Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Commonist

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Commonist

I find the tool which was used to upload an image to be rather unimportant part of the file description. I like and frequently use Commonist tool but I do not see a need to display or track it which files were uploaded with it. Jarekt (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

See for example File:2011-12-13 12-58-49-eglise-st-maimboeuf-montbeliard.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. That file may just have the template in the wrong place. I spent days trying to upload this file File:Machinima sample reindeer full size.ogg with normal methods and it kept failing with no error message. I came across commonist through one of those templates. It still failed but at least I got an error message and corrected it. Notice where I placed the tag for others that may have similar issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep. Crochet.david (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep. Ralgis 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep We have plenty of promotion templates (supported by...) and categories (taken with...). I didn't see a reason in the deletion request why we shouldn't promote our best and non-commercial upload tool. --Martina talk 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I do not have a problem with giving credit where credit is due: if some organization or group of users contributed somehow in making the file than let them use supported by ... template, if some rare camera was used to take the photo than add it to taken with ... category (although we probably do not need 50k images or subcategories in one of those). Also if some software was used to create the plot (like gnuplot, MATLAB or R) than created with ... template is fine. But how did upload software contributed to creating the image. The image will be identical no matter what approach is used to upload it. All images from Web Gallery of Art were uploaded using pywikipediabot framework - should I add uploaded with pywikipediabot template to them. It is also one of our best and non-commercial tools. --Jarekt (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If your point is that we don't need a category for all the commonist uploaded files, I can see your point. Can an alternate template be made that doesn't add them to the category, for those that agree with your point?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Jarekt: If we wouldn't have the Commonist, these pictures would probably have been created but not uploaded. ;-) The point which I do not really get yet is in how the template could be disturbing the project or reusers. Is "unimportant" a valid deletion reason? (Besides, I don't find it unimportant because people who discover this tool might for the first time start massuploads instead of hand-picked selections only.) --Martina talk 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep - Given that the nomination was written in first person, I think it should be made clear that use of the {{Commonist}} and {{Commonist no icon}} templates are optional, and use of them is not compulsory when uploading files with Commonist. If the template is deleted then a bot is going to have to be deployed to remove the thousands of red links created, and such effort will need to be justified by there being a clear problem to solve, which I'm not convinced has yet been done here. Yes, the upload tool is not related to the creation of the image, but it would not have been possible for me and many other users to mass upload images as we have without such a tool, so I do see a commonality between the "uploaded with..." and "created with..." templates given that if either had not existed the applicable image would likely never had been uploaded.

• The category issue should be dealt with separately from the template, with a nomination for the category being made if it is deemed necessary. The template can exist fine without the category, however, keeping the category with the template gone wouldn't work as the former would be massively de-populated. In such a scenario, if the template must go, it should be simply made invisible rather than deleted so the images it is used on will stay in the category. CT Cooper · talk 18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Cleanup after deletion is no big deal, a bot can delete the templates from files (I can do it) or leave the template alone, but make it invisible (like Category:Empty tag templates), either way works for me. Category (which I did not notice before) is probably added by the template so it can be very easily removed. And again my main issue with it is cluttering of the file descriptions with information which has nothing to do with the file. If someone wants to show support to or advertise their favorite tool than add {{User Commonist}} to your user page, that is more appropriate venue. --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a one line template as particularly cluttering, but that's my opinion. If the preferred solution is to make the template invisible, then that should be achieved by discussion outside deletion requests. CT Cooper · talk 12:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep --Joergens.mi (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• What about changing to something visually similar {{Images uploaded with Android}} ? It looks less disruptive than a Commonist tag in the description.--Zolo (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be better. --Jarekt (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commonist no icon exists now if users want the tag with no icon. Is the issue really just the icon?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the icon. I just do not think that program used for uploading is relevant to the image description. I guess I have the the same issue with {{Images uploaded with Android}}. Templates like that would be OK in File talk namespace or only visible in Wiki code, but not in the file description. --Jarekt (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not like much having it either (advertising for Commonist should probably be done in the Upload Wizard or somewhere else). [rest of this thread has been move to the #proposal section]

•  Keep. Useful. I would not have necessarily found Commonist without the template. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Keep --Jwh (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal from the above discussion: change the template layout and move it below {{Information}}, see {{Commonist/sandbox}}.

if [this template] is considered useful, it should be moved out of the "description" field. The "description" field is supposed to be about the image description, and external websites rely on that to use Commons in an automated way. See for example the description of http://eol.org/data_objects/15076534 Obviously {{Commonist}} is not the only template at fault here, and the whole structure of Commons would probably need a revamp, but reserving "description" for the image description proper would be a small step in the right direction. --Zolo (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't go in the description field. What we actually need is a policy on Template:uploaded and Category:uploaded, and do we actually need a category for most of them? I can see the use for an indiscrete tag for the simple fact that the normal upload wizard is a pain in the ass for me and probably others. If others can see that there are other upload methods like I discovered with a commonist tag it is very helpful. I haven't got a clue what an Android is, but others probably fine that tag helpful as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would support switching to the Android format and moving it out of the description field, although a bot might need to be deployed to achieve this if the template doesn't display correctly without being moved on every file. On the side note, I created the no icon version as a compromise following discussion on regional and political issues with use of the hammer and sickle, which doesn't seem to be too much of an issue here - see Commons talk:Tools/Commonist archives. The two templates would need to be kept in sync though. CT Cooper · talk 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created a {{Upload method}} for both templates. Yes, changing the layout can only be done after a bot-move of all templates....

I have no strong view about the icon, but if it is considered offensive it should be removed from the main {{Commonist}} not letting the uploader decide according to her own sensibility. --Zolo (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay like this (scroll down)? --Martina talk 19:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if we keep the current template I think it is okay (but then it is may not be sufficiently visible to serve its purpose). And various uploaders usually put it at different places depending on their taste. The sandbox version is specifically designed to be put just after the {{Information}} (but can also be put just before it, at the very top of the page, which imo would be terrible). --Zolo (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC) + --Zolo (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version, but okay: lacking rules it keeps being a question of taste. --Martina talk 20:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering if there won't be a possibility to add a field on the left panel 'General upload settings' where to put not only {{Commonist}} but also things like {{Created with Picasa}}, {{D300}} etc so they'll all be put below 'Information' and, in my opinion, even better below 'Licence' ? Or didn't I get the point of this discussion? --Jwh (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you idea, this would mean something like having a separate place for technical info about the file, as opposed to description of the image. This is very much what the "metadata" section does but I would agree that it would be better if it could blend more smoothly with the manually added description. For the time being, I would agree that it would be better to move all software-related information to a separate place but it would require editing many thousands of files. A new "software info" option could be probably added to Commonist, but I am not sure it would be a good idea to add that to the standard Upload Wizard, as it would probably make upload even more complicated for newbies. So things would still need to be periodically updated by a bot. --Zolo (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Good morning, Zolo. Thanks for specifying my thoughts. You mention "standard Upload Wizard" - are there other versions beside? --Jwh (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No I dont think so, I just meant Upload Wizard as opposed to other uploading tools like Commonists :)--Zolo (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying this too. --Jwh (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)