Template talk:Now Commons/Archive 1

Archive 1

2005

Please clarify the difference between this and Template:dbc. - Omegatron 14:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

This template is to be used instead of listing on WP:IFD. dbenbenn | talk 14:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This template should have Image: included in it, so one wouldn't have to write it every time using the template. Jon Harald Søby 16:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Spelling

At the bottom of the template, {{NowCommonsThis}} is mistyped as {{NowCommonsthis}}.--Hello World! 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please revert the last edit

Someone with admin status changed {{NowCommonsThis}} to {{NowCommonsthis}} because of "capitalization" but there's no template with this name. --Denniss 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add category sort key

This template is protected. It needs a sort key added to the category link, so

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]]

needs to change to

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

– Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done.thanks. --Pamri • Talk 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is no sort key the page will be sorted on the Page Name. Putting the page name as a sort key is redundant and does not allow for a valid sort value via {{DEFAULTSORT}} should such be necessary. Please remove the pipe. Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim: Right, nowadays "File:Something" is sorted as "Something" in the categories. But back in 2006 the MediaWiki default was to sort on the full pagename, so images were sorted as "Image:..." in the categories. (The "File" namespace was called "Image" then.) So back in 2006 Doug's request and Pamri's edit were correct.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please un-italicize the image link

per Template:NCT. this is more readable. thanks. NTK 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Merging this Template and Template:NowCommonsThis

Most other-language Wikipedias use only one Template for the purpose we have two for, i.e. NowCommons without a parameter links to the same image name on Commons, and a parameter can be given to link to a different name on Commons. I propose adding this functionality to this template as well, and redirecting Template:NowCommonsThis (which isn't used with a parameter) here. Is there any reason not to do this? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose You may have not noticed both templates have their own categories. NCT should offer a more easy move than NC because the same file is on the Commons thus requiring only a quick verification and local deletion. NC usually requires more work. --Denniss 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So? It's still possible to both in one template with m:ParserFunctions. -- grm_wnr Esc 07:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, even though I realize this discussion is old. I see more than a few images that are tagged with NowCommons that should be NowCommonsThis. These two templates can be merged and still retain all functionality through ParserFunctions; once merged, the NC/NCT errors will be reduced, making it easier to clean out the images. Pagrashtak 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Parser functions here, no-brainer, assume same file name unless a paramater is added. Hbdragon88 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Same reason given above. Yuval Madar 13:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also support the merger, and I have implemented it. Please double check. Conscious 09:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade category

As explained on WP:CR please replace
...<includeonly>[[Category:etc.]]</includeonly> by
...<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:etc.]]}}}</includeonly>.

This allows to bypass the category for template lists. -- Omniplex 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, please check it is case I have made a typo.--Commander Keane 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The category is fine, thanks. -- Omniplex 21:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image in the template

Could someone with admin status insert a thumbnail image (similar to on sv:Mall:NowCommons). The benefit is that

a) It's easy to verify that the image is indeed the same

b) It's easy to spot when there exists a another local image with the same name as the commons one. For these images a replacement cannot be done until the local image has been renamed.

/Lokal_Profil 23:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply add something like | [[Image:{{{1|Commons-logo.svg}}}|40px|center|Commons]] in the end of the template

Lokal_Profil 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage here. It doesn't make it any easier to verify that the image is the same; one would still have to actually look at the image on Commons. How am I to tell from the small thumbnail that the image on Commons is not an enlargement or reduction? As for point b), I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you clarify? In any case, this needs to be discussed first. Pagrashtak 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As for point b. What I meant was in the case of the local image, foo1.jpg say, being identical to foo.jpg on Commons but there also existing a foo.jpg locally (not identical to the foo.jpg on Commons). Then an image would quickly tell a person wieving the NC tag that a replacement cannot be done until the local image has been renamed. For an example see sv:Bild:Skanderberg_skulptur.jpg

A third point is that an image in the NC tag would mean that the page would appear on the "check usage"-list on the Commons image. Therefor if there is a decision to delete the Commons image the NC tag would also be removed. As it is now I've spoted several NC tags pointing to deleted commons images. /Lokal_Profil 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're pointing to a local image, you've just nullified point a). As I stated before, it's hard to tell from a thumbnail if images are identical, so this would not adequately serve the purpose of point b). This isn't enough to persuade me to add an image. Pagrashtak 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't see how you can say that it doesn't serve the purpose of point b, did you look at the example?. Also putting it the other way around. Is there any downside to having the image there? /Lokal_Profil 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problems with point b. When an image appears, you can't know if it's a local image or a Commons image until you click the link, which means you might as well just use a link. Furthermore, if even you could tell where the image was, a thumbnail does not give you enough information to determine if it is identical. It's not up to me to prove disadvantages of implementing this, it's your proposal. Pagrashtak 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not seem to have been reached on this; removing editprotected tag until such time as it is reached. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the suggestion is exellent, because it makes it easy to spot any possible problems, for example these:

1. Wrong spelling of the filename
2. Image is deleted at commons
3. Substantial differences between the images
4. Other local image with the same name as the commons image

Obviously the administrator would still have to check that everything is alright before deleting any image, but this line makes it possible to quickly find some problems, and it provides a link to the local image page with the same name as the commons image. You should try it for a while, than you don't want to live without it. --Boivie 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit protect

This template should explain how to mark images if the filename is different; for instance, do you have to put Image: before the filename or does this template already do that? The NowCommonsThis line from the See also section ought ot be removed as well as it's just now a redirect into this one. Hbdragon88 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Both done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused. How is this template different from NowCommonsRedundant? Which should I transclude to this image which is available at Commons here? Please clarify. --Iamunknown 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

Please add Danish interwiki:

[[da:Skabelon:Nowcommons]]

--Ysangkok 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sherool (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And Russian iwiki:

[[ru:Шаблон:Перенесено на Викисклад]]

--Alex Spade 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Conscious 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Change with parser functions

I changed the parser function to add it to the correct category even if the name parameter is there but the same, before a lot of people added the name parameter sometimes even when it was the same name. This made it seem like it had a different name on commons, and just to make sure, I feel like I need to check (not just visual). Now even if someone adds the parameter it compares. Additionally it adds all the images to generic categories that are not date based. This is how {{nsd}} and {{nld}} do it, and helps keep things from getting lost. It's actually required for this edit because otherwise things would get thrown in nonexistent categories. After the job queue completes I will go and make any new categories that need to be made. - cohesion 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, add pl:Szablon:NowCommons. Pilecka 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add ar:قالب:الآن كومنز. --Pmsyyz 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Icon change

{{editprotected}} Polish Wikipedia version of this template uses smart icons for indicating whether picture has the same name (can be safely removed) or different name. Perhaps they should be also introduced here? --Derbeth ^talk 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because the picture has the same name doesn't mean it is an identical picture. It would therefore encourage trigger happy admins not to check further before deleting and just go ahead and delete when the name is identical on commons and en so I am opposed to this sort of change.

By the way, as an aside, please update the Hebrew Wikipedia interwiki link to [[he:תבנית:גם בוויקישיתוף]]

Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Interwiki done. N No consensus for the icons. Sandstein 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes needed on article

All of the Move to x templates have been renamed Copy to x, these need to be fixed in the article. --Xyzzyplugh 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Y Done. Sandstein 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Interligua

{{editprotected}} Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki link:

[[ia:Patrono:NowCommons]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

More interwiki links to be added to protected template

Hi, I saw that someone had added an interwiki link to the German version of this template. So I checked to see was it here, and it wasn't. I saw that this template is fully protected, so I couldn't add it, but I added it to the French version of the template. Looking at the source code for the French and German versions, and comparing them with the English version, I've worked out that we need the following additions:

• als:Vorlage:NowCommons
• bg:Шаблон:NowCommons
• ku:Şablon:NowCommons
• uk:Шаблон:NowCommons

Could an administrator add them, please. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Just realised that I should have used the editprotected template! ElinorD (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Adambro 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I've just discovered that there's one at Hungarian Wikipedia:

• hu:Sablon:Azonnali-commons

Sorry I didn't know that when I made my original request earlier today. ElinorD (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done No problem. Adambro 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki to japanese version

{{Editprotected}} There is a Template:NowCommons in japanese Wikipedia (same name) so I'd like to propose addition of [[ja:Template:NowCommons]] --Speck-Made 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotect for Cat

{{EditProtected}} Per the ongoing effort to tag templates by namespace used within, please change the following first line of the template:

<noinclude>{{shortcut|{{subst:[[template:ncd|ncd]]}}}}

to this

<noinclude>{{shortcut|{{subst:[[template:ncd|ncd]]}}}}
<!-- Same cats as {{tl|Ncd}} -->
[[Category:Image namespace templates|{{PAGENAME}}]
[[Category:Deletion templates |{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Transwiki templates |{{PAGENAME}}]]

• No need to worry about the newline inside such a noinclude block, so the separate lines will keep things more clear.

Thanks. // FrankB 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, please be careful when writing new code. An error in the code above caused one of the category links to not work. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

small changes to interwiki

{{Editprotected}}

change

• [[fr:Modèle:Nowcommons]] to [[fr:Modèle:Désormais sur Commons]],
• [[hr:template:NowCommons]] to [[hr:Predložak:NowCommons]],
• [[da:Skabelon:Nowcommons]] to [[da:Skabelon:NowCommons]] and
• swap places of [[it:Template:NowCommons]] and [[ia:Patrono:NowCommons]]

--Speck-Made 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

{{editprotected}} Could someone change the section

{{#if: {{{month|}}} | | <div style="font-size:200%;text-align:center;">Please do not use this template directly. Use {{subst:[[Template:ncd|ncd]]}} or {{subst:[[Template:ncd|ncd]]|Image:Filename.ext}} instead.</div>}}</nowiki><br>

and add <includeonly> around it, as it messes up the template page. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, could someone please change the template links to use {{tls}} and {{tlsp}} instead of the rather unreadable <nowiki> constructs. --Derlay 10:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 11:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki (no)

Please add no:Mal:NowCommons --Berland 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Pascal.Tesson 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use on articles

{{Editprotected}} I've started to use this template on gallery articles that have been transwikied to Commons. Several more will be from now on since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags. Could the wording on the template be changed to reflect this use? --Himasaram 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are now able to set 2=yes (e.g., {{subst:ncd|2=yes}}}}) and the wording will change. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Himasaram 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Standardize to ambox format

{{editprotected}}

Could you please use my sandbox edit to replace this template to help finish the transition? Thanks! — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Coren ^(talk) 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacing {{NCT}}

Hi guys, why don't we change the content of {{NCT}} with "<includeonly>{{</includeonly>subst:NCD}}" ? The advantages of this replacement is the fact that when somebody puts {{NCT}} it is the same that {{subst:NCD}}. Helios 09:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki (sl)

Please add the following interwiki: sl:Predloga:OdslejZbirka. Thanks Gugganij 10:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

more interwiki

{{editprotected}} Some Interwiki: --Speck-Made (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

af:Sjabloon:NowCommons bar:Vorlage:NowCommons ca:Plantilla:AraCommons cs:Šablona:NowCommons eo:Ŝablono:NowCommons es:Plantilla:EnCommons et:Mall:NüüdCommonsis fa:الگو:NowCommons fi:Malline:NowCommons id:Templat:NowCommons ko:틀:NowCommons la:Formula:NowCommons ms:Templat:NowCommons nn:Mal:No på Commons pt:Predefinição:NowCommons ro:Format:AcumCommons simple:Template:Nowcommons sl:Predloga:OdslejZbirka sr:Шаблон:NowCommons ur:سانچہ:NowCommons zh-min-nan:Template:Commons ū zh-yue:Template:NowCommons

 Done DMacks (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

line height

{{editprotected}}

Please add "line-height:normal;" to the style of the first div to avoid text bunching. Dragons flight (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Currently, every image in the categories is listed under I, for image. All that needs to be added is {{DELFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}} to the template, that sorts them under their real name. Soxred93 (u t) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

mk interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add mk:Шаблон:NowCommons interwiki. Thanks. --iNkubusse^? 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Automatic categorisation

There is a discussion regarding automatic categorisation of images at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia/Commons duplicate images that concerns this template.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request (1)

{{editprotected}} Please change [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I8|CSD I8]]. to [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8|CSD F8]].--Rockfang (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions on a rewording

We may want to change <small>Images that have been tagged to <small>Files that have been tagged.--Rockfang (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - Agreed. So I fixed that and also some other occurrences of the word "Image". And in case anyone wonders: It was not a mistake that I changed {{image other}} to {{file other}}, since {{image other}} is now only a redirect to {{file other}}, and using {{image other}} is now deprecated.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

interwikis

{{editprotected}} Please add fo:Fyrimynd:NowCommons.--Common Good (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Please add vec:Template:NowCommons. --Common Good (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add them to the documentation page, which is not protected. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amend template to hold enwiki removal until file checked at Commons

Some images that have been bot-moved to Commons, have been deleted here, before they have been reviewd at Commons. This means that an image can be deleted here at enwiki, and then as it runs into issues at Commons, get deleted there, often with no feedback to the original uploader here.

Would it be possible to amend the template so that it's stressed that if the image at Commons hasn't been checked yet, the 'local image' should not be deleted until the Commons image HAS been checked?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot option

At the moment this Wikipedia contains about 20.000 images also available at Commons. I plan to tag these images with a bot. I modified the template a bit to be able to display an extra message. A different category to don't clutter up the normal category is probably useful too. Opinions please. multichill (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look at message above :-) Images should always be checked carefully before image is deleted. But anything to help the admins. --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

((DEFAULTSORT))

This template sets the sort value for {{DEFAULTSORT}} to the name of the page. This is not necessary and in some cases it is wrong. When there is no value explicitly set for {{DEFAULTSORT}} the page will sort on the page name. In the two cases which appear on Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts the desired sort value is not the name of the page. Please remove the line that calls {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Done - Right, nowadays MediaWiki sorts on the pagename alone, which is an improvement. But not so long ago when this template was made MediaWiki sorted on the full pagename.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replace "Image:" with "File:"

{{editprotected}} Can I suggest that occurrences of "Image:" in this template be replaced with "File:"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there's only one instance and it's there for a reason FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the reason? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that since the Image: prefix still works in filenames, people sometimes use it in the argument to the template (perhaps they shouldn't, but that's another matter). Therefore the template needs to handle Image: and File: identically. Derlay (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done That seems unnecessary to me and if it is indeed there for a reason, changing it could be detrimental. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if this template is intended to be used also on non-image media files (such as sound and videos), then the word "image" should be changed to "file" in the instructive text. Derlay (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the template applies to all forms of media (audio and video files, for instance) that can be transferred to the Commons, not just images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{ns:6}} used to be Image and now is File. Makes sense to update the template to reflect that. multichill (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any good reason not to action this request? What would be the difference if the change were made? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that if argument one is passed with a Image: namespace prefix, it won't be categorized correctly. The template is checking to see if the new image name on the commons is the same as the current one. Just leave it, it's there for a backwards compatibility and will break things if you change it. Honestly I can't see how you could of possibly really looked into this, it seems all you saw was the old namespace and not its context. FinalRapture - † ☪ 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Declined until or unless someone can provide a reason for making the change and prove that it won't break anything. As I said above, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really understand the reasons stated for the continuing need to use "Image:", because I'm not familiar with how this template works. No problem. I was just curious as to why the template still displays "Image:" when applied to an image page when it seems to have been universally replaced by "File:". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about different things here. The Image: in the switch should stay there for backwards compatibility, but in the text for the user all instances of image should be replaced with file. multichill (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the text for the user - that's not protected, it's at Template:NowCommons/doc  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

← I was referring to the occurrence of "Image:" in the template, not the documentation subpage, but I think I've figured out what was going on. I used CommonsHelper to move an image from here to the Commons. The tool then asked me if I wanted to add a {{NowCommons}} tag to the image on the English Wikipedia, and I said yes. I think it was CommonsHelper that inserted "Image:" into {{NowCommons}} (see, for example, "File:Singapore botanic garden orchids.jpg". Therefore, the problem lies with CommonsHelper and not this template. Sorry for the confusion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Improve NowCommons

Currently image which are available at commons are tagged with {{NowCommons}}. The templates takes two parameters:

• 1, if it's the same as the current file the image will end up in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons otherwise the image will end up in Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons
• bot, to indicate a bot tagged the file (and this file should be double checked)

The problem with this system is that it's just big pile of files (total around 17K files). New/old, check/unchecked, copyvio/free, it's one big mess. I propose to split up this huge pile into smaller piles which are much easier to handle.

• Timestamp the templates. This way we can keep track of what gets transfered. The categories here can be linked with the corresponding Commons category (like for example Commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 15 June 2010)
• Add a reviewer parameter. This way user can indicate that they reviewed a file at Commons and it's to save to delete it here. This reviewer parameter could add a category so you can easily track the files reviewed by a certain user and delete these files. The reviewer parameter is especially good when users transfer a lot of images with a bot (and of course check every transfered file).

Implementation shouldn't be too difficult, let's worry about that later. Let's first see if we actually want this. multichill (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, though we are probably a little late with it. Not knowing what/who reviewed it, and using which criteria (esp with bots) makes much of the efforts somewhat of a waste, because an admin has to check everything AGAIN. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but I think I remember seeing many files moved from Wikipedia to Commons with an information template on Commons filled with "|date=<some date> (original upload date)" (example: File:Piccadilly Line Rayners Lane.JPG : shouldn't "|date=" be filled with "foto gemaakt op 4 juli 2005" instead of "27 December 2005" ?) Could we have instead both the creation date AND the original upload date ? Meaning that when the uploader failed from telling the creation date, at the very least Wikimedia Commons would tell "Creation date: unknown ; original upload date: <some date>". What happens when the creation date has been provided later by editing the Wikipedia description page and is not included in the original upload log ? Is it simply ignored by the software ? Perhaps I do not fully understand how the File moves are performed, but I have the strange feeling that sometimes known date information is being lost. Teofilo talk 11:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This problem is fixed in the new upload bot. I don't care about the upload date if we the user inserted a date. So it's the date entered by the user. If that's not available, fallback to the upload date (and add the note). multichill (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the case of File:Piccadilly Line Rayners Lane.JPG is there a way of knowing who is the person or the group of people who decided that the File should be moved to Commons ? (I need to warn uploader with subst:idw but I am lost). Teofilo talk 12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the page. Uploader is BotMultichill, so you should have notified me. multichill (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with File:02 baleno id.jpg except that it looks like a safe picture legitimately moved to Commons. In case someone has some doubts and wants to nominate it for deletion, who is the person on Wikimedia Commons to be tagged with subst:idw ? "Transferred from en.wikipedia" by whom ? Teofilo talk 12:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is I (again)! ;-) multichill (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But when people use Commonshelper, there is always a name included in "Transferred from en.wikipedia by user:<name>". So I think I prefer the Commonshelper style for that reason. Teofilo talk 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another example with File:Rockymountainnps.jpg not yet moved but tagged with Template:mtc. I think the bot should check if the mtc-tagging user owns an account on Wikimedia Commons, and refuse to perform the move if the mtc-tagging user has no such account. File moving users must have an account on Commons so that we can tag them with subst:idw when necessary. Teofilo talk 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want that? I tag files files to be moved to Commons all the time. If i'm lucky someone else bothers to transfer them to Commons and otherwise I'll just do it. multichill (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are fine with being tagged with subst:idw, that's fine. I thought bot managers did not want to be bothered by such taggs. Teofilo talk 16:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Quite often, the "The original description page is/was here" link is useless because the file has been already deleted on the Source wikipedia. Could we not have the Deletion log link instead, or in addition to this link ? Teofilo talk 12:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not useless because it contains the upload log so it can be viewed without have to look at another wiki. You're going kind of off topic here... multichill (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it contains the Commons page, because when a file with the same name is on Commons, the Wikipedia page displays the Commons page. So in fact when you click on this link you come back to the same point on Commons. But it is not very important, as I know I can click on "special pages" then find the Log then make a query on the log. Teofilo talk 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original proposal: I think it is a good idea provided that tools are written to support the additional parameters. May be we can create a gadget (or a script to be added to your user space) to add such template with single click in the same way we can tag a file to be deleted on Commons. One other parameter I would like to see (if possible) is a username of the nominating person so he/she can be notified after the transfer, and can help with categorization of the files. --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I already executed the changes. diff NowCommons, ncd.

• Category:Wikipedia_files_reviewed_on_Wikimedia_Commons for the reviewers

and

• Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons
• Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

now have dated categories. Those categories are autocreated by User:DumbBOT and use the following templates for creation

• Template:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons starter
• Template:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons starter
• Template:Commons move instructions

MGA and Multibot will already use this. I'm still pondering if we should auto add a user as a reviewer when he uses ncd... Not sure about that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We can always add it later. Let's first see how it works like this. I pretty much cleared out Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons (nice backlog!). Now the template should be changed to add the undated images to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date. Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons is up next, Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date will be created when I'm done with that category. multichill (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The change should be like this. multichill (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Something else, what do you guys think about moving the dated subcats of Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons as of ....? That would be in line with Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. We could merge Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons would only contain subcategories, two per day, one for different name and one for same name. multichill (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've  Done that edit request. Please check it works as desired. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • June 16 went fine, but June 17th an error occured in the category sortkey date (see here) Krinkle (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At some point there was this Great Idea to combine all of the Commons/F8 templates into one to make things easier, and we lost a lot of finesse in how these images are handled. Could there also be a flag/category added for "Files on Commons different from current version" or something, so that when I upload the original version, or when there are two versions of an image locally, or this image is a cropped version of that image, or they uploaded the small size here from flickr, and I uploaded the original at Commons, etc.?

Additionally, could we add functionality so that a bot can tag every single file that is duplicated here and at Commons? I would like a generic flag, a flag for when the EN version is older than the Commons version (and visa versa), and a flag for when it is okay that there is a duplicate (main page stuff, high-use images, etc.). Images that are older on Commons are easy deletions, and a bot should be able to figure these out pretty easily. Us humans can just add the generic flag, although if we have a bot patrolling we should never need it. I'm still getting comfortable with the new categories, so I'm not sure how they'd mesh, but I've always been frustrated that Mediawiki shows us which files are duplicates, but doesn't automatically create a category for them. I know there are toolserver tools that let me see them all at once, but as I'm not and admin, and many have NCD tags already, this is just double/triple work. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I ask for separate functionality for these images because bots will be adding the tags based on Mediawiki and no other criteria, so we know that they are duplicates and not much else. Someone like me could simply go through and remove that tag if it meets the criteria, or mark it as okay if it is a high-use image, dropping it out of the patrolled categories. Hopefully all that makes sense...▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Multichill that categories should be "merged". Either the way he suggests or something like this:
  • Top category: Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons
    • Sub category: Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons
      • Sub sub category: Sorted by date
    • Sub category: Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
      • Sub sub category: Sorted by date

Perhaps we should also put some other categories in here. To get all the files in the same "tree". --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to implement it this week. Special:Categories/Wikipedia_files_on_Wikimedia_Commons is filling up and it would be a waste of time to create these categories and later having to create a whole new set again. multichill (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js

There is now a script to make it easy for non-admins to mark the images as checked on Commons. So if you want to help clearing the backlog you can add the script to your vector.js (mine is here User:MGA73/vector.js). The plan is that you check that all info is transfered correctly to commons and remove the "bot move template" on commons and then you click the "NowCommons OK" on the file on enwiki. Then admins can see that a user has checked that the transfer is done correctly. --MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice, maybe someone could make a gadget of it so it's easy to enable. multichill (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this, if they are verefied then admins can deleted them in bulk without having to check every image.That backlog will be gone in no time.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

interwiki el

el:Πρότυπο:NowCommons —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgosS (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage

I believe the first paragraph of the Usage section to be inacurately worded.

If FILE is omitted, the page name is used as the image name. If not it is assumed that the file on Commons has the same name as the file on English Wikipedia.

I understand that if FILE is omitted, both files are assumed to be named the same, and if not (= not omitted ???) then both files are assumed to be named the same.

Not being a native speaker, I'd rather let someone else rephrase this line. Thanks! --MAURILBERT (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category for all files

I added Category:All Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons temporary to get all files in one category. That makes it easier to find files in red categories. Perhaps we should make that permanent. --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This template is not on the Commons

Please remove this from the template:

"This file is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Template:Now Commons (with the same name)."

There is no such template on the Commons, at least with that name. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's part of the template code - it needs to be there in order to work correctly on the file pages here. You can see examples of the code in action on the transclusions. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:29, 14 Av 5771 / 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that the template is on many pages, and that "What links here" shows that. What does the false statement provide that's of any use? I don't see how a false statement on the template is necessary for anything to work correctly. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The template is correct when transcluded to a file description page. --Leyo 21:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see how it works now. I used CommonsHelper 2 recently, and then put this template on the old Wikipedia image. I think in the past when I moved images to the Commons I did it manually, probably because the bot tools were flaky for me. I then probably put {{speedy}} tags on the old Wikipedia images. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (2)

Add

| {{PAGENAME}} <!--Fed as "This page"-->

after this:

  |     <!--No file name fed-->
  | Image:{{PAGENAME}}   <!--Fed as "Image:This page"-->
  | {{FULLPAGENAME}} =   <!--Fed as "File:This page"-->

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense. Although technically you asked for it to be inserted in the wrong position. ;) Anomie⚔ 03:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (3)

There should be a warning to not delete the images before reviewed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that it is needed. There is a link to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F8 and if an admin does not know what to do they can just click the link and read it there.

You can delete the file even if there is still a bot check template on Commons if the information looks ok and you just do not know if the categories are ok. But I agree that it would be best not to do it. --MGA73 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Now Commons (MtC drive)

Please add {{#if:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|March 2012|{{Now Commons (MtC drive)}}|<the template>}} to replace the template by the one for March. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose/gain of that? --Leyo 19:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's for the drive, but Ebe123 has resigned from the drive. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I got that. But why would we need to change the NC template for that? --Leyo 06:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the template started because I suggested that we as a test moved some files to commons WITHOUT checking if they were ok as a part of the MtC. The idea was that users that did not have a bot or could/wanted to use the other tools could check those files. Ebe123 suggested that the template was used for all the files moved during that template probably because it had a very big warning NOT to delete the files on en-wiki before the bot check template has been removed on Commons (also see #Edit request (3) above) and perhaps also because it moved the MtC moved files into separate catgories. --MGA73 (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why changing the standard template? IMO a specialized template should be created for this purpose. --Leyo 10:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes :-) A new template was created {{Now Commons (MtC drive)}}. But like you I do not know why we should change the standard template. --MGA73 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this request could be closed as a "Not done" now that both Ebe123 and I no longer want to spend time on this. --MGA73 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 18 May 2013

There is a version in the sandbox that will update the link to the template, and subtract the extra space at the top of the code. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to add link to move old versions

Hi. I suggest that we add this to the template:

If you want to move old versions to Commons and/or add original upload log click this link.

The link only works when the template is located on a file page :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the tool User:Magog the Ogre :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@MGA73: Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

Could someone please wrap the

Administrators: If the file has been properly moved, [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:[[WP:CSD#F8|F8]]: File available on Wikimedia Commons as [[Commons:File:{{PAGENAME:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|File:{{ucfirst:{{PAGENAME:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME}}|(under the same name)}}}}}} delete it]. If not, change the {{Tl|Now Commons}} tag to: {{Tlx|Already moved to Commons|{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|3=reason=reason why the image could not be moved}}<br/>

part in <span class="sysop-show"> tag to hide that text for non-admins.

Pppery (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Do you mean "wrap the tag in"? --Izno (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Yes. Pppery (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Usage

The documentation doesn't say where to place the template on the File: page. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Is it okay if pages tagged with this template also populate the general speedy deletion category so as to reduce any potential backlogs? ToThAc (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It is intentionally not in that category because there are various checks that must be performed before the file is eligible for deletion under F8. {{db-f8}} used to serve that purpose until it was redirected here per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Template:Db-f8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed parameter change

Hi all. I've made a small change in the sandbox that adds a pretty little box when the file has been reviewed (just like {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}). An example of what it looks like is here. I've also tested with User:MGA73's script, and that seems to work well with the change. If there are no objections, I plan to move the sandbox to the main template in a couple of days. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to folks who have scripts/bots that I know use this template: @Fastily and MGA73: (sorry if I forgot anyone) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: Thank you! Yeah I noticed that there is a lot of NowCommons files to delete. I wonder if there are too few admins working on files or there are too many images being moved. And yes it is pretty ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, nice work! -FASTILY 07:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:Now Commons → Template:Db-f8 – Template:Db-f8 was redirected here after a TfD in 2019. All other deletion templates on the English Wikipedia follow the standard db-csd/di-csd format, and I don't see why this template should be any different. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I largely stand by my comments at the TfD, but I suggest folks read that for the convoluted history of these templates. Courtesy ping Fastily, JJMC89, LaundryPizza03, Funplussmart, and Frietjes (and Plastikspork). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Template namespace guidelines suggest that "Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." This suggests that a more directly descriptive name be used, while preserving "db-§#" as redirects (especially since, perhaps in the future, sections may be renumbered). Looking at Template:Speedy deletion templates, a lot of these are listed there using a more descriptive name, perhaps that can be a starting point and we can use something like {{db-nowCommons}} for this one. I'd personally prefer something even more descriptive like {{speedydelete-nowCommons}} or {{sd-nowCommons}} ("sd" for speedy delete preferable over "db" which sounds like something database-related). -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The template clearly states that this is for files that now exist on commons, not that they should be deleted. They should only be deleted if they satisfy deletion conditions, which not all files that exist here and on commons do. Thus moving the template would enable the odd situation of permanently keeping this template asking for deletion on files that do not qualify for deletion, and should not be deleted. Per the TFD, not everything both here and on commons qualify for deletion. I think the solution is to split the functionality of the template in two, one to ask for deletion, and the other to only indicate if the file also exists on commons. Some files have copies permanently/temporarily kept locally to prevent vandalism, IIRC. -- The second subtemplate, asking for deletion, could be activated with a switch on NowCommons, per the outcome of the TFD resulting in this current template, with the reviewer parameter filled-in as a required parameter to activate the deletion parameter; and a permanent-no-delete and a temporary-no-delete and temporary-no-delete-with-end-date parameters to indicate local copies kept for reasons. And a reason parameter to indicate that. --70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless. I originally nominated {{Db-f8}} to be redirected because uninformed/careless editors would spam this template onto files that should never have been transferred to Commons. I think we should opt for more informative template names whenever possible, as opposed to using arbitrary CSD-criterion id's which are likely to confuse. Also, *a lot* of tools/bots rely on {{Now Commons}} being its current title. Who is going to repair all of these when they break because of this change? -FASTILY 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The thing is is that this is not a speedy deletion template in the same sense that all the others are. Unlike the other templates this one does not state that the file may be eligible for deletion, it only says it exists on Commons, which is part of a speedy deletion criterion. My main concern with making this look more like the other ones is that there are a lot of files on Commons shouldn't be on there but can be on here (such as fair use images). funplussmart (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This should be treated as a special case. The reality is that F8 is a time-consuming process in which the deleting admin has to go through all the steps listed on WP:F8 to make sure not only does the image qualify to be stored on Commons, but also all of the licensing, file history and attribution have been properly transferred as well. There always seems to be weeks-to-months long backlogs on Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.