granting selected permission to experienced users, it's called adminship. ;) I wouldn't be opposed to a user group that could edit protected non-mediawiki pages who were not admins, but I do not consider the creation of one important. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Featured sounds
This is now supported. Basically, for all parameters:
=Featured picture
=Former featured picture
=Featured sound
=Former featured sound.
I believe the only featured sund projects are en-wiki and the prototype here; however, it's conceivable that once the commons project takes off that it will lead to more such projects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There might be a few mistakes with the template. When you use the parameter com4=1, the following text appears:
"With an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper." (See example.)
It doesn't really make any sense. It should be changed to "With an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4, this image suitable as a computer wallpaper.", just like it is for com4=2:
"With an aspect ratio of 8:5, 16:10, or 16:9 this image is suitable as a widescreen computer wallpaper." (See example.)
Also why does the featured star appear when the image is featured on a project other than Commons, but it disappears when you use com4 and the picture isn't featured on Commons?
The only problem I see is that there is no consensus for using this template other than for featured pictures. There was a long and ugly discussion some time ago when User:Cat tried to force its use. Unfortunately the edits she did at the time on the existing FP were not undone as they should -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It's called Assessments, not picture assessments. There's no real reason to duplicate a lot of code, and undo the tagging of the 100-some sounds on English Wikipedia. However, unfortunately, I was alerted to this just before I'm about to be unavailable until the 9th. Sorry =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
With the recent switch from Image: to File:, the links leading to the vote subpage are now broken (see File:Mont Blanc du Tacul depuis l'Aiguille du Midi.jpg for instance) and show up as red links. Would it be possible to fix this? It should be backwards and forward-compatible and this exceeds my wikisyntax abilities somehow :-)
Only by adding a comnom parameter, or moving every old FP nom on commons to the new syntax. I'm not aware of any code to check for the existence of a page (though it would be useful) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It results from the {{{subpage}}} parameter used in {{Assessments/com}}, insertion of this parameter will solve the problem as i tried here, a bot can do this?! maybe an ifexist in Assesments/com can solve the problem like Mormegill said. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Autotranslate
I created a localized version of this template using autotranslate. It can be viewed in comparison to the template in its current state at User:Slomox/test. The new version is a bit less compact, cause it provides a nomination link for every project. If you don't like, this can easily be removed.
There is one issue with the new template: The string "This is a featured picture on English Wikipedia" uses {{#language: }} to get the language name, which results in "This is a featured picture on 中文 Wikipedia" for the Chinese Wikipedia. This can be fixed by using the language template. But to work for languages other than English that template needs autotranslate too (or the CLDR extension active on Betawiki needs to be activated here).
I replaced the template now. I removed the nomination links for every project for now, but they can be easily added again. For the English localisation I used Template:language. Other vlanguage versions have to use {{#language: }} or to localize Template:language.
The looking of the template is now terrible, with the leading empty spacing and the horizontal lines. Time to go back to the old Commons FP template? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Design can always be improved. At User:Slomox/test3 you can compare the look of the template like its looks now (No. 3), like it looked before the modifications (No. 2) and a version without horizontal lines (No. 1). --Slomox (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. However, this template should only by used for featured pictures. There was a big discussion some time ago and that was the clear consensus. That's why I'm reverting some recent changes on my FP pictures. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Part of the discussion is here. But there was a more extensive debate about the modality of template to implement which, I believ, took place in Village Pump. Anyway, that was an ugly issue at the time and never the changes done by White Cat were undone, as they should. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me list the benefits of the integrated template:
It's fully localizable. Commons is a multilingual project. But since its creation in 2004 Commons never managed to create meaningful measures to make accessible its content to people who do not speak English. There were several approaches to the problem, but Template:Autotranslate (create in November) is the first one, that actually achieved results. Most of the most-used templates are localizable now and are localized in the most important languages. There are very different estimates for the number of English speakers, en:English language says somewhere between 500 million and 1.8 billion. So somewhere between 7 and 26 percent of the world's population. That means, that somewhere between 74 and 93 percent are basically excluded from using Commons without localization measures. That's a very important point.
Localization could be done with other templates like {{crochet work}}, {{QualityImage}}, {{Picture of the day}} too. But why keep it in different templates? A integrated template makes maintenance easier, makes localization easier (you only have to create one localization template per language instead of four), and it provides a uniform layout and look (the green quality image template is very contrary to the other ones for example).
Then I made some improvements to the template. For example it is now possible to provide a link to a different nomination page for every single project. This was possible for Commons and en.wp only before.
I read through the discussion you linked and it were mainly concerns with the modalities of the change and not with the functionality of the assessments template. --Slomox (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "monster"? A monster in size? It needs less space than the four separate templates. Or do you mean something different with "monster"? --Slomox (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Slomox. I believe this template is of very high quality, visually pleasing, and condenses things a LOT! I just finished adding this template to every image that is an FP on en:wiki and I just discovered the functionality to link to the nom page at the local wiki. I'd like to see local wiki POTD included, as well as Commons VI, though I've seen resistance to the latter. I think this is significantly better than the en:wiki template used. On that note, is there a way to include something similar to this [[Category:Wikipedia featured pictures|{{PAGENAME}}]] for use on local wikis? This is what the current en:wiki template does (I'd like to see this template become as fully functional as the local template, possibly replacing it). This template saves a lot of space in the end; take a look at this to see what I mean (plus, for the en:wiki, you have to add the FP template and POTD template) - I think that's the real monster. In addition, I've been making edits at the es:wiki; I speak a little Spanish. What they lack there is good image use on the project. I've been trying to incorporate en:wiki FPs into articles there so I know the quality is good. Problem is, when you're on the es:wiki, the local en:wiki template doesn't show up. Now that I've added this template to all the en:wiki FPs, that's no longer a problem. While the percentage of bilingual contributors is probably small, this does affect them in some way and I hope to get around this problem in the future. All Commons users should be able to know when an image is featured and where (might offer incentive to feature it at their local wiki), and this template allows that to happen (and in their local language to boot). Nice job on this. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»04:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
is there a way to include something similar to this [[Category:Wikipedia featured pictures|{{PAGENAME}}]] for use on local wikis? Do you mean adding this for Commons or for local wikis? We can easily add a Category:English Wikipedia featured pictures to be shown on Commons pages, but it's not possible to add categories visible on the local description pages. --Slomox (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea I meant the latter. Ick - that could be the downfall of my idea of nixing the en:wiki template. But then again, we don't really need that category. We have two ways of displaying FPs already. Have to think about this one... Thanks again for the fixes earlier. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»05:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Btw: Assessments supports POTD too. It's called beta in the documentation, but it's stable. It's much shorter than the other template, cause it only shows the language set in the preferences instead of all languages. The only thing that stops it, is particularism of the several assessment groups. --Slomox (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I fixed some grammar issues with te template's handling of this. If any issues come up, purge the page inquestion to make sure it's not using an intermediate version of my changes, then drop a message on my talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Poor wording
When I use the com4=1, it gives "With an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper." It should really read "With an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4, this image is suitable as a computer wallpaper." Also, for com4=2, there should be a comma after the list of aspect ratios, as there is in the previous one listed here. Can anyone help with that? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that the Featured Star is only shown when an image is featured at Commons? For the help of other wikiprojects, it should appear if it is featured anywhere, not just at Commons. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»22:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I guess that's not completely accurate, but it does happen that when there's only one project it's featured at, a star doesn't appear. Any reason for this? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems, the problem is something like {{Assessments|com=2|trwiki=1}}. "trwiki=1" calls for the "featured" icon and "com=2" calls for the "former featured" icon. Currently Commons assessments get preference and as a side effect images with Commons assessments - but no Commons featured status - and featured status on another project show only the Commons assessments. The problem could be solved by rearranging the icon logic. I guess, a featured status on another project should get preference before the Commons "former featured" status. I will change the template. --Slomox (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
On this image, the template fails to place a break between the POTY and aspect ratio lines. Also, I would suggest that the wording of the aspect ratio line include a link to the gallery (Category) for wide-screen featured pictures on Commons. The Category at the bottom is useful, but newbies may not know to look there. Something similar to the WP template would be nice. Just placing "(see gallery)" at the end of the statement would be sufficient. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the Assessments template, please respect the present concensus or start a new discussion. I say again: no concensus was reached in the last discussion about integrating the various honors (FP, QI, VI, POTD, etc.) in a single template -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Broken links to other projects
Almost every single link I clicked on to see a FPC on another project didn't work. Also, why the hell does it have to say it was a "candidate in Picture of the Year". All FPs are candidates. It's redundant. Rocket000(talk)23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost every single link I clicked on to see a FAC on another project didn't work What do you expect as answer if you don't provide examples? The template uses the most common naming scheme for candidacy pages. If the candidacy page doesn't follow the common scheme you can provide the link via the parameter xxwiki-nom.
All FPs are candidates I don't know about the procedures of POTY. The ability to mark candidates was already present when I first had contact with this template. If you are sure, that it's unnecessary, then remove it. --Slomox (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you try going to any? Well ok, here's an example, last year's POTY: File:Broadway tower edit.jpg. Out of the 6 links, only 2 work. Oh yeah, and the categories are completely screwed up. Most are empty. The Image/File thing is causing issues too. It's no longer pluralizing "picture" as in "Feature pictures candidates".. The template has other issues. For example, look at File:Mandarin.duck.arp.jpg. Here's what I see without even looking at the code:
It of course starts with the "This file was a candidate..." which is another way of saying it's a featured picture (although the year is nice - but if we spent that much time dating all these, I would have included the full date it was promoted).
The spacing's horrible. There's too much wasted space.
Commons' logo is just awkward there. It's not centered. The size looks weird next to the FP star. It doesn't belong anyway.
The horizontal lines are ugly when the image is a FP on only one project.
I don't know how many projects have FP or similar processes, but there are at least 21 Wikipedias that do it (according to the interwiki links on en:WP:FP). FPs seem to be contagious. Once a great photo makes it on one, it makes it's rounds. It's very plausible that something like a POTY would achieve FP status everywhere. I think we're going to look silly saying "This is a featured picture on" 20+ times. No, we look silly saying it more than once. Way too much unnecessary text.
I guess I shouldn't be complaining here. I should be working on improving it, but it's so not like how I would do things I would want to rewrite it from scratch. I don't think users want yet another major change in this FP tagging business. Rocket000(talk)08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, but I just noticed another thing. It adds categories regardless of what namespace it's in (like this talk page). Rocket000(talk)08:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, and it would be great to have all of these things fixed. I expect you remember though the bad vibes that followed Cool Cat's unilateral approach to the creation of this template, resulting in his dropping the thing part way through. It would be better this time to open a general discussion about what should be included and how it should work before doing a total re-write. It would be a worthwhile project, though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The Cat had some good ideas, unfortunately they weren't executed in a manner suitable to most. Too much drama involved to have a real discussion on it. After he left, I was hoping this thing would work itself out, but with the protection and the complexity it didn't get far. Actually, I did decide to start working on a new version. I think I can keep the current parameters the same. I see Slomox has done some work on improving this too. Maybe we can work together on it. The technical stuff aside, I would like to hear what the people want out of this template. I know we don't want VI in it at all. QI I would take out of it too but I don't know if that's the consensus. POTD is complicated enough by itself and I hope we can start using a collapsible version soon. Here's what I think we should have:
Commons Featured pictures
Commons former Featured pictures
All other projects FPs (maybe in a more compact way)
The wallpaper size ones
POTY and finalists for each year (unsure about this)
Except for the last one, these are all FP related (well, it is I guess, since they are FPs). It's the most logical divide. Personally, I'd rather see three separate templates of FP, QI, and VI, then one giant brown box. But I'll be cool with anything if we can make it look good (and work). Rocket000(talk)18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I entirely agree with your view on this, Rocket. QI and VI should not be part of this for the simple reason that their logos have distinct color, which looks best when shown on either a pale green or a pale yellow background with a darker green/yellow edge, exactly as the QI and VI templates today. Another reson for keeping VI out of it is that an image can be VI in more than one scope. It is more complicated to to implement a template which supports several VI scopes and links to the respective candidate pages. Even worse is the bot implementation for adding a VI to a page, which should then be aware of the existance of an VI template there already, modify it such that the new scope was in there, and if not, create the parameters for the first VI. All terribly complicated to implement, maintain and test.
Another thing which I dislike about the current template are the stupid parameter values of numbers, which makes it impossible to read the templates to the parameters and undertsand what is going on without looking in the template documentation. Parameter names and values should be redable and understandable. It is impossible to fix in-situ for the existing template. Therefore I would suggeste to start developing a new template in some sandbox space - for FPs only, and perhaps POTY finalists. Here experiements can be made to see what works and the solution can be discussed and adjusted as we go along. that is what i requested originally, but the Cool Cat moved it directly into the FP image pages as production code using his bot, thus making it impossible to change existing paramers. It was also protected, which hindered work on it by me and several other editors. I fully support starting from scratch on a new template. Once agreed upon, implemented and thoroughly tested it can then replace the current template in a clever bot move.
I suggest that, some runs of check image use are run on the FPs too see which pages in FPC/FP space they are used in on other Wikipedias. That can be used to autogenerate the parameters needed for poiting to FPC subpages not following a certain naming convention. --Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm not emotionally involved in any of the many assessment camps or this template. When I came to this template the first time I was implementing localization features to templates that were used on many pages (this template has 4000+ inclusions at the moment). When I came here I assumed, that the template already was agreed-upon. Had I known the truth, I wouldn'T have spent any time on it.
I didn'T know and so, when I tried to make it localizable, I realized that the template was quite messed up. So I decided to do a partial rewrite to make it more sane. This was no big task, cause localization needed much rewrite anyway. I too thought, that the parameter names and values were not the best choice, but I went with what existed, cause of the many existing inclusions.
If you want to do a rewrite from scratch, I'm fine with that. As long as localization works I'm fine. But breaking the template up in many templates specific to special assessments would not be a very bright move. That would exactly contradict the reason, why the template "Assessments" was created. If you want another frame color for QI and VI cause of the different logo color, then add another div in the template instead of creating another template... A unified template for all assessments allows to display the assessments in any way you like. You could easily implement exactly the same look and feel as the assessments-specific templates by just merging their respective code. That wouldn't change anything from the current situation except making it more flexible for future developments.
I think we're going to look silly saying "This is a featured picture on" 20+ times Well, that's exactly my opinion too. But I don't think, that the error is in the template. We shouldn't have FP's on every single project. Commons should be the only project to feature images and other projects should choose from the Commons pool if they want to feature pictures on their main page or whatever. What's the point of having a process to feature a picture on every single project? I don't see the point. Either a picture is internationally good or it shouldn't be featured at all. But the project-specific processes do exist and I don't want to be the guy that tries to convince the projects to give up their own featuring processes... --Slomox (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, I was emotionally involved ;-) As I recall, there was actually not a big drive towards one common assessment template for all types of reviewed media. Many users actually just wanted separate FP/QI/VI templates. Closing QICs and tagging images as QI is done by one bot, another bot does the job for VIs, for FPs I am not familiar with current status. These bots are not terribly sophisticated currently, i.e., they simply add new templates when an image is promoted irrespective of what is on the image page already. These bots would have to be upgraded to make it work with one big shared template.
I do realize one can merge different borders into one template, such that you have an aggregate template. I also agree that localization should still be working. I only tried to work a little on localization of templates, and I do not fully grasp why you see it as an advantage - from a localization point of view - to have all the logic in one template? Could you briefly explain what extra work you may run into by having separate templates? Is it redundant text from several templates, which you would have to localize in each individual template or what is your concern?
If we pursue the idea of one template a little longer could that template then be a "shell" with a minimum of logic, which merely transcludes smaller, and more easily maintainable FP/VI/QI specific templates and passes them the right parameters? One advantage I see with an aggregate template would be a consistent ordering of the award templates on the image page - today they are often scattered around, some before the Information template and some after, in the order in which the awards have been given, if they have not been rearranged by the uploader in the meantime. Still, it would require bot rework and constant coordination with bot implementors whenver changes are made. So, I'd say, let us keep it simple with separate templates. It is more likely that it will work, the templates will be simpler to maintain, and since perhaps, they did not even had to be protected then (hurrah) as the potential damage of vandalizing one template would to be manageable (and even when the templates have been unprotected, vandalism has not been a problem AFAIK).
I agree with you that there is little point in having separate FP processes on the various Wikipedias. Unfortunately there is not the will amongst the Wikipedia users to leave Wikipedia home and review images at their home. I tried very hard to engage the EN users to join in the COM:VIC, but I was taken aback by much resentment from several users, whereafter EN launched theur own WP:VPC process. So it is just not gonna happen I am afraid.
A integrated template is not necessary for localization, but it makes it easier. We are severely lacking people who maintain the Commons localizations. There are too few of them and the base template (which de facto in most cases is the English one) is changing too often. With five separate templates the localiser has to translate five localisation templates instead of just one (although the amount of text is the same, this makes a difference. I am a localiser and I feel this all the time). And after localising he has to have five pages on his watchlist and has to look for updates on all five of the base translations (together these are then ten templates on the watchlist). Depending on the templates redundant text is another issue, yes.
OK, now I better understand you localization objective for makling one template to do it all - it is to better be able to monitor changes without having to watch so many pages. In this case I would consider QI and VI as stable though.:
For QI, {{QualityImage}} is used, The last time any text was changed in that template was over a year ago - and that change was very simple - going from single to plural form. QI does not have any current sister projects on Wikipedias, and I consider it unlikely that this should change.
For VI, {{VI}}, the last change in text was done in May 2008, actually before the project went public, and that change was a change in capitalization. The only foreseable change, I can envision is the handling of Valued Pictures on WP, a project which is barely alive currently. We also have set variant {{VIS}}. Here the same stability comment applies.
FP, an the other hand is different with very many sister projects and with a lot of dynamism. Thus, making an FP only (possibly merging POTY finalist info, as POTY is a spinoff of FP) template makes sense from a localization point of view. In practise, this will be the only one localizers have to watch.
At the moment we have much too much particularism. Many people are defending the status quo and keep inferior solutions which were based on former problems that are long gone. The FP project on en: was created when Commons was just a vague dream. If Commons would have been around in 2003 already, it would have been natural to create the FP on Commons and everybody who would suggest to create a en:-specific FP project would be laughed at. Once upon a time it was not possible to apply any logic to the parameters of a template. So you had to create a specific template for every single purpose when there was just a slight difference. Today we can apply any logic. The template becomes more complicated, but the end user gets a much simpler interface.
I agree with you that the main objective of making such a template is to have the users in mind, and we should certainly use the possibilities we have for making a sophosticated and intelligent template. On the other hand we should not introduce unnecessary complexity, just because we can, but because it gives meaning. The more complicated, the fewer will be able to maintain it, the harder it will be to test, and so on. The availability of experienced template coders at Commons, which can maintain it afterwards is perhaps not as plentiful as on en. Especially, since it is likely to be protected such that only administrators can edit it. And here I think testability and maintainability will be much better if we keep QI and VI out of it. --Slaunger (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Creating a shell template that just includes the special-purpose templates would be a solution too. At least a transitional solution. But a fully integrated template would still be better. Localization-wise, as said above, and just more flexible.
And creating a integrated template would be the chance to create a sophisticated bot to do _all_ assessments related tasks ;-) --Slomox (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently we have QICbot and VICbot for doing the operations related to closing candidates and tagging image pages. The only think they have in common is that they both tag the image page. Besides that their business logic are quite different and project specific, they do not run at the same intervals - basically there is little in common in their code bases. Both are maintained by Dschwen, and I guess he really should be consulted for his opinion on merging. My personal view is that merging the two can be done, but with no obvious benefits. There has been thought on making a FPCbot as well, and this would obey its own FP-specific business logic. The nice thing about having them seperate is that the individual projects can go about adjusting the behavior of each bot without having to worry about possible side effects on other projects, which use the same bot. So, from a project point-of-view it is preferable to keep them seperate. --Slaunger (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I came to think of one thing; admittedly a disadvantage with the current separate templates is that the order in which they appear on the image is more or less random, and this seems confusing for users. Instead of having a bot, which implements all the logic for all projects, one could make an "award template ordering" bot, which goes though the images pages and orders the templates in accordance with som recommendation, which we need to agree upon. I have opened a discussion about that on Commons talk:First steps/Quality and description, which seemed like the most appripriate place, as we do not have a policy on the detailed organization of an image page AFAIK.
Even if an aggregate template would make the ordering of award templates consistent, it would not adress and solve the problem of what should come first on an image page, the awards or the {{Information}} or equivalent templates? The QIC and VIC bots always place the templates at the bottom of the image page irrespective of what is there already, but I have noticed that some users move them afterwards, e.g., in front of the {{Information}} template.--Slaunger (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
To me it's obvious that the assessments information has to go after information. It's actually just some meta information without much meaning to the image. The important information is the description text in the information template. --Slomox (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I really like this template because some image pages look just plain disastrous because of all the different templates, all placed in arbitrary places and order (Exhibit A, before being cleaned up). This allows for one condensed infobox that a user can easily find on a page (it has a distinctive look), lowering load time and read time. I'm not much of a Commons user other than editing image pages, so everything I say here will be en:wiki FPC/VPC-centric (fair warning!)
Your EN-centric input is welcomed. You thereby represent an important type of image "customer", and i agree it is of utmost importance to consider the image page experience on local wikis. I agree that your exhibits represent improvements as various FP templates are merged into one FP template. I also note that the VI, QI has not been merged in, in your example. --Slaunger (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I just finished an exhaustive search through all en:wiki FPs, moved all eligible images to Commons, and tagged all en:wiki FPs on Commons with this template (it was a long process...). In a perfect world, I would like to see the en:wiki FP template phased out, being replaced by this. Currently this template and the en:wiki template are redundants of each other when viewing a file at en:wiki. I've also begun working at es:wiki, and this template has been a life saver because now I know when an image is an FP at en:wiki (I give preference to them when placing them in Spanish articles). When an image is promoted at en:wiki, our users only add the en:wiki template and don't update this template, so users at other wikis don't know it's been promoted (not fair to them really). Commons users must remember that decisions made here can vastly affect other local Wikis that may have had no input.
Your work is valuable and appreciated, and it is worthwhile for users on other Wikis that they can see on their image pages that a given image is featured on en;-) --Slaunger (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about VI and QI here to make comments about them other than that arguing inclusion based on logo color is not a reason. This template is good looking as it is, but the light yellow background is quite neutral, allowing for the QI template to mix fine (and, just to point out, yellow goes with green because yellow makes up green!). A couple things I hope we can include so this can replace the en:wiki template are listed below (in addition to a few personal suggestions following that). These are what would be arguments used against using this template if I ever proposed it as a replacement to the en:wiki template over there. If they were all included, my argument would be much easier to make. I haven't done much programming in a while, and some of these may not be easy, but they would be necessary for full inclusional use at en:wiki (that I can guarantee). Being universal across all wikis is important when it comes to featured images. Feel free to reply under each bullet point to be clearer: ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the look and feel of merging VI and QI into the same template frame is, I guess, a matter of taste. Personally, I disagree that the colors go well together. Many tests and adjutments have been done to fine tune the background and border colors of the QI and VI template to make them "look good". Whether we have succeeded in accomplishing that, is again, a matter of taste ;-) Anyway, it is not a crucial point, as an aggregate award template can be implemented as a stack of frames or as a single frame, so this visual point does not really affect the decision of whether to make an agrregate template or not. --Slaunger (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Featured Sets: I have spent no time at Commons FPC and am not aware whether featured sets are used there. But at en:wiki, we do use featured sets limitedly. This is used for images that are all of the same quality and part of a logical or practical set (best example is all pages of the US Constitution). Inclusion of that would be good. Exhibit B.
We do not have Featured sets at Commons although that has been discussed a few times. However, we have Valued image sets as a set equivalent to valued images at Commons. It has not been a great success until now then, and only a limited number has been promoted just as for the "Featured Sets". Although the two concepts are related, their logos are quite different, and i do think the featured sets at en are more strongly related to FPs, so I think these could be included in an aggregated template. -Slaunger (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Valued Pictures: en:wiki only recently started the Valued Pictures project. It's hitting a rough patch right now and no guarantees on how long it lasts, but I have a feeling it will last and this would be the place for it to be used to condense all of our recognition awards.
I agree if it does come up an running we ought to have a way at commons to mark them as such. I proposed at some stage at en to adapt a VP logo, which was visually related to the COM:VI logo, to mark that the two projetcs were related in their overall objectives, although the detailed guidelines are quite different. If such a logo had been adopted, i think it would have been natural to let the {{VI}} marker template cover EN:VP as well. However, now it seems an entirely different logo is being adopted, which make me think that they are so different that they do not belong in the same template. I honestly do not know what to do about EN:VP - if it survives. --Slaunger (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think en:wiki VP would be easy to add to this. While the two VP projects are very different, the problems seen with the Commons VP would not be experienced with en:wiki VP (there are no categories for "value", as seems to be the case with Commons). I think this should be part of the template, including the logo. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Picture of the Day at local Wikipedias I raised the issue previously, but didn't get an answer. Does it work for POTD at a local wikipedia? Currently we use a separate template on en:wiki. (Exhibit C)
Assuming it is a crierion to be a Commons and/or a local FP to be shown as the local POTD, I do think it would be reasonable to let an aggregate FP-like template cover those local POTD events. On the other hand isn't it mostly of local wiki interest when a particular image has been the POTD on that wiki? I mean, there will be further work introduced by local wiki users having to go to Common to update local POTD information there, and the question is, if it is worth the effort and actually will be done (a bot could help, I guess). I guess you still need some categorization of the local wiki image page to associate it with a POTD yyyy category? --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, very good points. Though at the same time, I, as an en:wiki user, don't care about Commons POTD either, but must suffer with that terribly long template just because an image is hosted here. At least the POTD template at en:wiki is small, though I wish I could force it below the description. The caption is the most important part and everything else comes second in my mind. Sigh... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Previously Featured: This may or may not already be implemented (I haven't yet had to use it); can we specify if an image is a former FP at a local Wikipedia?
Preference: I understand why Commons stats take precedence over other wikis, but I think if an image is featured at one wiki, but de-featured at Commons, a full star is still warranted.
Possible Length: I do see the points being made that the list can get longer and longer as an image makes its way through the various FPCs. This can easily be fixed by using an expandable box. It can have a heading that reads, "This is a featured picture at Commons and 7 local Wikipedias [show]" allowing an expansion that shows the whole list. Obviously the coding must allow for when it's not featured at Commons, Wikipedias, or only at one place (i.e. it should still say "This is a featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia", with no expansion button, if that's the only one).
Replacement: If it's decided to revamp this entire project, it must still go under the title of Assessments lest we lose the 4000 images we've already used this on. That would be a shame a a waste of time (especially mine!).
Actually, I would say on the contrary. An entirely new template with a new name, say {{Awards}} can be implemented and tested independent of {{Assessments}} with better and more meaningful parameter names. Once ready, a bot then crawls through all image pages and replaces existing Assesment templates with the new Awards template taking into account that existing parameter values are correctly parsed. Obviously, the bot implementation will be non-trivial as it will have to account for all the existing parameter possibilities in the assesments template and make proper translations, so first some minor test runs would have to be made. In the transistion phase were the template is replaced we will still have a working system with the two templates coexisting, and you nice work would not be wasted. That bot could be tuned (I think) to dig out proper links to FPC pages on the local wikis based on results of batch jobs running check usage on all relevant images. Actually, I have been doing quite some Python programming recently as part of my job, and i would volunteer to implement such a bot (shhh don't tell wife!). The cool thing is that we would end up with image pages, which have much more human readable parameter names and values. --Slaunger (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I am, I think. Have not tried running/implementing a bot before, but I think I can do it, else I know other users who might help. --Slaunger (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Things not to worry about:
Linking to Nominations: WRT en:wiki, many of the FP templates don't link back to their nomination page (the link already exists at the bottom of the page anyway). I'm planning on going through to correct these links on both the FP template and this template. en:wiki does not require the use of the image file name for nom pages, so it will always be a crapshoot.
Yes, but those links are not on the Commons image pages, so why not add them if we can automate the link inclusion with assistance of a bot. But I agree that it is of secondary importance.
Having links to the nominations on Commons is a given. After tons of renaming pages, they all are named after their file name (besides the ones with recently renamed images - but I plan to get to those soon). The Image/File thing is no more an issue than pictures/picture. Simple template logic can make it work. I'm also planning to add a check for working links (and add a category if the link's broken). This helps keep everything in order, not just navigation. Linking to noms on other projects won't be so simple. One project doesn't use subpages at all. To find past nominations you have to dig through page history.. other projects, like en, follow no naming convention. Without a bot adding the links one by one, this isn't feasible. However, the template should allow you to link to the nom if you want to. Rocket000(talk)07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
All good ideas. Concerning links to other wikipedias, I was wondering if a check usage batch run on all image pages, which currently has Assessments transcluded would be of help. I guess it should be easy to figure out the name space / sub name space in which local wikis have their noms. And if there is only one link from an image page to that subpage space, assume it is the link to the nimonation page? --Slaunger (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikicode: Reading above, it seems some people have a tough time using the implementation code. I don't find it difficult, and when working with the template extensively, I just keep the template page open in a separate tab so I can go back and see what needs to be used. You learn it after a few times.
A good template is one that doesn't need any documentation besides an example. It's better to make extremely complicated code than to make it harder to use. Users shouldn't need to constantly look up parameters and crap (maybe for an infobox but not something like this). Rocket000(talk)08:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Local template: I had asked earlier if this template can set categories at a local wikipedia, which it turns out it can't. This will lead to the argument that en:wiki FPs, should the current en:wiki template no longer be used, will no longer have the FP star in the top right corner and will not include the en:Category:Wikipedia featured pictures, which I think is slightly redundant, but I'm sure some keep it close to their hearts. Since these can't be implemented with this template, the local wiki template can still exist, but just not include the infobox and only add the star and the category to the image at en:wiki.
I agree, wikipedia users keep the start close to their heart and you have to keep it somesome, which a simplified categorization, star only template on EN:FP image pages. --Slaunger (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame that this template died because of the brute actions of its original designer because it's a really great creation. I thank those that are rejuvenating it now because this could be a very great and noticeable improvement to FPs on Commons and all Wikipedias. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I was the first to applaud when this template showed up, integrating all wiki FP's. But then, its creator forced its use in many other things and the issue quickly degenerated into a open conflict. Well, you certainly know the story. Now, I'm sure we'll have the time to reach a good consensus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
How to proceed?
I think this has been a good discussion, but how do we move on from here?
Here are some thoughts, which I would like some feedback on
I think the current parameter names and values are a hindrance for efficient use. there is not mnemotechnics associated with the prevailing numbers used. Fixing this, in situ for the Assessments template is not an option as we would have to synchronize each improvement with the parameter names and values actually used. Conclusion, we need a template with a new name and implement the better parameter names and values there. The new template can initially be a copy of the existing template, which is then revised and tested in peace and quiet. or, if we decide that the design of the current template does not fit our needs concerning functionality and maintenance, we can start on a blank page. Once the new template is in place, a bot, e.g., SlaungerBot, which I am working on could replace the existing relevant award templates with the new template, taking into account the correct translation of old parameter names and values to new ones
I am hoping to recruit Rocket000 for the core template implementation, as I consider him an expert in this realm, although CarolSpears will probably not be too happy about it if I detoured him from the important work of making them fancy taxo-navigation templates. Perhaps Slomox could and would help as well? --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
A role for you could simly be to be the en-centric costumer an give input from an en-point of view as we move along. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to involve further stakeholders (contributors, users, nominators, projects) to get some inputs, maybe post at the talk pages of the various projects, perhaps also outside of Commons.
We should settle which types of awards should go in the template
I personally think almost everything that's there currently should be in the new one, including wallpaper, poty, and QI. I think en:wiki VP should be added (I mean, why not?). VI is up to you Commons users. I don't think potd should remain because of the template already going around (plus it's so big; rather keep this separate). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Consider the relative ordering of award templates
Since it's a Commons template, Commons FP should come first, but to keep with the genre, all other local FPs should come next, then VI/QI (if they're implemented), including VP at en:wiki. I think the current practice of poty and wallpaper on top is good because it's a quick reference; rather than scrolling thru more than a dozen FP listings (potentially), you can see those immediately. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Consider maintainability and testability of the template
Consider the possible interplay with QICbot, VICbot, and EuseBot and the processes of the various projects (en:DustyBot)?
Consider the interplay with other project specific award templates
Layout, tl;dr collapseable sections hidden by default
Localization
Integration with sister projects at other wikis, e.g. FP programs at en and elsewhere
I can bring this up on the talk page over at en:wiki FPC. I'm sure there are many that would support it, especially once I tell them that I updated all en:wiki FPs with this current template and no work would need to be done to replace (i.e. a bot will do it). But then again, I'm also certain that some will oppose it; some feel this template is redundant (even tho the true redundancy is the en:wiki template). When shall I do that? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say in two steps. Now to let WP:FPC know that we would like that community come forward if they have special thoughts, concerns, requests regarding this. And then again later, when we have something to show, that is, before we roll it out on the real FP image pages, to check out if we are getting what we want. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Linking to nomination subpages and perhaps bot-assisted maintenance of non-standard nomination page names
This will be tricky with en:wiki, but I have been trying to update many images (especially those that have been promoted since I finished tagging all our images with this template). As long as you can transfer the links from the ones that have been tagged to the new template, it should be fine. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? I know non-standard sub page names are used there for the nominations, but here is my strategy (with a bot):
on en, compile a list of all WP:FP image pages based on the FP category on WP
For each WP:FP find its subpages under Wikipedia:Featured pictures. If there is only one, infer it must be its nomination page. If there is more than one (rarely), figure out by hand
Check if it is a non-standard subpage name by comparing with the FP image page name, if yes, set s enfpsubpage parameter in the template on Commons to the subpage of the nomination on WP:FPC.
I'd have no problem with you designing a mock up whenever you feel ready. As long as this is done properly and respectfully, it (hopefully) should be successful. Though for as much bad press as this template has gotten, it's funny to see that it's used on 1665 of the 1730 FPs on Commons. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) --
Well the heavy use of this template was imposed on us by its creator who used a bot to replace the previous template, and he refused to roll back the replacement. But nevermind, that is history. Lets just look ahead. Concerning template implementation I can do soe, but I am hoping for real experts to do the tough parts. I would like to coordinate the efforts and do some of the associated bot work. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody give a wikicode example of how the POTD implementation works? I can't get it to work and the documentation doesn't really help. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a new version, but I've gotten to the point where I'm not sure if it's worth it. Making it look better is quite a challenge given all this template is supposed to do. All I really succeeded in doing is improving the parameters. Basically, the new format would be {{assessments|fp}} if it's a FP on Commons, {{assessments|fp=subpage}} to change the subpage link, {{assessments|de|en}} if it was featured on en.wp and de.wp (you can link to the subpage in the same way you would change it for Commons, e.g. {{assessments|de=subpage|en}}), {{assessments|former}} or {{assessments|former=subpage}} for former FPs (the subpage would go to the /removal nom. but you can still correct the original nom. link by {{assessments|fp=subpage|former=subpage}}), {{assessments|poty=1|year=2009}} for 1st place POTY 2009, etc. To me, this is better than using arbitrary numbers, however it makes the template a whole lot more complicated to work on. I didn't even account for things besides FPs on other projects. Or projects other than Wikipedias (for example, POTY on the English Wikinews isn't even considered). The current format is far from ideal, but it works and allows for easier expansion. And if we have bots doing the updating, it's not all that important to make this more user-friendly.
I have to admit, recreating this from scratch is not an easy task even for someone experienced with creating templates. Making it auto-translated just complicates matters even more so. I keep running into problems I didn't think about before. For example, if we don't repeat "This is a featured picture on..." for each project, where do we get a chance to link to the nominations? I was going to have something like "This image is a featured picture on the following projects: English Wikipedia (see [[nomination]]), Spanish Wikipedia (see [[nomination]])..." but that's not much better and very complicated if those links are optional and must be passed to each translation. We also would have to account for the times when there's only one wiki where it's featured. Getting the base page link right to each project is hard enough (users/bots should only have to add the subpage part, not the full page name, but that differs for each project too). Another issue is when an image is a former FP on Commons but a FP on other projects. Putting and on top of each other is just confusing.
I could keep going on about all the little things I've run into, but the main issue I'm having is that I no longer support idea of the template itself, thus it's hard for me to put even more effort into creating it. I'd prefer having separate templates again. Not as many, but more than one. I would much rather create a new template, something like {{status on other projects}} for everything that's not a Commons assessment. Maybe even come up with a new logo for this (something like File:Cscr-featuredtopic.svg or File:Golden wikipedia featured star.svg). IMO, I should only see a 64px FP star when it's featured on Commons. Not only because it's our own project but because we have the highest standards. Other projects' standards vary greatly (e.g. File:Holy sepulchre mass.jpg, ms:Fail:Ladangteh.jpg, File:Eurotower Zagreb.jpg). Having a template like this would serve as a way to track and monitor the image's status elsewhere instead of being simply another plaque on the wall because, honestly, who really cares if it is a former FP or a POTD on April 26, 2007 on some other project. OTOH, recording this information would help centralize all this media assessment stuff on Commons.
I'm really not sure where to go from here, but I'm not going to continue working on a new version of this template that does the same exact thing but in a different way. There's a lot of good ideas here; I'm not willing to give up yet. It's just I think we need to go in a different direction. Rocket000 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rocket,
Thank you for trying. I agree completely on your new parameter name scheme. That is intuitive and immediately readable. Would the FP lines be sorted according to the order in which the parameters appear? If this somehow eases your work, I would say that we could let a bot overhaul the templates now and then to let the parameters be ordered to a set scheme, if that would be of any help? I still think it is worthwhile to go for better parameter names. It is AFAIK only for the larger local wiki FP projects, that adjustments of {{Assessments}} is bot assisted (e.g., DustyBot). Therefore it is still often done by hand, and here easy to understand parameters are important.
Concerning getting the local wiki nomination root pages right, this should be doable by contacting fellow Commons users, who are also local wiki users. They should also be interested in getting it to work for their local wiki.
I certainly do not have any reservations on having more than one template. As I never really saw any advantage with having only one template except to assure consistency with respect to the relative ordering of the templates (but that can be maintained by a bot as well). However, Slomox has pointed out that having only a single template has an advantage from a localization maintenance point of view, as you do not have to watch that many templates as a translator to keep things synchronized. I have not tried to do localization work, but I could see a point in having the option of only seeing per default FPs in your selected language, and then see FPs from other wikis by pressing an expand button.
Actually the star, which was originally used in {{Featured picture}} (which is still used on 76 Commons FPs) is File:Cscr-featured.svg, but it seems to be quite similar to File:Featured article star.svg if not similar. Personally, I think former FP is of such marginal interest anywhere else than on the local wiki, that it is not worth running for. I do not see any reason for displaying a "broken star" for a former Commons FP. It is like a burn mark, as if the image is unworthy or something like that, while it is probably still way better than the average image. Personally I prefer a discrete indication of the former FP status, it is really a detail, IMO. I also agree that POTD on local wikis seems too marginal to be of sufficient interest for a Commons template.
Unfortunately, I do not have anything worthwhile to add concerning your technical problems with displaying localized nomination texts with optional parsed in subpage parameters.
It was. I'm continually thinking about it. Localization is only an advantage if we can make translating it as easy as any other template. But by throwing various subpages and complex template code at translators, we actually deter them. Slomox has made it easier with the copy'n'paste code, but it's still unfriendly. If I do make a new version, I would reuse the translations we already have or gather them from the individual templates. Personally, I don't see this as a major issue one way or another. Regarding the image, I used that one because I think it's closer to the File:Cscr-featured.png which looks better at smaller sizes (Compare them in Category:Featured_Article_icons). Rocket000 (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was working on it a little on User:Rocket000/Sandbox3 and some other subpages, but it's pretty torn apart right now and far from working. Probably the only thing to get from that is how the parameters function either as names or values depending upon the input. Rocket000 (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously they should be added by this template. I don't know why anyone started doing them manually.. Maybe because they hate this template as much as me and just pretend it doesn't exist. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a huge problem with it being used as an FP template, so we don't end up with 125 different language FP awards. But I don't think it is the best way to show other awards/assessments etc, if QI, VI etc have equivalents in other projects, then perhaps a similar template for them, with shared sub-templates where appropriate. Anyway, I will edit this template myself if someone un-protects it (it is not as though vandalism will really cause huge disruption, and such vandalism would be rapidly reverted) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Great work :-). There is an extra opening html comment bracket at the end of the template code, I expect that is a mistake ... --Tony Wills (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
When used on a Wikipedia featured picture, the template currently reads "This is a featured picture on ___ Wikipedia" — could "the" be added between "picture" and "on"? Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please could the documentation be expanded to explain what categories this template auto-adds? I am guessing it adds the page it is transcluded on to Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English. This would help editors determine which template is causing a page to appear in that category. Thank you. -84user (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not only English the template should cover all languages that hae a featured pictures project. Further move it covers commons FP, QI, VI, and PotY. --Dschwen (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
More documentation and examples needed
I did a try on translating this template into Basque, but the localization documentation is lacking too much information. I am in need of some examples, to see the sentences formed when using different parameters. I'll do a try on understanding how the template works, but it would be great if someone who already does could provide us with more information. - Keta (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Change easter egg link to explicit link
Currently the template reads "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images." with "considered" being a link to the review page. Could we change this to make it explicit where the review page is? (each time I find myself hovering the links to find which one is the right one). Conversely, the link "Featured pictures" appears in bracket even though the entire words already appears in the same sentence and thus could already be linked. So to sum up, I would suggest rewriting the first sentence from:
"This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images."
to:
"This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and is considered one of the finest images. See the review page for more details."
With "review page" being the review page link. I would do it myself but couldn't find where this text anywhere in the code, so if someone else could do the change, that would be great. Thanks! Laurent (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the current text. Linking considered makes sense, as the review page is where this consideration took place. The current text is shorter. I would not like to increase the amount of text, as the box will quickly become cluttered for images which are featured in more than one project. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Move FP star above QI seal
The QI seal is currently placed above the FP star in the template. I would suggest to change this and move the FP star above the QI seal. --Jovian Eyestorm23:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Any reason as to why this should be done? Order doesn't mean anything in particular. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would be OK with some arbitrary criteria like alphabetical sorting. I do not believe any type of Assessments is more significant than another. They each assess something different about the files. That said, I would suggest an exception for POTY as it is supposed to be a very significant criteria but this is merely my opinion of course. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
That said I'd like to quote something I just read:
“
I am especially proud and happy because this image has received the three Commons labels,” she said, “being a Valued Image, a Quality Image and a Featured Picture.
”
This was from WMF blog. The file in question is File:Chateau Versailles Galerie des Glaces.jpg. Evidently people do care about Assessments and this is why we shouldn't favor one over the other. If people feel QI of VI is less significant they will not be as proud of their work.
I can make the logo order alternate with time. For instance the order could alternate every hour or every month. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that FP is the prime highlight of Commons which is why we select POTD from FP only. QI and VI are indeed different. The main page reads:
“
If you are browsing Commons for the first time, you may want to start with Featured pictures, Quality images or Valued images.
It is trivial to do this technically but I am not sure I am convinced as to why Featured should be given prominence. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the FP star above the QI seal on the layout page. If you arent convinced by my arguements, lets take alphabetical sorting in which case it will be Featured pictures, Quality images and Valued images. --Jovian Eyestorm11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I am thinking of trying to merge all Picture of the Day, Week, Month templates to one. Is there consensus for this? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Assessment icons
I think we can perhaps use assessment icons for non-commons assessments such as English Wikipedia FPs. It would look similar to WMF blog posts as it can be observed at images in this gallery. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Human readable parameters
It is evident that the use of this template is rather cryptic. "com=1" means featured, "com=1" means quality image, "com3=1" means valued image, "com4=1" means widescrean desktop wallpaper, "comy=1" means Picture of the year (1st place). So I propose a replace of all uses of...
com= -> featured=
com2= -> quality=
com3= -> valued=(this isn't used so no changes would happen (aside from 1 or 2 edits), but "com3" parameter would be replaced with "valued")
com4= -> wallpaper=
comy= -> POTY=
year= -> POTYyear=
ennom= -> enwiki-nom=
ornom= -> rowiki-nom=
pagename= -> com-nom=
My bot can make the modifications pretty quickly. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Also ennom and ornom parameters are obsolete and perhaps should be abolished -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a very good idea to have more human readable parameters. A concern could be if bots run from other projects add template arguments as a result of the promotion process of an FP on a language wiki. If such bots exist (I do not know), the replacement should be coordinated with the other projects, such that their implementations match new template argument names. From a user point of view, I guess backwards compatibility with old template arguments would be the best as then there could be a smooth transition. If old template arguments were used it could be coded in the template that the file page would be categorized to a hidden assessment template deprecation warning category, which could be monitored. However, this may introduce too many complications in the template code and risks of broken functionality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I can make it (after a cleanup) so that new uses of older parameters put files in a "to fix" category for bot runs to fix. Alternatively old parameters could remain to work (like how they do at the moment) but I think phasing them out would be better. I am unaware of any bot that syncs our assessments template use with local wikis. This is something I may run in the future though. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the ~10,000 uses of template to make things more human readable. I also added code that should put any page still using older parameters to Category:Assessment tagged pages that need review -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
5 images already showed up. Link is intentionally left red. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
More showed up and were fixed, remaining files are on protected pages (through cascading). -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I created the category and some subcats for the types of problems I observed. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the change is complete. I also checked to see if all candidacies were properly linked. They were not so that is something I also fixed. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be fixed for newer files. Older files may suffer breakage if the wikis naming scheme isn't uniform. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it is the path that they use in their own template, I'm not sure whether they moved everthing or why ours was different. I will go and check a few images to see if anything looks broken :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest checking the first few and last few promotions. Also I do not know if former featured files properly link. Same check should perhaps be applied to other languages if you are willing. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I started checking random FPs from their first promotions and most were ok, but now I think I see the problem:
I expect one is meant for general media and the other for images, but jpgs can be found on both branches. I expect that if I get google to translate all the information pages, I'd probably be able to work out the logic :-). There are considerable numbers of considerations at both locations. So the upshot is that the consideration pages may be in either location, so can we have code to check both (arghh sounds messy). I think this sort of thing used to apply to Commons FPs as we renamed the page that the considerations were sub-pages of, I'm not sure whether old pages were ever moved, so the same logic might be needed there too. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The old page was redirected in 16th April 2010 to the new page [1], so it looks as though all considerations since then should be at the new location, but the bulk will be at the old location. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Spanish wikipedia can probably resolve this locally or we can pass a parameter value to our assessment template which is |eswiki-nom= for Spanish Wikipedia. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, after being informed of this problem by とある白い猫, the task has been made by the bot of Mr.Ajedrez on es.wikipedia, as I'm having very little time these days. As you can check, there are no "Wikipedia:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas" pages left, except for redirections (of which we'll eventually take care of), so you can fix the template acoordingly. -jem- (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Very nice to know, thanks! :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Translations not fully operative
When I click on one of the languages in the bottom of the assessments box (I was looking at the Bison in the topic above), it now takes me to the template page rather than replacing the whole box with the translation. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I observed this as well. The translations do work automatically if you change your language settings. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It does auto translate when I click on the language links. Autotranslate is puzzling to me as well. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone has just fixed the autotranslate code, so now templates are being translated in-page properly. But many templates don't pass parameters through to the translated versions. --Tony Wills (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am now wondering what utility the lang links on the template are anyway. It has been pointed out to me that when logged out a language option is presented on each image page. If we dispense with the language choice line we can streamline a number of image page templates. Please comment at Commons:Village_pump#Translations --Tony Wills (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Translations should work now (even if it is partially translated). -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Spring cleanup
I am nominating unused sub-templates for deletion. I created most of them anyways. :p -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess the most basic solution would be to get a bot to replace the template by {{Quality Image}}, but I'm sure it would be better if {{Assessments}} could be made to work for QIs, so that people still have choice (and so that we don't need an additional template for images which are both FPs and QIs). I have my preference but I'm not fighting for an option over the other, though. --Eusebius (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Issue is resolved. Sorry about this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost resolved: a POTD statement is displayed in place of a QI statement. Thanks for your reactivity though. --Eusebius (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am tying to understand the issue with POTD. I do not see it. Assessments does not support POTD at the moment even though there is some code for it. {{Picture of the day}} should be used instead like how it is on that page. Are you viewing the page in a non-English language? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see the POTD problem either with that particular file page (English). But, a small suggestion for an improvement could be that the template linked to the finalist subpage, when it was a finalist as in the case above. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the issue anymore: maybe somebody did something in the meantime, maybe it was a cache issue. Anyway, thanks again. --Eusebius (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see the issue resolved somehow. :) Do let us know if you see other problems. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the POTY=c option (candidate)
I was in the process of translating the template to Danish when I stumbled on the POTY=c option, which is an indication that the file has been a candidate at the POTY in a given year. I suggest removing this option, as it is a triviality; all FPs in a given year are automatically candidates for POTY in the year it is promoted. Or, at least it has been so until now. So it is kind of redundant and of little use in my opinion. If a filepage has made it to the finals it is more interesting and relevant. Given that an objective for making the template is to avoid template clutter on a file page I think it is worthwhile to consider limiting the text and amount of information presented in the template to make it more "digestable". --Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest this decision be delegated to the POTY team, at least for a preliminary decision. I will bring it up on the POTY mailing list. Indeed all FPs are considered but only for that year, so to me the distinction is helpful. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Collapsible Wikipedia
Looking at some test cases and also based on ongoing discussion, I decided to add in collapsible feature for all Wikipedia assessments. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The collapsible will appear only if 3 or more "wikipedia" assessment is given to that file. I picked this number arbitrarily and it can be adjusted if needed. This is because the collapsible is not an advantage for 2 or less assessments. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. Also thanks for expanding the suite of test cases such that it is now easier to catch the possible side-effect from editing the template. --Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at that kind of lists through preview but per requests (such as from you) I decided to edit it in. Mind that I have recently removed few use cases from the template code as the focus is translations currently. They will be restored as translations are complete. Reason for this is multiple uses of the template breaks after about the 20th use as parser functions have limits on them for complexity and these pile up when multiple templates are used on a page. The single/many use cases will be restored after the translation campaign :). -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I restored the test cases and move language specific checks to the language templates. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This is done, now comes the translation part. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have been worthwhile to first discuss if WMF blog entries were in scope of the template before asking for the time of fellow editors to do translations at the VP? --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It has been discussed on the village pump and had been on the template for over a week. I merely generalized the code to make it translatable. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I was unaware about the VP thread. I have read it and see the consensus for the WMF blog inclusion in the template. I have no problem with that, just wanted to make sure it did not come out of the blue. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Notability criterion for being in scope of this template
I am not convinced that WMF blog entries are in scope as unlike, e.g., FP or POTY the appearance in the blog is not the result of a transparent review process involving multiple users. The WMF entries have probably been selected more or less arbitrarily by a WMF employee from our pool of Commons FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should discuss a notability threshold for what we want to have in scope of the template. For less noble appearances in wikimedia projects, we have the "Global usage" tab, where all the "what links here" information is maintained automatically by the mediawiki software. For instance, this photo of mine was the "Selected picture of the week in week 45 in 2008 on the Danish Portal of the English Wikipedia". Now, this may interest me as the creator (and I can just use the global usage to see that), but for others this is not really relevenat. (Of course this should never be part of this template, I am just showing this as an extreme example). --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
So we need to draw a line of what is relevant to include. The selected picture of the week on portal X on wiki y is of course not in scope, but what is? Personally I think the WMF blog usage should not be in scope, although it is a borderline case. Is an appearance of a photo in the Wikimedia Annual report in scope? Or is that better in scope of {{Published}} on the file talk page. I think the {{Published}} template is the best option in that case, but I am not sure. So lets discuss first before rolling out new features... --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It's inclusion is based on Village pump discussion. WMF blog features picture of the day on commons for that day I believe. It discusses the content of the image and an interview with the uploader. No one objected it so far but you and you are welcome to post your reservations to the village pump discussion if it has not been archived. It is hardly just a publication.
The purpose of "what links here" is not to establish assessments. It is for merely seeing the use of the file. "what links here" also is very inaccurate as it does not necessarily show all use. Drawing the line implies we will be favoring one project over another and we should avoid that. Also, I have not seen any demonstration that this is necessarily. The intended scope of the template is to unify assessments on WMF projects for images so that we do not See pages and pages of templates.
Yes, I know that the purpose of "what links here" is not to establish assessments. I was trying to elude to the fact that there are very many "minor" assessemnt templates around, for which I think it would be overkill to absorb in this template and go through the pain of localizing. For instance {{PoDaSP}} from the example I gave or some of the many other minor templates in Category:Assessment templates. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. My main argument is either it should not be shown on file description page at all or it should be "absorbed" into a single template so that it does not take too much space. For instance File:Constantin Hansen 1837 - Et selskab af danske kunstnere i Rom.jpg displays the same template 7 times. That could very well be presented inside the Assessments template in a single line displaying each use and linking to each assessment. That said, I have purposefully avoided putting in POTD assessments into the Assessments template because of their complicated nature. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looks bad with the seven entries, and personally I think the image should not have been tagged at all with this template, as - really - who cares? And altough it could be incorporated in a smarter way in a unified template on which hours could be spend, I think the cost/benefit ratio is too small. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually the template would be generic, usable with all non-commons Picture Of The Day/Week/Month situations. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite a number of wikis lack any kind of former category, some do not even have current category. I am unsure if the structure should be populated. After all it may just mean no one form the wikis are tagging the files on commons but such an issue is probably a task for a bot. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Linking to correct sub pages
I have been noticing a problem in this field. For instance for Japanese wikipedia there are three flavors of nominations:
Yes it is the same situation for many languages, often the location of images has changed over time too. Perhaps we need a bot to work out links for all broken template links as it appears to be too difficult to program the template to pick up all the possibilities. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably an easier solution would be to unify the page formats on each Wiki: either by page renames or redirects. --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several culprits of this problem I managed to identify.
Wiki's pattern isn't implemented yet. I managed to correct zh.wiki links by simply going to the wiki to find the correct namespace/subpage link.
Wiki does not have "featured picture candidates" at all. Instead they just have a semi-translation of en.wikipedias FP/FPC page with no actual nominations.
Wiki has changed the pattern. es.wiki (resolved), ja.wiki and en.wiki are among some. This problem typically stems from the renaming of the file namespace and has two or three variants (Image, File, Localization). Sub-pagenames do not get renamed automatically.
File was moved. The PAGENAME value changes after the file rename.
I am thinking of adding a parameter into the template which would allow the override of the default PAGENAME use.
This should be implemented in the filemove script where the code would look for the assessments template and update it if it is present by adding this parameter.
FPC bot would also need to look for the presence of the "moved" parameter and include "com-nom=" parameter to override "moved"
File isn't really featured and was incorrectly tagged.
Programming a template solution for external wikis using parser functions is impossible as parser functions do not follow external/interwiki linking. A bot is a solution I am working on but I think we can resolve some of these issues with a little work. I want to avoid involving the local wikis too much at this phase as we first have to make sure our patterns are correct.
What I'd like is if someone or someones would volunteer to verify the integrity of "considered" links. Do they correctly link at all? Is the pattern wrong? What is the flavors of patterns? Answering these questions would immensely help. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Why? They are not featured ANYWHERE. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually forget it. I just removed the tags since nothing implies they should be tagged. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough :-). I expect they should have just been put into the wallpaper category instead of being templated. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you so much have taken a look at the templates? Both templates have always been used to tag featured pictures.
In the case of {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} reads "This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 8:5 or 16:9, making it suitable as a widescreen computer wallpaper.".
In the case of {{Wallpaper}} reads "This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper."
Sorry I must have been unclear. Thanks for the explaination, but I can read, and already checked the history of the templates :-). I was simply guessing that the reason the files were tagged with the template is that it wasn't obvious (from the template name) that the template was only reserved for pictures with featured status, and that the editor simply meant to add them to the wallpaper category. As my rumination has not resulted in the work magically being done ..." Actually forget it. I just added the tags since nothing implies they shouldn't be tagged. ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That is fine. These smaller assessments are indeed a pain. I could have also been more clear about my objection. Sorry about that. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Why have all pictures well suited for being used as wall papers to be featured? I can't see the relation. Also agree with Tony Wills that a category should be used to tag those files, instead of a template. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No one claimed that. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus needed
I have reverted a series of edits made by a bot on some picture files, in which the "wallpaper" info was inserted into the Assessments template. As far as I remember from the last discussion, no consensus was reached on this. Personally I would only include the FP information. I hope that we can avoid the repetition of the previous drama and reach some large consensus before forcing the use of the template (as it is being done now).-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Wallpaper is within "Featured" assessments. Nothing on that page contradicts this. Objection was more about the inclusion of non-featured assessments such as quality images and valued images. Even the category they are within has the words "featured" in them. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start a new war or to offend anyone. But I don't like to be treated as being stupid either. There is no Wallpaper template in the version that gathered the consensus in the last discussion, which only contained the FP stars from the various wikis. And I wouldn't certainly have voted for it if there were! So, please stop with the little tricks and respect the consensus of the community. Or, if you think it is more appropriate, start a fresh discussion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Like votes of 6 people count enough of a "community consensus" to be usable as a rationale for reverting edits! Wallpaper is a featured stat. There is nothing to discuss here unless you are willing to provide an actual rationale. If not, do not make other people discuss views you yourself do not hold. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It was interesting to read that poll (that I apparently didn't get involved in). It appears that little has changed ;-). I think that {{Assessments}} for use for the various FPs has gained support, as the alternative (one FP template per project) would be un-managable. I have not seen a great clamour to include all sorts of other things into one template, in fact the general line of comments is that it is not wanted. Building monolithic templates to cover a multitude of things just makes them less maintainable. Templates use a relativily crude and opaque programming language, much more suitable for lots of separate modules each doing a discrete simple function. Please stop finding more elements that you can cram into one template structure, and instead finish the template into a clean and efficient piece of code that does one job well. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been part of this template since 2008. Portraying it as something "new" is just false. Vast majority of the uses of the wallpaper feature is through assessments template already. Also this is a featured parameter. You are entitled to your opinions and I do not share them. I am not required to share them. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Claiming something has been part of the template since 2008 holds no water. Other elements have been included in the template (eg "former QI") which are not wanted and not used. The "new" part is replacng all the alternatives with this template instead. We can not claim support for using this template and in the same breath dismiss a vote on the subject, unless we somehow know that the majority who didn't vote against it actually supported it. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually QI is used on about 1,000 files out of 27,404. That's about 3.5% which is a small amount but I wouldn't call it not wanted or not used. Some people do prefer QI feature of this template over the QI. I would argue that most people do not care how files are tagged as long as they are tagged somehow and people REALLY want to avoid a fight over it.
The vote in question has 6 deciding votes of which 4 are from people who have been active on this talk page recently. Does the three people represent half of what commons wants? I am one of the voters and I cannot in good faith claim that I represent 16.67% of commons community. I am sorry but I cannot see the 6 votes as definitive evidence either way. The only consensus through that vote is that in 2008 people did not quite care about templates that appear on file description pages.
Back then, images typically had no more than 3-4 templates appearing on them. Back then QI and VI didn't catch the eye of most folk as both were in its initial phases. Since then POTY for example adopted Assessments template to mark winners.
I am deprecating a low-use template few people (if anyone) cares about and am trying to absorb the process into {{Assessments}} to give it a new purpose.
The template programming language is to be switched to Lua in the forseeable future. IMO this will make them much less crude and opaque (and one can reasonably wonder whether investing a lot of time into templates using the old syntax is time well spent (but that is everyone's personal decision)). A template like {{Wallpaper}} add such an insignificant and minor amount of value that I would love to see it occupy less screen real estate. Absorbing it into Assessments thus seems fine with me (just to add a voice of encouragement to the choire of dissentment ;-) ). P.S.: is anyone else going to the Wikimania in D.C. ? --Dschwen (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to admitt that I've never taken much notice of the "wallpaper" tagging because I am not aware of any evaluation of a image's suitability beyound it being a particular aspect ratio and "featured" (I may be doing a great dis-service to whoever applies these tags :-( ). AFAIK the featured picture assessment process (on any project?) does not evaluate an image's suitablility as "Wallpaper". To my mind a desktop "wallpaper" has to meet a few criteria such as having easy visual separation from icons. So "busy" images don't work well, generally predominantly single hue images are better than highly colourful images etc. I think only about 50% of the images in Category:Computer wallpaper are actually useful as desktop wallpaper and far fewer in Category:Commons featured desktop backgrounds.
The relevance of all that to this topic is that there has been (AFAIK) no assessment process along the lines of FPC to determine their suitability, and therefore inclusion in a template about "assessments" is inappropriate. Whether we even need a "wallpaper" template at all is a wider discussion, I would have just used a category (but not everyone values my opinion ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Can't afford D.C. unfortunately.
This template is meant to orchestrate assessments. If you think one line of text occupies too much space, it can be reduced to an icon that displays the text on highlight. Manually added categories are a painful way to give out assessments as the reader is often unaware of them.
I am a fan of the dynamic RSS-fed bing wallpapers. We have better images and therefore we can offer freely-license alternative to the Bing files that are often annoyingly watermarked. Anybody who deals with FPC knows how much people resent watermarks, I am no exception to that crowd. We can easily rival them in quality and quantity. What better way to celebrate commons and featured pictures than this?
Currently humans are making the assessment on weather or not a file is a good desktop background. We do lack a procedure as to how people should tag files.
The assessment of what qualifies as a valid wallpaper can also be determined by machines. At this phase I lack the means to do so through software as magic words cannot give me image height, width, size or extension. A series of "rules" can determine good desktop images. For instance on top of height/width ratio, other information can be used to draw an automatic assessment. File extensions .svg, .ogg, .ogv, .oga files probably disqualify as valid wallpapers. Files over 10mb in size are also probably not ideal RSS feed candidates as they are too large. This code would also be able to generate a list of files that are too small and perhaps needs a review if they still are worthy to be called "featured".
This can even be extended to cover non-commons assessments to give a more localized feel. Wikipedia assessments tend to have a language/culture specific theme. This is part of why I am trying to include wikipedia assessments in this template.
Today I went through all my FP files and reverted the few remaining offending edits. But I can’t compete with a bot most especially when his owner does not appear to accept the collegial ways of Commons and fully acknowledge the outcome of the last discussion. If I remember well (I do!), one of the decisions of that discussion was that all edits made on the Assessment templates should be reverted. They were not, and that is why there are still a lot of picture files using the banned version. Apparently, the same thing is about to happen now as a number of changes have been made recently by a bot. What are we going to do about it? The important point here is not whether the template should contain some piece of information or not but whether this unilateral action, taken against the decision of the community, should be tolerated. I suggested it once and I do it again: why not start a fresh discussion on the subject (after reverting the recent edits, of course)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I can revert all your changes with the touch of two buttons. You are not competing with a bot. Do not make it sound like a revert war is going on. Template itself has been changed significantly and likewise changes made required modifications to the templates use.
Commons is not a bureaucracy. We allow users to edit pages, templates or even file description pages without a community-wide discussion each time. Your main argument seems to be "because 6 people voted". Getting a file to get featured status requires "At least 7 supporting votes" so that vote had it been for a single file would fail to constitute as consensus for "featured status".
All I ask you is to tell me what is there to discuss? Do you have any reason to object? If so what are those? Where do you want this discussed? Do you want a community-wide discussion over such a minor issue? The total number of affected files are fewer than 200. Do not disrupt commons just to satisfy your desire for bureaucracy.
I noticed how you refer to your uploads selected as FPs as "My FP files". You seem to have ownership issues. You do not own FPs. I realize this could be a quick way to refer to "my uploads that were granted featured status" but your attempt to regulate template usage on the file description pages is a concern. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Bots: Please do not accuse others of being disruptive as though the bot's edits are constructive and the reversion of them is destructive, especially when it was requested that we get a consensus for the bot's changes. Continued use of a bot to make changes over which there is an on going dispute would be disruptive. Yes "We allow users to edit pages..." all the time, but bot edits are meant for non controversial changes (which is why we can hide bot edits in the watchlist). It is normal practice to revert controversial changes (ie keep the status quo) until the matter is resolved.
Concensus: I am continually suprised at the thought process that can dismiss a vote on the matter as being of no weight - it is as though the idea of the template is so obviously correct that it needs a huge number of people to object before any notice is taken. The reality is that if one person is instigating a change and any one person objects we either have an edit war, or we discuss it. We usually either end up with a consensus, or we end up with someone being blocked. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Use of revert tool:
Revert tool should ONLY be used to revert obvious cases of vandalism, trolling and other non-controversial tasks. Replacement of wallpaper template was non-controversial until one user objected. It was nothing more than spring clean-up until that point. The bot operator (me) made no changes the moment objection was risen. There is no revert war.
No you do NOT revert bot edits unless bots code is broken in which case you first block the bot and revert provided there is an emergency. This is because the bot will continue to make the same edits unless the bot operator is notified and the running code is stopped. Bot edits are the responsibility of the bot operator and if a mess is created the bot operator is to clean it up. If a consensus is reached I can reinstate the template with trivial ease.
Also you do not "mass-revert" to status quo. You do not mass-revert all changes if there is a disagreement. There is no emergency and issues can be discussed.
On the matter of the "vote" and actual issue
That vote was contrived/forced from the start. It had little participation despite being posted on village pump. Even when I was on my 2 year wiki break this template has been improved and edited. The consensus from 50 votes and 5 votes is significantly different particularly if support/oppose votes do not in general provide a rationale. The commons community has disregarded most aspects of the vote in the past 3 years. For instance POTY is tagged through the Assessments template despite the vote. Wallpaper is also tagged through assessments template.
Alvesgaspar never notified me in regards to the bot edits. User went directly to "reverts" reverting a few of the bots edits which I noticed coincidentally while reviewing bots changes to make sure they were OK. User had not attempted any kind of conversation and it was I who went and asked this user why he or she is reverting bots edits. If someone is avoiding discussion, it isn't me.
Which 'revert' tool? Yes, "rollback" should be used for vandalsim, "undo" is used for any type of reversion. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
re No you do NOT revert bot edits
Of course anybody can revert 'bot' edits. What are you talking about? An edit by a bot is nothing more or less than an automated edit by that bots controller, and is of course subject to reversion by anybody at any time. If a bot is so badly written that it gets itself involved in a revert war, that is no different from that bot's owner getting involved in a revert war - so please write that code, and operate that bot carefully. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
re That vote was contrived
Once again you dismiss the vote on the subject, and without any evidence assume that the opposite is true, why?. Just accept the outcome of the original discussion or ask the community explicitly to reconsider the question. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not embed remarks in other peoples comments. I have moved your comments embedded in mine. Such edits make other peoples comments difficult to follow - at least for me.
Revert tools should be used with care. Edits should never be reverted without a rationale and should be avoided as much as possible or else we get constant revert wars.
Reverting the bots edit without telling the user that there is a problem escapes common sense. In fact reverting any edit unless there is an obvious reason such as vandalism escapes common sense. No one can operate a bot of any kind if the bot operator is expected to follow each and every edit of the bot. I pay close attention to my bots edits but I do not review each and every edit.
I am not going to have a poll over an issue no one cares about. Alvesgaspar stated he doesn't really care either way. You yourself would prefer both templates disappear since you do not see the point of the wallpaper assessment. So why do you care which version is preferred?
I hope this format makes it easier to understand the flow or comments, you are welcome to insert your responses between paragraphs, I will sign each one to make it easy for you. You accidentally deleted a whole lot of comments from the end (maybe you moved them, but they just appeared to have been cut out and not replaced). Please be more careful :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
re No one can operate a bot of any kind...
The bot operator is responsible for the bots edits, whether they wish to check each one is up to them. Reverts will appear on their bots watchlist, if they don't watchlist their bot edits they won't be aware of reverts, is that a problem? But their edits were uncontroversial right? they were just doing routine maintenance that no one had ever voiced an opinion on, nor voted or anything right? Good, not a problem then. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
re I am not going to have a poll...
A very strange statement, do you perhaps mean that you aren't going to participate in a poll on the subject, or just ignore the outcome of any poll? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not ever embed comments in my posts as it leads to such errors.
The bot will always "revert war" with humans even over routine changes if humans merely revert and never notify the bot operator. The bot has a set code which it will follow mindlessly. The bot operator will stop that set code on first objection. It is not that hard to post one response to the talk page of the bot operator. Revert summaries is NOT a substitute to discussion and any user whom prefers revert summaries over discussion shouldn't be editing at all. This is done all the time. Do not reinvent the wheel.
I think the previous poll is satisfactory. Wallpaper is a featured parameter. I do not see the need for a new poll.
Is this really one of the select few images that we wish to promote as one of the best files on Commons for a desktop background?
re Please do not ever embed...
The comments that you accidentally deleted were in a completely seperate area (at the end of the topic), please be more careful with drastic "re-factoring" of posts. But you're right, if it confuses so much then we can't communicate, I will remember to keep the structure simple. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
re The bot will always "revert war"...
Once upon a time (in the dark ages of computing) there was a term "garbage in, garbage out". That has not been acceptable for at least 30 years. If you are only able to write "mindless" code, then take care - the edits are being made in your name by your mindless helper. Nice to know you are available 24/7 to respond to stop messages. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
re I think...
Use as Wallpaper is not and never has been part of a Featured Picture assessment, it has nothing to do with FPC. It is a subjective attribute that could be considered as part of FPC but probably never will be. It is currently an ill-defined category with no quality control or peer review that just lowers the quality of the FP assessment template (by including unreliable information). --Tony Wills (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Not bothering to notify the bot operators and instead engaging in non-stop revert war with the bot is disruption of commons. Sentient AI is part of my research field but we are far from that goal. That is why the code will remain mindless for all scripts run by every user. If you are unwilling to post even a short message to the bot operator (and perhaps provide a diff so the bot operator knows exactly whats wrong) you shouldn't be monitoring bot operations. If of course the bot is running with a broken script (which can happen due to a number of reasons) it can be blocked until bot operator shuts down the code. It should be the bot operators responsibility to clean up the mess and other users shouldn't be inconvenienced to do so. This is common practice. Anyways I do not want to discuss this further since it is clear best course of action is to agree to disagree.
I do not feel this section is the right place to discuss the point of wallpaper assessment as this thread has bloated enough already. I propose the part about criteria for wallpaper assessment be broken off as a separate section. You did raise valid points and I would be more than willing to try to address them. Feel free to move it.
We do have plenty of featured pictures of mummies, skeletons and other items. My main worry with wallpaper template is enforcing technical limits so that the chosen picture is suitable as a wall paper without half of the screen remaining unused. Or files being unusable as wallpapers by the OS and stuff like this. Like FP wallpaper assessment may need a more structured process though to be honest I am really not sure either way.
At this stage I want to merge all types of "wallpaper" assessment to one template which would make it easier for me to handle technical aspects. For instance it would be possible to enforce wallpaper tagging with "featured" status allowing either automatic demotion or adding such files to a category for further review.
Info -- Shizhao continues to insert the wallpaper info into multiple files despite the warning in his talk page. I think the only solution now is to prevent the use of the template from everybody, revert all changes (as decided long ago) and start a fresh discussion. Some help from an admin, please? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I am thinking of reverting your edits instead. This was a pointless discussion since even from the start you weren't really interested in a discussion, just having your way. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, can we just not make such a big deal out of that? "Warnings" on talk pages? Is that really necessary? This whole thing seems less about the issue (who cares about that wallpaper template thing anyways) and more about being right and propper procedure. What happened to IAR? --Dschwen (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I’m amazed how you seem annoyed with my poor use of English and don’t even mention the inner substance of the conflict. You are quite right, I don’t give a s* for whether the wallpaper thing is put inside the template or not (though it seems a useless piece of information if applied this way, and only to FP). I am indeed talking here about being right and about proper procedures. We both know what is being tried here: to circumvent the result of the last discussion, to avoid that a fresh one is started and to force the use of the template as it is being designed now. Still such procedure contradicts the normal Commons' ways (the ways of any respectful human organization, for that matter), as decisions are taken democratically (or by consensus, if you like) and applied strictly afterwards, until a new decision is made. It troubles me to realize how complacent Commons community seems to be when some user explicitly expresses his disrespect for its decisions and his intention of proceeding accordingly. It also troubles me that a meta and commons administrator purposely ignores the messages left at his talk page and only reacts when a formal complaint is made at COM:AN/U. No big deal? I respectfully disagree. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In other words you are asking us to discuss this issue for the sake of discussion/bureaucracy? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The request for discusion is because you are unable to accept any objection, nor the outcome of the previous discussion. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I have not seen any objection aside from "procedure" which is not a valid reason to object. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, actually I didn't see anything wrong with your use of the english language (and I was not trying to find fault in any case). So I'm not annoyed with that at all. Oh, I think I see it now! Sorry, but I just misspelled "propper" as well, I did not realize that and I was not trying to mock you. --Dschwen (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm new to this discussion but just a suggestion. If you really want to absorb QI, VI and FP templates, configure that in the respective bots because they still use separate templates instead of adding/changing the assessments template.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually the complaint is over the absorption of the {{Wallpaper}} template. Kind of... -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am going to absorb the remaining 10 uses of {{Wallpaper}} as this template can be deprecated now. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Very good catch! I think I have fixed the issue. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Stray HTML syntax?
Currently, for pictures featured on wikipedias, this template shows a collapsed collapsible list with the title "<Wikipedia>". Are those angular brackets intended?--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. Unfortunately Mediawiki lacks means to auto-translate the word "Wikipedia". Once that is fixed, the code would show localized word instead of "<Wikipedia>". If this is a problem I can covert it to read English "Wikipedia". -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't do much good for languages that don't use Latin script. Isn't so much of a problem now, just looks wierd--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The idea is that ⧼Wikipedia⧽ shows the localized version based on user settings. So it would show "Vikipedi" instead of "Wikipedia" if users settings were in Turkish. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Mediawiki already knows the localization in most languages. The trick is getting Mediawiki to use this built in information. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
After a discussion with the devs it was more feasible to implement this with a switch. It should be resolved now. I was hoping to handle it automatically through MediaWiki resources (so that it would be always up to date) but I wasn't able to find a way. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Translate templates needs an update. Even though assessments. At a certain point translation of Assessments template was broken into two. This is an attempt to merge the two Autotranslate functionality into a single location. Code from {{Assessments/translate/en}} should be used as reference to update all other translations in terms of code. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I started a Finnish translation, but couldn't find a way to specify the name of a language in specific grammatical cases with {{Language}}. For example, {{language|en|fi}} produces "englanti", but the translation requires "in the English-language <project>", which would be "englanninkielisessä" (having a way to just get the genitive "englannin" would be fine). {{I18n month}} seems to understand grammatical cases, but apparently there's no way to do the same with {{Language}}? Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to explain which line this is the problem? Could it be possible to rephrase the sentence in a manner where grammar would not be a problem? I do realize grammar can be a serious obstacle in automated translation schemes but most languages have ways of phrasing sentences in perhaps a slightly weird manner around the grammar issues. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is in the Featured Picture switch structure (eg. "the {{Language|{{{lang|{{{1|}}}}}}}} language Wikisource"). There's currently no way to correctly say "in the English-language Wikisource" with the {{Language}} template, and reformulating it does sound awkward. The current translation says roughly "in the Wikisource of the language 'English'." Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You can replace the structure with your preference. As long as the link structure is maintained, it doesn't matter from a technical standpoint. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually see the problem better now. Is the problem non-fixable? I do not know Finnish so a few examples in Finnish would let me file a bugzilla entry. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 10:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess it could be done by using a switch that enumerates all necessary languages (I guess there are only a handful of languages that use a Featured Picture system anyway). Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed rtl elements he had introduced and introduced rtl elements to the root template. I hope this is an improvement. Please let me know what you think. Also are there other rtl languages aside from ar (Arabic), he (Hebrew) and fa (Farsi)? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. That`s much better than what I did. Thanks a lot. ar, he and fa are the main widely used rtl, in addition there is Urdu, N'Ko, Maldivian, and Syriac which I don`t see templates for them in the translation task. Please feel free to post this on the discussion page if necessary. --Ciphers (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Ongoing translation, shouldn't have been archived. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This has gone too far!
By now, White Cat's bot should have completed the task of inserting one more non-consensual piece of information into the Assessment template of our FP (a stupid one, btw). With no valuable justification, except a link to a very recent POTY discussion where the action is supported by 1 (one) user. With our complacence, this has indeed gone too far towards a personal goal that should be obvious by now: to activate the multiple parameters that White Cat has been developping during the last months. Unless we act quickly and firmly we will loose control of the situation (maybe we have already!). Here is what I suggest: (1) White Cat has proved to be untrustable and his bot priviledges should be removed; (2) The template should be brought to a form which respects the present consensus and protected against changes; (3) All non-consensual edits to our FP should be reverted (how, I frankly do not know. Many changes have already been made surreptisiouly). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Any other demands? What control are you trying to reach commander? Also "our FP"? You have very serious ownership issues. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Merging subcats into this template
We have a considerable number of Category:Featured pictures sub-categories such as Category:Featured pictures of aircraft which can be merged into this template. Would there be objections to this? If merged such information can be used for different means as well. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there will be at least one strong objection. The present template was approved to be used only to show the FP stars of the various wikis, nothing else. While a new consensus is not reached, based on a thorough and enlarged discussion, the old agreement applies. I don't think that this discret - almost surreptitious - suggestion is the correct way of addressing the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really. That is not how commons operates, we do not "approve" new template features. We do not have such enlarged discussions unless issue is important enough to disturb the entire wiki. Categorization isn't such a topic. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you try to elaborate a bit on what you mean by merging them into the template, and how you see that could be beneficial? How can the information be used for different means? An example of what you have in mind would be helpful. --Slaunger (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The template currently puts featured pictures only under Category:Featured pictures. User's need to manually tag sub-categories such as Category:Featured pictures of aircraft. This integration can be exploited further such as putting plane icons to denote the file is "aircraft" related. This icon could be clicked on to take the user to this category. This is useful because categories do not show outside of commons. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I see the point. But would people on a local wiki not be confused to be brought to a Commons category page when clicking on, e.g., an aircraft icon on a template visible in the file page of the local wiki? Or do I misunderstand? Implementing this (and maintaining) this would be an very huge task... There are also FPs by countries, and subcats under that, and they are changed and expanded all the time. --Slaunger (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Users are told all information they read beyond a certain point is from commons (Consider simple:File:Strobilurus esculentus Fichten-Zapfenrübling.jpg for todays POTD). Clicking the icon would be no different from all links that appear on every file description page. As for maintenance, people would either categorize normally (and a bot would crawl) or use the assessments template directly (a parameter like |subcat1=aircraft). The code for this feature would not be integrated into the main code so it can be tested thoroughly before appearing on any page. Before I start coding how it would look like I'd like to ask where do we want to display the image and how large do we want it to appear? We could also display text but that would be rather painful to translate. It can be done, just would be painful. :/ -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, let’s try to be constructive and discuss the subject in abstract (please do not take this as an implicit approval of the suggestion). As far as I understand the idea is to reflect all categories which result from the intersection of "Category: Featured pictures" with other categories (e.g. "featured picture of cats") into the Assessment template, via a specific icon. This would allow users from all wikis to immediately access the corresponding galleries in Commons just by pressing the icon. Some candid questions, to clarify what we are exactly talking about:
To whom is this feature useful? Typically, people interested in finding some kind of image looks for it in Commons, going through the category tree or doing a category search. That is what Commons is about.
Why limit the concept to featured pictures, which are only a very small fraction of all images available in Commons?
How thorough should the process be? Should we, for example, have different symbols for all categories in "featured pictures by country"?
How deep should the concept go? Should we have symbols applying to the intersection of three categories, like "featured pictures of cats in Portugal"?
How will the system be implemented and managed? All images uploaded to Commons are (better or worse) categorized. However very few of those promoted to FP deserve the attention of the editors in assigning to them such special "intersection categories" (which may be more than one). That is why I have always considered them to be useless for practical purposes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to answer your candid questions. :)
It provides UI to users whom can otherwise not see this information. User cannot be expected to come to commons knowing the category exists. Also the user may not know English so a picture would be adequate to identify where it is leading. The category page can have a translation and explanation for the user.
Assessments template currently only handles "featured" pictures. Hence why its scope is limited to featured pictures.
This process would not create categories, just use existing ones. As explained in the previous number I am thinking of two images such as , . As I said, I am not sure about the intersecting categories part and an example would clarify the matters.
Implementation would be a task of assigning a symbol for each category. A switch statement would be used which would list all associations. Management can be either by bot crawls of manual categorization or direct use of the template. User would input to the template. If template is used, user would input a parameter such as "subcat1=aircraft" and the template would put the file under Category:Featured pictures of aircraft and generate the symbol.
I had the impression that an important point with the template is to decrease file page clutter. But if these icons are added, clutter will increase in the template. And on the Commons file pages, information will then be redundant, i.e., both as an icon and as a category underneath. Does not seem to support the overall objective for me. --Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a file of 12px high that would appear perhaps next to the "This file is considered a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons" text (similar to how wikipedias have the featured star). I do not see that as too much clutter. It is similar to how we show the featured star and also put files under the featured category. We need to also consider inter-operability with non-commons wikis. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to make an unconstructive remark for a change. This Featured pictures of ... category subtree is a bad idea (to avoid stronger language, such as moronic). This should be used through category intersection. --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I kindda agree. They are a symptom of a broken system. If the category views in Mediawiki were smart you could sort and filter the category view by their "featured-ness" (FP/QI/VI) size, page views, no of wikimedia project uses, upload date, file name etc. Unfortunately, Mediawiki can't do that... --Slaunger (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hence why this template would help with that. We can display the info any way we desire without the limitations of categories. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Dito. Lets be realistic; we have already close to 500 Featured pictures of/by/on ... categories, soon they will add the by year dimension. This is not manageable in a template. --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not an obstacle for the template implementation. Year would simply be a parameter. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Should I go ahead with this? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. The thing is I think controlling the categories would let the template know what topic is on it. This can be harnessed many ways. For instance it can be used to determine files that are not under any "featured" sub-categories. This could be a backlog for tagging. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to try to code a possible expansion. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
For countries seems to work fine (120/368): |||| -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted, baffled, and yaw-dropped that you start implementing template code along this line, when noone commenting on it has stated that it is a good idea. --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Template code is currently unrelated to the actual assessments template. It may end up never getting used. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose proposal. Please do not go ahead with this. The assessment box is IMO cluttered enough, and adding further images to it will be greatly annoying. Secondly, if other wikipedias want access to our category structure, they should pester the developers for that or funnel their users directly through to the Commons file page. It is not for us to try to work around the current mediawiki setup and draw users into commons categories. --99of9 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
No it is our responsibility to work around problems poised by Mediawiki. Why do you think we have so many toolserver/JavaScript based solutions to every day problems. I will keep developing the code regardless since it has nothing to do with the actual operation of the assessments template. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 05:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- I really don't know what to do more to convince you that this leads to nowhere except to more frustration to yourself and to a growing irritation from the community. It does not matter how much work you have invested in this template or how useful it might be, if you are unable to recognize the need for a previous and broad consensus. And the only way of reaching such consensus is to start a serious discussion. Frankly, the alternative that you have apparently chosen doesn't seem promising to anyone or to the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't even proposed it yet. How can you oppose something not proposed? It feels to me like you exist only to frustrate me. How would you like if people opposed all of your FP/QI/VI nominations just to annoy you? That is the feeling I get form you. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Templates should not generate topical categories, especially when passed as a template parameter. That is a basic commons categories rule. The generated categories are not maintainable. Overloading a template makes it simply unusable. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't what is being proposed though. In fact this isn't even a proposal. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Hope I got it all. Rocket000 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
and 
on top of each other is just confusing.
Info -- Shizhao continues to insert the wallpaper info into multiple files despite the warning in his talk page. I think the only solution now is to prevent the use of the template from everybody, revert all changes (as decided long ago) and start a fresh discussion. Some help from an admin, please? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
, 
). I know better images for either symbol may exist but these were the first that came to my mind.
.jpg){kind=link}
|
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- I really don't know what to do more to convince you that this leads to nowhere except to more frustration to yourself and to a growing irritation from the community. It does not matter how much work you have invested in this template or how useful it might be, if you are unable to recognize the need for a previous and broad consensus. And the only way of reaching such consensus is to start a serious discussion. Frankly, the alternative that you have apparently chosen doesn't seem promising to anyone or to the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)