Template talk:Commons category/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title parameter

It would be nice if this template supported an optional title parameter, for cases where the commonscat has an unfortunate name. For example, Generic Mapping Tools would really benefit from a link to the commons category commons:Category:GFDL-GMT. But using this template one is stuck with text explicity referring to the rather ungainly GFDL-GMT. Would it be possible to add a parameter to allow us to override the display name of the link in circumstances like these (perhaps using markup like {{commonscat|GFDL-GMT|Generic Mapping Tools}})? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You can already change the target, e.g. {{Commonscat|GFDL-GMT}}, but this changes the visible text as well. Is that what you wanted? If not, I suggest you add {{editprotected}} to this talk page, along with the exact change you want made to the template page, i.e. the code as well as the result. That'll make it easier and hopefully quicker as well. SeventyThree^(Talk) 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

Please add:

• Ukrainian
  [[uk:Шаблон:Commonscat]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipeditor (talk • contribs) .

Done. - EurekaLott 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add to the source the following interwiki link

[[es:Plantilla:Commonscat]] --elwikipedista 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, also add the following: [[ca:Template:Commonscat]] [[cs:Template:Commonscat]] [[eo:Template:Commonscat]] [[id:Template:Commonscat]] [[io:Template:Commonscat]] [[is:Template:Commonscat]] [[lt:Template:Commonscat]] [[lv:Template:Commonscat]] [[ms:Template:Commonscat]] [[oc:Template:Commonscat]] [[pl:Template:Commonscat]] [[ro:Template:Commonscat]] [[simple:Template:Commonscat]] [[sl:Template:Commonscat]] [[su:Template:Commonscat]] [[tr:Şablon:CommonsKat]]

Done... - EurekaLott 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Шаблон:Commonscat]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

...and done. - EurekaLott 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, correct sl: to sl:Predloga:Kategorija v Zbirki. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Will have that done in a moment. Luna Santin 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

surprising interaction with images

In the course of adding another image to Fremont Bridge (Portland), I discovered a peculiar side effect of {{Commonscat}}. I intended the image appear midway down the left side (as in the present article version), but putting [[Image:Fremont bridge pedal 1230.jpeg | thumb | left]] in the middle of the article mysteriously showed the thumb at the bottom left.

After several confused attempts, I surrendered and placed it at the top left as that seemed the only other place allowed. Another article did it correctly somehow, so that led to determining {{Commonscat}} "drags" all images below it (in the wikitext) to the bottom of the article. Is this intentional? If so, perhaps the template page could mention the recommended placement of the template reference. — EncMstr 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

de:Vorlage:Commons2 has been deleted

de:Vorlage:Commons2 has been deleted --84.137.17.88 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I presume it has now been replaced with de:Vorlage:Commonscat so I've updated the interwiki link to use that. -- Solipsist 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template?

See title. Simply south 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The template links to a corresponding Wikimedia Commons category, which may have further pictures, video, etc. for the topic at hand. It's usually placed in a "See also" or "External links" section from what I've seen. Carl Lindberg 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Different size than Template:Commons

The size of the images is just a bit different, you don't even see it if you don't see the templates next to eachother. But for the perfectionists among us... maybe the size could be made the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bart v M (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, this template is slightly narrower width than the other Wikimedia templates. Could someone please fix. --Pmsyyz 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

<div class="infobox sisterproject">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|left|50px]]
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons]] has media related to:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;"> '''''[[Commons:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div>
</div>

The template code should be replaced with the above, to standardize the width with {{commons}}. I've added {{editprotected}} to the top of this section, which will summon an admin who can make the change. Picaroon 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above is only the text that should be placed before the <noinclude>. The <noinclude> and the text after it should stay as they are. Picaroon 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Picaroon 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis

{{editprotected}} Please update the interwikis with a copy/paste of the following (easier than only listing the changes):

<!-- interwiki -->
[[af:Sjabloon:CommonsKategorie]]
[[als:Vorlage:Commonscat]]
[[az:Şablon:CommonsKat]]
[[bg:Шаблон:Commonscat]]
[[ca:Plantilla:Commonscat]]
[[cs:Šablona:Commonscat]]
[[da:Skabelon:Commonscat]]
[[eo:Ŝablono:Commonscat]]
[[eu:Txantiloi:Commonskat]]
[[fr:Modèle:CommonsCat]]
[[ko:틀:Commonscat]]
[[hr:Predložak:Commonscat]]
[[io:Template:Commonscat]]
[[id:Templat:Commonscat]]
[[os:Шаблон:Commonscat]]
[[is:Snið:Commonscat]]
[[lv:Veidne:Commonscat]]
[[lt:Šablonas:Commonscat]]
[[hu:Sablon:Közvagyonkat]]
[[mk:Шаблон:Ризница-врска]]
[[ms:Templat:Commonscat]]
[[nl:Sjabloon:Commonscatklein]]
[[ja:Template:Commonscat]]
[[oc:Modèl:Commonscat]]
[[pl:Szablon:Commonscat]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Commonscat]]
[[ro:Format:Commonscat]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Commonscat]]
[[simple:Template:Commonscat]]
[[sk:Šablóna:Commonscat]]
[[sl:Predloga:Kategorija v Zbirki]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Commonscat]]
[[sh:Template:Commonscat]]
[[su:Citakan:Commonscat]]
[[fi:Malline:Commonscat]]
[[sv:Mall:Commonscat-box]]
[[th:แม่แบบ:Commonscat]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Commonscat]]
[[tr:Şablon:CommonsKat]]
[[uk:Шаблон:Commonscat]]
[[zh-yue:Template:同享類]]
[[zh:Template:Commonscat]]

They were all checked and sorted. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

done. CMummert · talk 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link

{{editprotected}}

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki link:

[[ia:Patrono:Commonscat]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. (I'm not entirely certain that I've sorted ia: correctly in the list, though; put editprotected back up if I've got it wrong.) --ais523 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Piping link

{{Editprotected}}Could we change the template to allow piped links? eg.

<div style="margin-left: 10px;"> '''''[[Commons:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]'''''</div>

to

<div style="margin-left: 10px;"> '''''[[Commons:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]'''''</div>

Which follows the Template:Commons syntax. Already tested most situations here. Thanks, Monkeyblue 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008-2009

Renaming suggested

Title is "commonscat". Should be renamed to "commons_cat" because at present it can be read as "common scat". William Ortiz (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Many words can be broken into subwords, but that is no reason to ban them: rename could be "ren-a-me" or, the word "rather" could split as "rat-her" or template might appear "temp-late" as a slow-arriving temporary. The word "commonscat" is fine. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done the rename. The old name will remain as a redirect. Superm401 - Talk 11:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The rename broke a couple of links (double redirect), can you move it back? The previous name was also consistent with other templates. -- User:Docu

I'm sorry about the double redirects (are there any still remaining?), but I'd rather not move it back. In general, there's no reason we have to avoid spaces. Superm401 - Talk 13:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, there are many reasons to avoid spaces in terminology. The names "Rom-e-o" and "Jul-i-et" can lead to problems in interpretation: the word "Rom" is German for "Rome" and "Jul" is the Christmas season. Once "commonscat" is split as "commons cat", then people will probably not like the word "cat" sounding like the opposite of dog: oh wait, they did object to "cat" so that led to name "commons category". Great, let's rename Romeo to "son of his father" so no one needs to learn a new word. No, instead, "Romeo" is acceptable as a name, and so is "commonscat". Plus once words are split, they no longer match as a search-engine word: hunting for "commonscat" is much more precise than hunting for thousands of "commons category". Plus, there's more: the word "commons" means a common, shared area, so newcomers will probably think "commons category" refers to a group about the town commons. Always try to look ahead, and predict problems when changing to an alternative. Ask: why have people created new words, for centuries, rather than recombine dozens of prior words to name something, instead? Gee, maybe now we all know. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Call Template:Commons

I think this should be made into a call to {{commons}} to avoid redundancy:

{{commons|:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}

which produces:

should work fine. Superm401 - Talk 11:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll do this soon. Superm401 - Talk 13:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Superm401 - Talk 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<noinclude>

move the <noinclude> right up to the same line as the }}}}}}}}}}. It's creating extra space when templates are stacked above or below it, or when 2 of these templates are stacked one on top of the other.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cases where media is not involved?

This says 'Commons has media related to'..., but what about cases where it is not about media, e.g. commons:Category:Users in Belgium, which is merely a category for users there? Richard001 (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it links to a page (either a gallery or a category), which not change it to 'Commons has a page related to...', or perhaps leave media as a default but allow this to be changed to 'a page' if desired? Richard001 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Add wikilink?

{{editprotected}} Can we wikilink Wikimedia Commons? {{wikisource-author}} links to Wikisource. Skomorokh 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. As a note, the template that needed editing was {{commons}}, not this one. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sorry I didn't look closely enough. Regards, Skomorokh 11:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be linked, then was delinked per Template talk:Commons#This template is really awful. Apparently some people click on the link to the article on Commons when they mean to go straight to the Commons page. However, as you point out, and I think I may have too, it's inconsistent to do this only for the Commons template and not all the other interwiki templates (like Source). If {{Commons}} is to be changed, they should all be changed with it. Richard001 (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The commons logo should link to the image; we already have a link to the main page in the template. Please add: link=commons:Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}|Commons to the Commons logo. Thanks-- penubag  (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - I believe you would actually have to make that request at {{Commons}}. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing templates

{{editprotected}}

Hi, I think the wording of these two templates should be changed to show that the first relates to a gallery and the second to a category. "Wikimedia Commons has a gallery of images related to Ivan the Terrible" and "Wikimedia Commons has a category of images related to Ivan the Terrible" would help to differentiate. Currently they appear identical in an article. Thanks Rotational (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that anyone would object to clarifying what is obviously an unintended bit of confusion....... Surely it would fall in the category "uncontroversial" in the sense that it is used in the lead paragraph "if the proposal is uncontroversial" Rotational (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done: What's the practical difference to the readers?--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no practical difference between a gallery and a category, then why maintain the illusion of a difference? Rather simplify and have only one, otherwise the system becomes even more muddled. Rotational (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see Rotational's point - there is a subtle difference in the template in that the target for one is a page, and the target for the other is a category. However the aim and end result for both is the same - to direct people to commons media on the topic. If there is only media on a page, then the page template is used; if there is more media placed in a category then the category template is used. There is no need to differentiate as both templates would not be used in the same article to direct to the same topic. If there is a category, that would be used over the page as it gives more media choices. SilkTork *^YES! 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Display problem

I don't know if something was changed recently, but this template is displaying incorrectly in the polycarbonate article. The box is extending across the whole screen. Wizard191 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found an open table in one of the sections above which was corrupting this template. Wizard191 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Position

{{editprotected}}

Please add |position={{{position|}}} after {{commons, so this template can be used on the left side too. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - And checked the code of the template it calls, this is correct. I trust you will update the /doc accordingly.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the move?

I noticed the template was moved from "Commons cat" to "Commons category" the other day. Have I missed a discussion somewhere, because it seems a large step to take with no consensus? I see it rather pointless, when this template is used on so many pages, to move it, when most people will know what Commons cat is anyway. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering that myself, just noticed a bot 'correcting', my fingers are now trained to type it the old way, it redirects anyway. Hopefully someone will explain. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if no one replies soon, I will contact the user who performed the move. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, it appears to have been done without discussion, maybe a change to get a bot's edit count up?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note just added on the user's talk page. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cat" is jargon, "we" (on this talk page - and users of the template) all know what it means, but there is no harm in spelling it out. Like so much on WP when you are immured in it it is "obvious" - dab, admin, wikt, arbcom, prod, speedy A1, RFC, and so forth - but for relative newcomers there is a massive learning curve. Also there is a question of standardization, so that template names are easy to remember - hence the guideline for template naming recommends the same casing convention as the rest of WP (sentence case), spaces to separate words and full words. You can still use Commoncat, Commons2, Cms-catlist-up, Catlst commons, Commonscategory, Commonscat, or Commons cat if you prefer. You could even make a redirect from {{Ccat}} if the extra letters seem fatiguing. As for replacing occurrences automatically, SB only does that to pages it is already visiting, together with some small number of other templates. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

OK, thanks very much! All fair points, particularly the standardisation issue. Thanks for the reply. May I suggest next time you do something like this though you leave a quick note on the talk page first, just to avoid any confusion? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Box width

Is it possible to change size of the box to line up with Infobox. Infobox is, I think, 250px wide. Also is it possible to add

<br>

, inside "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:" after to:, to have the "Category" line below --WlaKom (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclosed bold

Please see Inner_German_border#External links and consider correcting the unclosed bold in the template, thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An unclosed <cite></cite> group before a heading the template was somehow causing the bolding. Mea culpa. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2010-2011

HTML

The syntax in all these templates should appear the same:

• {{Commons}}
• {{Commons category}}
• {{Wikispecies}}

Fix174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FrescoBot 6

Hi! I wish to inform you that I asked here the approval for a bot able to add, in few very obivious cases and after appropriate checks on Wikimedia Commons, the templates {{commons}} and {{commons category}}. For details or questions please check Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 6. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons / Commons cat vs. Sister project links

I noted that here a user removed {{Commons cat}} due the concurring presence of {{Sister project links}}. In my opinion it should not affect or discurage the use of {{Commons category}} or {{Commons}} because {{Sister project links}} simply "provides links to the 'Search' page on the various Wikimedia sister projects". That means that it does not grant that any related content actually exist, it is just a (blind) guess. {{Commons}} and {{Commons cat}} instead state that Wikimedia Commons actually has media related to the subject and provide a link to it. This is a precious information. What do you think about it? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers

21-Nov-2010: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Allowing standard align=left

21-Nov-2010: Bug fix: This Template:Commons category needs to restore use of the standard keyword "align=left" known universally across the entire Earth due to the word "align" being a long-term keyword in HTML and World Wide Web usage. Apparently, when Commonscat (with align=left) was re-re-re-redesigned in February 2009, someone favored the word "position" to replace "align=left". Now, there's the danger someone else might want "side=left" as yet another redesign, unless forced to meet standard keywords, such as "align=left" (and "align=right" etc.). Fortunately, both keywords ("align" & "position") can be allowed inside the template, without incurring a resource drain for template usage. Simply check for either keyword inside the template, as with:

• position = {{{align|{{{position|right}}}}}}

The use of "align" as the outer keyword allows it to override the value of "position=right" just in case someone, new to Wikipedia, would of course assume to insert "align=left" while unaware of what-the-heck the parameter "position=right" does. When deprecating older keywords, it is advisable to give priority to new keywords, in the event that older keywords might be remnants buried in areas not seen, yet allow the new, obvious keywords to take effect without knowing the twisted past of unusual former keywords. Hence, the tactic has 2 steps: (1) to plan to use standard HTML keywords, and (2) empower new keywords to override any remnants of deprecated keywords.

The reason "align=left" is such an obvious standard, for a keyword, is because "align" has appeared in HTML markup language and World Wide Web usage for many, many years. Hence, "align" has become an international word for computer users specifying the alignment on a webpage. We know, from historical documents, such as issues of magazine "Die Gartenlaube", how people in other nations have readily adopted new technology words, for over 140 years. So, expect "align=left" to be easily understood world-wide, in usage with webpages on sister projects. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in wording

I propose a change in the wording from the current Wikimedia Commons has media related to
to the following: Wikimedia Commons may have media related to.

With the additions of thousands of pictures daily to Wikipedia Commons an editor could dutifully check for a related picture on Commons and not find any and therefore not add the template. A minute/day/month later someone could upload a picture to Commons that is related to the article, but have no idea that it would make a contribution to this particular article. If this simple word change was integrated then an editor could in good faith add the template to any article that he/she has a reasonable expectation of future media being made available on Commons. Then any future editor looking at the article could then with one click do a check to see if a picture is available.

I work with Communities (neighborhoods, boroughs, townships, cities, counties, states, countries) all have a reasonable expectation of pictures being added in the future. I am sure there are 100's (if not more) other topics in the same situation. Offhand I can think of these applications - films, food, roads, all transportation types, any article that a US government photo may be taken that is related, as they are in the public domain, animals. I could go on but I hope I have made my point.
--RifeIdeas Talk 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Disagree: this would render the template completely useless. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cross-post from Wikimedia sister projects

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_sister_projects#There.27s_gotta_be_a_better_way.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2011

Please delete Jigme Singye Wangchuck on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rice_University_alumni as he is not a Rice Alumnus. A correction has been made to his main Wikepedia entry stating that he has been confused with his cousin, who was a Rice alumnus. RiceResearch 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Jean Packard, Research Analyst at Rice University

Done but please note that your request was misplaced (this is the page for discussing mprovements to the {{commons category}} template). An article's categories are usually listed in the last section of the article (see Help:Category), so all you needed to do was edit the article to remove that line, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

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

Wrong edit

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

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

Reverted the doc on "use colon"

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

• Media related to Polar bears at Wikimedia Commons

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

Why italics?

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

Edit request on 24 April 2013: Check Wikidata errors

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

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

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

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

I'm test driving this on the Dutch Wikipedia. It's a bit more extensive. It adds 5 possible categories:

1. Local link same as link on Wikidata (1 is set). Good! At some point in the future we want to remove the local contents (move to 3)
2. Local link different as link on Wikidata (1 is set). Need fix!
3. Local page title same as link on Wikidata (1 is not set). Good! All done
4. Local page title different as link on Wikidata (1 is not set). Need fix!
5. No link on Wikidata, we need to import something

You might want to wait a bit until we got all the bugs out of it and just copy that code. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow great. Sounds like a good idea :) Legoktm (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Very nice idea, I like it! -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 12:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very cool. Once you folks work it out I’ll copy it to the French language Wikipedia as well. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, modified it a bit to only work in article and category namespace. Should be in a includeonly section:

<!-- Some tracking categories to see if we're ready to switch to Wikidata -->
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{ns:14}}=<!-- Only articles and categories. -->
 {{#if:{{#property:P373}}
 | {{#if:{{{1|}}}
  | {{#ifeq:{{#property:P373}}|{{{1|}}}
   | [[Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata]] <!-- We want to end up here -->
   | [[Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata]] <!-- Figure out the best link -->
   }}
  | {{#ifeq:{{#property:P373}}|{{PAGENAME}}
   | [[Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata]] <!-- Ending up here is just fine -->
   | [[Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata]] <!-- Figure out the best link here too -->
   }}
  }}
 | [[Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata]] <!-- These we still need to import -->
 }}
}}

Feel free to improve the naming of the categories. What do you think? Is it ready?

A note, a small number of pages will end up in the wrong category, see T49619. Multichill (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, great. I've re-enabled the editprotected template and will create those categories shortly. Legoktm (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done James F. (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Woo thanks! Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories is slowly being populated :) Legoktm (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

See my earlier remark and T49619. Multichill (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the same problem as {{PAGENAME}} that encodes some characters. I've made a simple conversion at ca:Module:Encode according with mw:Manual:PAGENAMEE encoding and it matches correctly changing to #ifeq:{{#property:P373}} | {{#invoke:encode | pagename | {{{1|}}} }}. --Vriullop (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is really great. – SJ + 15:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Colon

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

You got that right! Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

It's a job for {{Commons}} though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Change has finally been made over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2013, pagename encode

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

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

Syntax error

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

|Category:{{#if:x| {{{1| {{PAGENAME}} }}} }}<!--
-->|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}<!--

These lines should probably be

|Category:{{#if:x| {{{1| {{#property:P373| {{PAGENAME}} }} }}} }}<!--
-->|{{{2|{{{1|{{#property:P373|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}<!--

or similar instead.

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

Comment - as far as I know there is no agreement to use wikidata entries in this way. Can you can point to some agreement on this? The entry can be corrected by piping to the correct page in the article. Keith D (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling this a "Syntax error" is a bit weird, this might be the next step, but that needs to be discussed first. I rather keep it like this for now and do things step by step. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

People have been removing category names from the {{commonscat}} template, so I assumed that consensus had been established, but that the template contained a typo. See for example the article Free Art Licence which now points at the wrong category because a user removed parameter {{{1}}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

People shouldn't be removing the parameter, unless they are replacing it with a better parameter. Every page using {{commons category}} is placed into one of the five subcats of Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories; those without the parameter are also placed into Category:Commons category template with no category set. The aim is to depopulate the latter and certain subcats of the former - possibly as many as four of the five, the exception being Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata‎. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that's exactly Wikidata's purpose; the template {{Authority control}} uses it that way. Stefan2's proposal should be implemented. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I got the impression that the template isn't ready for this yet. If someone currently uses {{commonscat}} without parameters, but Wikidata lists the category name as different to the {{PAGENAME}}, then Wikipedia and Wikidata disagree about the name of the Commons category. It may be necessary to check and correct these template calls first. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Placement in "See also" section

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

See "Links to sister projects" in MOS:LAYOUT. Keith D (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just came across that too. Thanks! André Kritzinger (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that this template's doc page and WP:ELLAYOUT already cover all of the problems described by Andre Kritzinger - is there anything missing from those? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Asked too quickly - found the answer, thanks. André Kritzinger (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tag with bad wikilink

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

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Commons category.

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_category

)

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

When the template is used on an article, it derives that link either from the first supplied parameter, or if there isn't one, from {{PAGENAME}}. Since {{PAGENAME}} at Template:Commons category is Commons category, it constructs the link accordingly. Part of this is done in {{commons}}, which uses the internal link syntax, so you get [[commons:Category:{{PAGENAME}}]] → commons:Category:Commons category. But if used without parameters on an article like Paris, you get commons:Category:Paris --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, but can it be fixed? I still don't understand it. Can you or someone else make it work right? --Thnidu (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please give an example of a page where it is broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Right here, on the page we're Talking about. This page where we're talking is a Template talk page. I said "Almost the first thing on the Template page…" So:

1. Go to Template:Commons category.
2. At the top of that page, on the right, is a box with the text "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Commons category."
3. The last two words, "Commons category", are highlighted as a link. Click on them.
4. You'll be sent to a page with the wikiversion of 404: "This page does not currently exist."

--Thnidu (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's just the template page. I meant an actual article where the link isn't working as it should. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(-_-;)

I am so sorry for wasting your time, and I feel so dumb. I was focusing on the first header below the page title, "Template documentation", and I didn't recognize that that link-box is (the rendering of) the template. I was interpreting it as applying to the page. And you were making it clear already ("When the template is used on an article"). I wish we could just forget the whole thing. --Thnidu (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Introductory text

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

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

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

I agree, but it seems to me that this template is merely a wrapper for the template {{Commons}} and it needs to be fixed there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: I see... OK then, I will post the request in there. Thank you for the information. MiewEN (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion

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

Propose simplify wording of location

Template:Commons category#Location currently says:

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

However given that:

• According to WP:ORDER, "External links" (if it exists) is the last section
• According to WP:LAY#Links to sister projects

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

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

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

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

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

Also to Template:Commons. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: This is sensible, but what happens when somebody add a section at the bottom? E.g.,

1. There's no External links §.
2. Someone adds this template at the top of the last section, likely References.
3. Someone else adds External links and doesn't notice that the template is now misplaced, or sees the template but doesn't know about the placement rule.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the same thing that happens when someone edits any page in such a way that the new version no longer conforms to WP:MOS - another editor will notice the non-conformity and fix it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Should categories always be specified?

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

Obviously I think so. But I think this may bump heads with the wikidata discussion above. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:22, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 05:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't see why Wikidata should be part of it at all. IMHO, that just mangles the whole thing with no true benefits, makes it much more difficult to track and review changes, etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The advantage with using Wikidata is that it is possible to make one change which then benefits every single Wikipedia. I don't think it is any harder to maintain, and far from "mangling", many people would see this as simplifying the whole situation ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, yes, using Wikidata should be helpful. However, what I really wouldn't like to see is enforced removal of manually specified categories so the ones from Wikidata are used, which has been the case for the {{Official website}} template. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure I follow your logic. As shown above, Wikidata doesn't catch everything. And making this optional allows for link breakage in the future, which is a net negative. Can you explain what the benefits are of leaving this optional? Because I'm not seeing any. As far as the documentation goes, it should have been changed back in May 2012 when Category:Commons category template with no category set was created. The whole point of the tracking category is preventative maintenance on sisterlinks. It's already helped to fix a bunch of broken links on different pages, and I have no reason to see why it can't continue to do that. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:39, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, if your bot is doing its job properly then the documentation shouldn't need to mandate including the label anyway, as that obviates the need for said bot. I'm prepared to compromise to the extent of changing the docs to say "you can leave this off and a bot will add it automatically", but the present wording (edit warred back in, as usual, by Dmisic) unhelpfully implies a new burden on editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's a "burden" to you, it doesn't imply that everybody's point of view is the same. By the way, I'd appreciate if you would try not to pick on me on every possible occasion; what I did here was pretty much fine and according to the WP:BRD guideline. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, as well, I hardly thinks this counts as a "burden". But thank you for your compromise. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:45, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 17:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Avicennasis: when your bot adds a parameter to the template, does it carry out any checks on whether the link is actually correct? If not, would this not be cementing in an error to the article? If yes, that is great and if you are a bot wizard it would be even more fantastic if you instead add it to the relevant wikidata item. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, AvicBot does do a check to make sure the Commons category exist. I admit it would be handy to add it to Wikidata, though I'm not that familiar enough with the infrastructure there yet to figure out how to code that part just yet. ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:25, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Of course your bot is not clever enough to determine if it is the correct page, so there will inevitably be some that need to be left for human review. And I also note that some links are to category redirects - does your bot detect these? We could probably work on clearing out Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata and Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata to start with. Would you be willing to work with someone experienced with running bots on Wikidata to tackle these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You can never fully clear out Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata as that contains articles that have more than one call to {{commons category}} with different targets that is not handled by the wikidata check. Keith D (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We can do our best, though. (Though, do pages really need more than one call to Commons?) @MSGJ:, Yes. he follows category redirects to the correct pages. He also figures out disambiguation categories and reads deletion logs in cases where the category was moved. I'd be more than happy to work with someone on a Wikidata bot. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:45, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 17:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Caliburn: is CaliburnBOT able to help with this? ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:34, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ran into a problem while developing the bot. The problem was that many of the instances of the template were in fact invalid, and linked non-existent categories. If your bot can check if a category exists, then we can do somewhat of a merge. If we can somehow rectify that then I can continue running the bot. <-- should've read the whole thread before. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can have AvicBot go over them and provide a list of valid ones. Due to the BFRA, when it finds certain, unfixably-broken links, it's not allowed to delete the template - that part has to be done by hand. But I can easily generate a list of pages that are fine to copy over. ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:44, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thumperward, what's wrong with you? I've never rejected the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline, in fact I've put it into practice numerous times. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Use wikidata

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

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

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

You can see the effect of this change on Tarinkot where I tested this, and which now has the correct link to the commons category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I support this change, and am happy to carry out the task of applying the code to the live template once it's agreed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What happens when there are multiple entries on wikidata? A cause of may errors I have had to fix. Keith D (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What happens if there are no links on wikidata and if there is no commons category with the pagename used here on en-wikipedia? I've tested this on Adair, Oklahoma with this change. I was not able to find out what changed, especially the link to the non-existing commons-category 'Adair, Oklahoma' continues to be displayed.--Robby (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If no parameter is used and there is no field on wikidata, then it will default to the page name (which may or may not actually exist on Commons). So there is no change in that regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, another question for you - Can the template be modified so that if it IS using the wikidata info, it suppresses Category:Commons category template with no category set? Your current example at Tarinkot still has the tracking category, which obviously it doesn't need in this instance. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:38, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 08:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that could be done if desired. There are actually a bunch of more specific tracking categories for this: see Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, Tarinkot is no longer in that category. That was a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a question - in the event of a pagemove, how quickly is wikidata updated? ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:58, 4 Tishrei 5776 / 23:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's instant. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:09, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We would need to have a much wider discussion on this before any implementation is contemplated. Keith D (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Keith, please don't be a stick in the mud. If you have any real reason to oppose this, then let's hear it. Can you clarify what you mean above by "multiple entries on wikidata"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Cannot see how can clarify but it is when there is two or more Commons Category entries on Wikidata for a particular item. On the other matter I just think that there needs to be a wider discussion on this rather than on this talk page, unless there is some wider publicity pointing to this discussion. Keith D (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this, because I have never seen it. I think in this case the first value will be returned, unless one of them is given a higher rank. If you have an example we can test this. I assume that this would mean that one of the entries was an error? In which case it should just be removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of any cases where two Commons category pages are linked from the same Wikidata item (in fact, I don't think that it's possible to do that), but I know of several cases of two pages on commons in different namespaces that are related by name. For example, Oxford is at d:Q34217 which links to c:Oxford (a page in mainspace, known as "gallery" space at Commons); and Category:Oxford is at d:Q8707649 which links to c:Category:Oxford. This commons category is also linked from d:Q34217 through the P373 property of the latter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is entirely normal and there are properties like P910 (topic's main category) and P301 (category's main topic) to link these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any examples of it, but I have come across it regularly over the last couple of years while trying to reduce category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata. Usually as a result of importing from 2 different wiki's, vandalism or duplication. You could easily create one as a test. Keith D (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have no examples of the alleged problem, and given what MSGJ says about how the software would deal with such a hypothetical issue, there's no need to hold up this change, and we should go ahead. Other templates have been made to call values from Wikidata, without any drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, in the absence of any reason not to. Please revert if this breaks anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll see about getting a list of valid pages to @Caliburn: once the category levels out a bit, and we'll see about adding the rest to wikidata. ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:54, 8 Tishrei 5776 / 10:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There's an unnecessary double test, I amended the sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Mobile visibility?

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

@Francis Schonken: "Someone" is Omnipaedista (talk · contribs), have you discussed with them? The non-visibility in mobile is because of this CSS rule associated with the sistersitebox class:

.content .sistersitebox, .content .tmbox, .content .ambox, .content #coordinates, .content .navbox, .content .vertical-navbox, .content .topicon, .content .metadata {
    display: none !important;
}

But if this non-visibility was unintentional, the solution is to fix the relevant CSS rule, not to alter articles one by one to the detriment of users with non-mobile hardware. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. "have you discussed with them?" – @Omnipaedista: I referred them to the discussion I initiated here.

From Redrose's reply I learn it seems to have been intentional. If someone wants to change the sister site link visibility on mobile for List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, without updating the CSS, please discuss at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

But why alter articles one-by-one? Why not go to the root of the problem, that way you can fix half a million pages with one or perhaps two edits? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Well, that would require community consensus (are there any objections to mobile visibiliy of box templates?) and the technical skill of knowing how to alter the CSS code. Also, there should be a note about this issue in the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#More boxes hidden in mobile, where PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) replied. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that there should be a talk page here on Wikipedia where issues of this kind could be sorted out/expained. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPT perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata transfer workflow

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

@Caliburn and Avicennasis: do either of the following look like a task you could do? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can pass valid links to @Caliburn: for his bot to resolve these, sure. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:18, 12 Tishrei 5776 / 09:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Caliburn seems to be busy. If you'd like to compile your list Avicennasis (starting with the first batch below?), then if there's still no request from Caliburn I may post at d:Wikidata:Bot requests. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Avicennasis:, any progress? I know these categories are ridiculously huge. Could we start with a smaller list to test the process? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing concrete. I haven't delved into this too deep yet, but have hacked together a simple script to attempt some of this work. There's still a bunch of little bugs to work out before I'm confident enough for actual deployment yet. ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:07, 4 Cheshvan 5776 / 10:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata

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

Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata

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

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

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

Eliminate some white space

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

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

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

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

Cat for empty parameter 1

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

Should we be doing the same to {{Commons category-inline}}? Keith D (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If they don't match, then the link goes red on the wikipedia page and someone will see that and fix it or tell someone who can - in which case one would be better searching for commons category redlinks rather than all links. It doesn't help at all with catching this problem and only serves to bury them in a very large list of valid links, and to make things worse, it wastes the time of new editors that could be doing other tasks that are more pressing. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@NiD.29: I have never seen a redlink produced by either {{Commons category}} or {{Commons category-inline}}. Please give an example where one is shown; or where one was shown in the past but has subsequently been fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - I've seen no redlinks on empty Commons links. And I think that's something that should be tracked for easy cleanup purposes. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My mistake as I thought I recalled seeing a redlink before but they won't create now as clicking the link generates a page doesn't exist page - wondering though -

Why not run a regular expression on every en.wikipedia page to extract the {{Commons category}} or {{Commons category-inline}} link strings (and all variations), or if not found, the name of the page, then cross reference to a list of wikimedia Commons page names to eliminate all the entries that have non-redirected wikimedia pages, which would then leave just the problematic links that need to be fixed? Is there a reason this wouldn't work? A separate listing could then be made of just those pointing to redirects, so they too can be fixed. By relying on the text in the tag rather than letting the tag generate it automatically, it greatly increases the likelihood of a typo, which unless every page is then rechecked, will point to the non-page again. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use the term "wikimedia", it's ambiguous - as I stated at User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Commons template fixing?. If you mean Wikimedia Commons, then call it Commons, as most other people do. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - now can you answer the question? - NiD.29 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Display issues

This template isn't displaying properly in my browser over the last day, but it doesn't appear to be the fault of the template... It shows the text small and without the icon when viewed with the rest of the article, but if I preview the section on its own while editing, it's fine.  czar 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Please give example pages where you see this problem; also, which browser? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64, I'm getting it on every page that uses the template, such as Achilles and Academy Awards. Here's an image. I'm not getting it when logged out so I possibly need to hunt for a user script. Latest OS X, latest Chrome. czar 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot access that. Please use the WP:WPSHOT method. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That screenshot doesn't display the Wikisource icon either. However, when I look at Achilles now, both boxes display in the usual way, with icons, and I can't remember ever having seen them otherwise. Have you tried it when not logged in? Using a different browser? From another device? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

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

Commons categories should be the default links

The Commons "pages" are, to put it mildly, redundant, but they are now what the "Commons media" templates link to by default. This often makes it hard to find good media related to a subject, because these pages are more often than not underpopulated and badly maintained. So I think it would be better to make the default link the category rather than pages. Pages can be linked to manually, once someone has actually populated them with a range of representative images, not before. Any thoughts? I see there have been discussions about disabling pages entirely, but I think that is too extreme, but I do agree they are mainly useless. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrap of category name

It seems that due to the limited display width of this template, and the length of the default text shown, it is very common for the subject (comprising of two or three short words) to be broken up over several lines. Here is a (simplified) example from Thomas Blatt:

Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Thomas
Blatt.

While this is inevitable to some extent, I think we should try and at least make this render better for the most common case. The easiest solution would be match rendering of Template:Uses Wikidata, which effectively avoids the issue by always putting the subject on its own line. However, I can understand if perhaps want to keep the rendering the unchanged for shorter subject names given they do fit on the same line, such as the following example:

Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Polar bears.

We also don't want to enable any non-wrapping/no-break mode because longer titles should eventually be broken up over several lines as needed.

Ideas to solve this:

• Always insert a line break.
• Add the line break based on the length of the subject. (upto 11 characters?)
• Add the line break if there is a breakable character in the subject. (space and dash?)

Krinkle (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

unmodified
{{nowrap|2nd parameter}}
  between words

I don't see the described wrapping at Thomas Blatt. Anyway, using the template's 2nd parameter with {{nowrap}}, or inserting &nbsp; between words might help. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)