Category talk:Images without source

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Images without source

[edit]

Totally innecessary. Category:Media without a source is more than enough. Look at a subcategory like "Files with broken link"! Files are not limited to images. Delete the category. 191.126.166.100 12:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is: this category is automatically set through Template:Information when the source parameter is empty (which has the absurd side effect of video files ending up in the category too). That behaviour would need to change first. El Grafo (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved without objection
Actions Merge Category:Images without source into Category:Media without a source
Edit {{Information}} to fix auto-categorization
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This discussion has been re-opened at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Images without source

Category:Images without source

[edit]

Totally innecessary. Category:Media without a source is more than enough. Look at a subcategory like "Files with broken link"! Files are not limited to images. Delete the category. 191.126.166.100 12:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is: this category is automatically set through Template:Information when the source parameter is empty (which has the absurd side effect of video files ending up in the category too). That behaviour would need to change first. El Grafo (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Josh (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @El Grafo: I have re-opened this discussion, based on some feedback from Jarekt, an admin who works on the template in question ({{Information}}. (for the sake of archive management, I've simply done it as a new discussion) Josh (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I don't disagree with @Jarekt either, it makes sense to keep these separate. Maybe we can find a more suitable name for this category, though, as it currently is confusing:
How about something like Category:Media uploaded without a source or Category:Media with empty source? El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I do agree with replacing "images" with "media", since as you say, the template is applied to all media, not just images. If the category is specifically to capture pages using {{Information}} which lack the source parameter, perhaps that is a pretty technical maintenance category and should be named accordingly (Category:Media using Template Information without source parameter). Josh (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner Fine for me, but maybe switch it around to Category:Media using Information template without source parameter to follow the general pattern (e.g. at Category:Pages with incorrect template usage). El Grafo (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am infoboxes ok with more descriptive name. Category:Images without source was OK in 2007 before we supported other file types and had other ways to track problems. The category is used by all main infoboxes mentioned in Commons:Infobox templates, it is hardwired in many lua based templates, like {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, etc. and provided through {{Source missing}} in template based infoboxes. We could try:
They are all a bit long but accurate. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input! We seem to generally prefer media over files for these things, with Category:Media missing information being the root, so let's go for that. Structure-wise, I think I like the last one best because it puts the problem first and it fits the general pattern. As for which preposition to use, we currently have in Category:Media missing information:
That's a whole new can of worms, but it seems like we should probably start another discussion to harmonize that a bit too. El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Files" vs. "Media"

[edit]

Hello @El Grafo, Joshbaumgartner, and Jarekt: Last days I took a bit care of Commons maintenance so I found this discussion. 4 Weeks ago Category:Media needing categories is redirected to Category:Files needing categories by Josh, and inside this all the subcategories to:

They named "Media needing categories ..." before and were renamed to "File..." the same days by Josh. In Category:Commons file maintenance also many subpages were renamed from media to file. Was there another discussion which came to this result? The list you stated above @ El Grafo is quite conclusive, so "media" seems ok and widely spreaded. But the namespace is called "files", not "media". I dont't know, who started with "media"? And another thing to mention:

In the category namespace behind every category is stated e.g.

So Category, Pages, Files - this is also an argument for "files" - so what to do? Josh is offline since 3 weeks, hope everything fine. Best Regards -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  20:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefered "files" over "media". "Files" don't have other meanings and you know what to expect. "Media" in my mind is less precise, and the word have many other confusing meanings. But I also do not like category names changing back and forth. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W like wiki All is well, thank you, but I am still neck-deep in doing a cross-country move, so only really doing a brief check-in right now. As to the question of another discussion having taken place, there was indeed (more than 1 if I am not mistaken) and hopefully at least one has been linked in the talk pages of the files needing categories tree. Some discussion didn't reach an overall agreement on restructuring (or I would argue simply structuring) the maintenance categories, but there were some take-aways and one was general preference for "File" over "Media" for a few reasons, not least of which is that "Media" is readily confused for a topic while "File" seems more intuitively a Commons item. I certainly agree with Jarekt that back and forth is not a good thing, but based on the pretty broad consensus that "file" was the better option, when I put work into expanding that section of maintenance categories, I decided to use "files" rather than expanding the use of "media" which was clearly not preferred. Note also that there is a whole conversation around Category:Media in which the question of whether media is a topic clearly was causing confusion and problematic cross-efforts.
As for what to do, I think migrating to "files" across the maintenance category space would be best. I only really worked on the area I was adding content to (I specifically didn't want to add "media" in names that would just have to be renamed again), so didn't try and implement across the board, but that is probably the thing to do. Josh (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pages"

[edit]

PS.: Regarding "Pages": In this bracket trio C,P,F the "P" meaning galeries, user pages, template pages, talk pages, everything except categories and files. But in the maintenance area many categories named like Pages with incorrect biology template usage (334 C, 7 P, 1 F) or Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter (1970 F) or Pages using groups template (9 C, 1 P) (Josh ;), so here this can be everything, pages, files and also categories. Hmm... -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of "media" & "files" we have obviously 2 words for the same thing, at least on commons. Here with "pages" it is the opposite. One time it is used in the meaning of the trio being everything or every namespace beside of files and categories; on the other side in the maintenance sense "pages" are really everything. This makes also sense, because e.g. the information template you place on a file-page or metacat you place on a category-page. But people are not sure about the use, so instead of Category:Pages using Aircraft cat they get around the problem and call it Category:Uses of Aircraft cat. But to have a word for all namespace pages would be helpful because some templates like C are used everywhere. Any idea or opinion? Best Regards -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  23:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources for images without source

[edit]

Reference for the names when image titles are not able to be understood any other way: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed!/Military_Images Empty template {{Information |Description={{en| __ from U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry}} |Source=[http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/ |Date= |Author=U.S. Army |Permission={{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}} |other_versions= }}

  • Maps of world see also separate maps category, but many are from CIA fact book.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Images_without_source&oldid=809092239"