Template talk:Image info

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search



acagastya (t · c · b) is right. The field in this template that is currently called "Caption" should be changed to "Description". I would just change it, but I fear it would break every image page that makes use of this template. I would appreciate some input on this. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Um. What is the issue here? That is, what is the significance of using one parameter name rather than another? --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: The edit history on this File:2017 Bangalore ComicCon (media) IMG 0107.JPG and this discussion User_talk:Acagastya#File:2017_Bangalore_ComicCon_(media)_IMG_0107.JPG, should catch you up to speed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: This should be in your wheelhouse, so I ping you in case you are still online. --SVTCobra 22:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Having looked at all that, I believe I had seen it already; but the issue still does not leap out at me. Is it perhaps that acagastya is objecting to having something called "caption" that isn't what xe chooses it to be? I would think a simple solution — unless there is some reason this wouldn't solve it — would be to modify the template so that it will take either a parameter called "description" or, failing that, one called "caption". Or possibly one called "caption" or, failing that, one called "description". --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Sure, having both might work to not break the system. What I want to achieve out of this, is the ability of Wikinews to describe the image hosted by Wikinews and not be held hostage to the uploader's assertion that "caption" infringes on their license. And since the documentation points to Commons and they have long since changed to "description" that's why I thought that was the way to go. Is it as simple as it seems to add "description" as a parameter? How do we make the empty one not show up if we have both? Or does that part even matter? --SVTCobra 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Much obliged for the ping. Hmm... Aside from the template name, when I first became more active here, I found it a little unusual to use "Caption" compared to the similar templates on other wikis e.g. w:Template:Information or c:Template:Information. I just assumed that it was something peculiar to this wiki. I'm not sure that I agree with @Acagastya: about the author getting to solely decide the caption. I took the advice of looking through the license documentation and can’t see anything to suggest that the author is the only one to decide the caption/description. You can decide the elements of the license, the number of licenses, and the manner of attribution but not much else. At Commons we have numerous free-licensed images where the author has played no part other than to upload their own work to Flickr for example - the uploader to Commons might decide the initial description but it can be modified by someone else. I’m not suggesting for one second that Acagastya is a baddie but to take the example further, we can rename files if the filename needs changing, otherwise someone could upload a file with a bad name. Equally I don't see much advantage to not having a Caption/Description in a file summary page. On the question of changing it from caption to description, I think there are three options: a) leave it as it is; b) change the wording to “Description”; c) have both as options if there is a good reason to retain “Caption”. Unless there is a bot to change the many file summaries I’d suggest option c) but not making it compulsory to have both. It could be done by including "Description" as an optional element in the same manner as "Other_versions". I think it would need a {{#switch}} added to each element but I’m not a coder so I’m not sure. See mw:Switch for something of an explanation. Green Giant (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I propose to change the label on the field to "Description", and its value to {{{description|{{{caption}}}}}}, which is the value of the description parameter if provided, otherwise the value of the caption parameter. I'll probably implement that change very soon unless I notice that someone has objected before I get to it (after all, it's not like it can't be undone, or modified, if someone were to object later). --Pi zero (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --SVTCobra 23:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I looked at half a dozen random images and they don't seem to have been broken by the change. Closing flag. Thanks, Pi zero. --SVTCobra 23:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

the reuse should have proper attribution and it should not suggest endorsement. That file have a template which says source as "own work" and author "acagastya" and having a caption suggests acagastya has captioned it…but I have not, I do not, and a description suggests what is in the photo without any sort of ambiguity about endorsement.
•–• 08:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)