Archive 1

This template links a page to the article on the commons, containing the gallery of images related to the page. Use this template in the style {{Commons|PAGENAME}}, where PAGENAME is the name of the page on the commons. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives include Template:Commonscat, which allows links to categories without displaying "Category:" in the article, and Template:Commons, which allows piped links.

• Regarding Wikipedia:List of templates see Wikipedia talk:List of lists#Templates. Gangleri 04:19, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

This template now uses a parameter to define the target page on Commons. The format is {{commons|page name on Commons}}. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Given that Commons may be moving toward a category-based taxonomy, target pages will likely be Category:Pagename, which might not look nice as English text. So a second parameter to use for display might be considered. (In zh-min-nan: we are currently using {{PAGENAME}} to substitute for the display name (this is also because Commons pages are largely English), but this could run into the problem of long article names. We'll see.) A-giau 07:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it so that the displayed link matches the current {{PAGENAME}}. Now, the parameter can either be an article or a category link. -- Netoholic @ 16:52, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I am changing this so that the link order and placement match other sister project links. See Wikipedia:Sister projects. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

The other sister project links use different styles, just about half the one you've been inserting, i think using a definition list makes it hard to read and it's much better to use something that puts it all in one sentence.

I've also shortened it alot, Wikipedia Commons has multimedia related to x instead of Wikimedia Commons has images and other multimedia related to this article at: x which IMO is way too long. -- Ævar Arnfjörð 18:39, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

I don't mind the current version too much. I think the line break/indent is nicer when an article's title is long-ish, to avoid the link wrapping across lines. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Is there any standard for insterting standard pronounciation of, say, famous people or places in their respective articles? Nationalencyklopedin has a very neat system in their web edition where they link to sound files with a person pronouncing the article title in the native language. Very handy (except that they do it with often malfunctioning .aif-files).

Is there any policy worked out for this? Is there a template or a project for it? - karmosin 21:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

To curtail further edit-warring until a decision is reached, I've protected this template. Since I don't want to put the notice on the template itself:

— Dan | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Per Raul654's edit, I have now unprotected the template, as there shouldn't need to be much further arguing on the issue. — Dan | Talk 20:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

do you have a link to the arbcom desicion in full giving details of thier reasoning? Plugwash 20:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. — Dan | Talk 20:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform everyone who is as surprised as me about the reason why there is no Wikimedia Commons image in this template anymore. It is a procedure to lower the amount of requests to the server and make Wikipedia available again. See: m:Image server overload 2005-03

• User:Jamesday (removing image temporarily, acting as developer. For why, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_server_overload_2005-03)

What's the point of having {{{1}}}|{{{1}}} ? --User:66.46.85.162 [[WP:~~~~|forgot to sign]] at 16:17, Mar 28, 2005

• The entire link looks like this: [[Commons:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. The text before the pipe is the link target, a page on the Commons. The text after the pipe is the displayed text, so the user doesn't see the word "Commons" where it would be redundant. —Josh Lee 21:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Problem is, it doesn't work where the target contains a colon (:), which is how one links to categories in the commons. See [1] for an example of this (look under related topics).

  The ideal form for this template (widely used across many Wikipedias) should be: {{commons|target|displayed text}}. Please end this edit war and fix the template. It's embarrassing for the English Wikipedia. Kevyn 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and while i can't dispute the assertion that meta templates are a resource waste i get the feeling that a revert war on such a template is even worse. Plugwash 20:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

for a lot of items thier is a category on commons but not a normal page. (higher level taxa for example) right now the only way to use that with this template would be to rather messilly put the whole name including category in the parameter. Imo this template should be altered to provide seperate control over the page linked to and the displayed name on the link Plugwash 14:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We already have a Template:Commonscat. Is that something like what you wanted? -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

yeah thats the one though it uses the word multimedia which is seriously misleading in the vast majority of cases and its protected so i can't change it like i did this one. Plugwash 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I've read most of the 7-month discussion. Any chance of an up-to-date statement of the way(s) this can be used? Robin Patterson 00:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. And I strongly support Kevyn's plea from above. I'll copy it here:

The ideal form for this template (widely used across many Wikipedias) should be: {{commons|target|displayed text}}. Please end this edit war and fix the template. It's embarrassing for the English Wikipedia. Kevyn 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the current commons template is still ugly and seriously lacking in this respect. -Wikibob | Talk 2005 July 3 12:06 (UTC)

I'm in support of Kevyn as well. Changes are need. Swarve 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this template should be used even if there is only one image on commons as people may replace a commons image on a page with a non free one, and people may forget or not realise that a commons image is availiable if the template is not visible, therefore I have removed "more" from the template. Arniep 13:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this template not very obvious when they are browsing an article? It really should make it plain that "hey you, yes you, if you click this link they you are going to get a gallery of images about X". Instead, it's often hard to notice, and when I do click the link, I am always slightly annoyed, in that I think "this content is really good! Why didn't they tell me this sooner and make it much clearer to me?". Let me outline the reasons why I think this template is has poor ease-of-use:

1. It is usually included at the end of articles, not at the start.
2. It is floating off on the right-hand-side of the page, and as such it's not very noticeable (in my experience the most useful content in the Wikipedia, and the web in general, tends to be in the middle 80% of the page, and not at the extreme left or extreme right, or the at the extreme top or extreme bottom; In fact, I tend to mentally filter out these areas because they usually contain ads, funding drives, useless logos, legal mumbo jumbo, etc).
3. It uses a smaller font that the main article text.
4. In a left-to-right language such as English, the most prominent thing in this template is the commons logo. Clicking on the logo takes me to a larger version of the logo, which almost always is not what the user will want.
5. The first (and therefore more prominent) link and words of the sentence are "Wikimedia Commons". Clicking them takes you to info about the commons, which almost always is not what the user will want.
6. The use of the word "media". Technically totally valid, but "media" is a weasely-techie-type-word that has limited meaning to most people. How about "images"?
7. Why is the actual link on a new line, by itself? And why, when it is the most useful thing of all, does it come last?
8. The final insult and piece-de-resistance is this: I can't even fix it! Someone, in their infinite wisdom, has decreed that this template is sacrosanct, and has protected it!

<rant>
Frankly, this template makes me want to grab a Usability or User Interface textbook, and repeatedly whack it against the head of the template's author, whilst shouting "Worst. Template. Usability. Ever!"
</rant>

-- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a new commonsgallery template, recently added by Last Malthusian, and updated by me to fix most of the things I dislike about this template. You can see an example of this at Maine Coon#External links. It differs from this template in the following ways: I've left-aligned it to make it more obvious, increased the font size, change the image to be of a camera instead of some silly abstract logo, removed all links except the one to the image gallery, made that link longer, and put it all on two lines to make it shorter, and last but not least it's not protected so that anyone can improve it. Hopefully now it should be far more obvious and noticeable than the previous template. Of course, please feel free to update the new template if you think anything doesn't work or can be improved in some way. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have deviated so far from the original, myself, which is recognisable to anyone who's read a number of Wikipedia pages - but, of course, pretty meaningless to anyone else. The Maine Coon is now a rather glaring exception from the rest of Wikipedia - something that I have no problem with (because I think Nickj's template is better, end of reasoning), but I can see someone else having a problem with it, if that makes sense.

However, I do unequivocally support having a picture that represents what the link is, instead of that 'silly abstract logo'. What would be perfect is if someone could create an image that had the camera on top of the Wikicommons logo. Normally I think of myself as fairly good at doing things myself instead of saying someone else should, but in this case I have no appropriate software and no skill, so I'm going to have to hope someone else will :-). Shouldn't be too hard to shrink down the camera image and paste it on top of the Wikicommons logo, surely. --Last Malthusian

Oh yes - I was going to wait for someone else to bring the subject up, but it might seem from my post that I think Wikicommons just contains image galleries. In the case of galleries that contain, say, sound files, we could simply use a template that had a picture of a Windows-Sound-Recorder-type-speaker or something. In the case of mixed galleries, we could use the current logo or even a picture that incorporated both images. --Last Malthusian 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should probably note that I've changed the commonsgallery template again to use Nickj's wording and picture, but the traditional style. --Last Malthusian 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

<div class="infobox sisterproject">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|left|45px| ]]
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons]] has media related to:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;">'''''[[Commons:{{{1|Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div>
</div>

Please change the template as shown above. With this method, we can add more utility to this single template. See Template:Wiktionary for an example of how this method will work. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone create this template? evrik 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• You want this template, Template:Commons to be copied across to the UR Wikipedia?--Commander Keane 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I went ahead and did it, though I don't know if it is right .... --evrik 13:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Commons. Thanks.--Berria 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to allow for a third parameter to change the word "media"? That word seems rather vague and I would like the ability to change it to something more specific. For example, in Johann Sebastian Bach, I would prefer that the box say something like "Wikimedia Commons has recordings, scores, and portraits related to: Johann Sebastian Bach". How feasible is this? -Sesquialtera II 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go even further. I'm wondering whether a better situation might be to have both the type of media and the image passed in as arguments to the template. E.g. {{commons|icon=music-note.jpg|type=recordings and scores}}, and {{commons|icon=camera-image.jpg|type=image gallery}}, and with {{commons}} using default arguments to give the same result as at the moment. That would both allow overriding the "media" word, and having an icon for music-related material or image galleries, plus it would keep backwards-compatibility. A rough mock-up of what a music-related example could look like is shown below. Thoughts / comments / ideas? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. For ease of use, we could have a {{commonsimages}}, a {{commonsaudio}}, a {{commonsmusic}}, and a {{commonsvideo}} template instead of requiring a |type=$TYPE tag parameter though. Also, I have taken the liberty of changing your suggested template around. What do you think of the changes? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Your changes make the templates more the wording more general, which is definitely a good thing, and I would definitely support having a variety of templates for different media types (seems simpler than having parameters). So yes, I think do it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How about having magic words...(with {{#ifexist:{{{music}}|...music text here...| }}) If the magic word is music, the icon and text will be just right. I think that would be great. But then a hundred thoundsand users will have to know it. Hm. ? NorwegianMarcus 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia's Commons template is called de:Vorlage:Commons, not de:Vorlage:Commons1. Please fix the interwiki link. TZM^T (de:^T) 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Keenan Pepper 04:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add the following interwikis to the code [[af:Template:Commons]] [[ast:Template:Commons]] [[bs:Template:Commons]] [[fy:Template:Commons]] [[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]] [[hr:Template:Commons]] [[ia:Template:Commons]] [[is:Template:Commons]] [[ku:Template:Commons]] [[la:Template:Commons]] [[lb:Template:Commons]] [[lt:Template:Commons]] [[lv:Template:Commons]] [[ms:Template:Commons]] [[nds:Template:Commons]] [[nn:Template:Commons]] [[oc:Template:Commons]] [[scn:Template:Commons]] [[sq:Template:Commons]] [[su:Template:Commons]] [[tr:Template:Commons]] [[tt:Template:Commons]]

Interwikis found using http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/

Thanks in advance --elwikipedista 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One month later, I again urge you to update you interwikis [[af:Template:Commons]] [[ast:Template:Commons]] [[bs:Template:Commons]] [[fy:Template:Commons]] [[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]] [[hr:Template:Commons]] [[ia:Template:Commons]] [[is:Template:Commons]] [[ku:Template:Commons]] [[la:Template:Commons]] [[lb:Template:Commons]] [[lt:Template:Commons]] [[lv:Template:Commons]] [[ms:Template:Commons]] [[nds:Template:Commons]] [[nn:Template:Commons]] [[oc:Template:Commons]] [[scn:Template:Commons]] [[sq:Template:Commons]] [[su:Template:Commons]] [[tr:Template:Commons]] [[tt:Template:Commons]]

af:Template:Commons ast:Template:Commons bs:Template:Commons fy:Template:Commons ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin hr:Template:Commons ia:Template:Commons is:Template:Commons ku:Template:Commons la:Template:Commons lb:Template:Commons lt:Template:Commons lv:Template:Commons ms:Template:Commons nds:Template:Commons nn:Template:Commons oc:Template:Commons scn:Template:Commons sq:Template:Commons su:Template:Commons tr:Template:Commons tt:Template:Commons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elwikipedista (talk • contribs) .

All set. - EurekaLott 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This template seems to be a slightly different shape from the other similar ones. This is particularly notable at Da Vinci#External Links. Can someone with edit permission change this? Conrad.Irwin 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See also e.g. Frog. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, quite irritating once you've noticed it! - PocklingtonDan 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes; {{wikispecies}} and {{cookbook}} both used divs to do their dirty work, where {{commons}} used a wikitable; I've updated {{commons}} to use a more similar div layout, so they should look better together. May still need a little tweak, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Luna Santin 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better, looks great to me now. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is odd is the following: *{{commons}} produces:

Why is that and how can we fix this? Kusma (討論) 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it, but don't understand why. Kusma (討論) 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please rearrange the interwikis by alphabet (so that one can see if the interwiki to xyz already exists or not). And please add iu:Template:Commons to that list. Thank you. --Thogo (Talk) 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to copy and paste the updated list of interwiki links (more simple than adding each one individually):

<!-- interwiki -->
[[af:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[als:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[ar:قالب:كومنز]]
[[ast:Plantilla:Commons]]
[[az:Şablon:Commons]]
[[be:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[be-x-old:Шаблён:Commons]]
[[bar:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[bs:Šablon:Commons]]
[[bg:Шаблон:Общомедия]]
[[ca:Template:Commons]]
[[cs:Šablona:Commons]]
[[cy:Nodyn:Comin]]
[[da:Skabelon:Commons]]
[[de:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[el:Πρότυπο:Commons]]
[[et:Mall:Commons]]
<!-- [[en:Template:Commons]] -->
[[es:Plantilla:Commons]]
[[eo:Ŝablono:Commons]]
[[eu:Txantiloi:Commons]]
[[fa:الگو:انبار]]
[[fr:Modèle:Commons]]
[[fy:Berjocht:Commons]]
[[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]]
[[gl:Template:Commons]]
[[ko:틀:Commons]]
[[hsb:Předłoha:Commons]]
[[hr:Predložak:Commons]]
[[io:Template:Commons]]
[[ilo:Template:Commons]]
[[id:Templat:Commons]]
[[ia:Patrono:Commons]]
[[iu:Template:Commons]]
[[ik:Template:Commons]]
[[is:Snið:Commons]]
[[it:Template:Commons]]
[[he:תבנית:Commons]]
[[kn:ಟೆಂಪ್ಲೇಟು:Commons]]
[[ku:Şablon:Commons]]
[[la:Formula:Communia2]]
[[lv:Veidne:Commons]]
[[lb:Template:Commons]]
[[lt:Šablonas:Commons]]
[[li:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[hu:Sablon:Commons]]
[[mk:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[ms:Templat:Commons]]
[[nl:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[ja:Template:Commons]]
[[no:Mal:Commons4]]
[[nn:Mal:Commons]]
[[oc:Modèl:Commons]]
[[nds:Vörlaag:Commons]]
[[pl:Szablon:Commons]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Commons]]
[[ro:Format:Commons]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[sq:Stampa:Commons]]
[[scn:Template:Commons]]
[[simple:Template:Commons]]
[[sk:Šablóna:Commons]]
[[sl:Predloga:Zbirka]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[sh:Template:Commons]]
[[fi:Malline:Commons]]
[[su:Citakan:Commons]]
[[sv:Mall:Commons]]
[[tl:Template:Commons]]
[[tt:Ürnäk:Commons]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Commons]]
[[tr:Şablon:Commons]]
[[wa:Modele:Commons]]
[[uk:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[ur:سانچہ:Commons]]
[[zh-yue:Template:同享]]
[[zh:Template:Commons]]

They have all been checked. Regards. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Cbrown1023 talk 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you checked, but the Hebrew iw is wrong. It should point to he:תבנית:מיזמים. Odedee 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Hebrew is wrong: the link you gave leads to the equivalent of the {{sisterlinks}} template. The Hebrew template for Commons, is Commons. Although, it is not much used anymore, this page should be linked to it.

I've made another update to the list. It takes into consideration the changes in the be: wikis. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove or comment out the interwiki link "[[en:Template:Commons]]". Thanks! Korg (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --ais523 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

and I would like to change it.

Why, you ask? Because just about every time I see it I click on the link that takes me to Commons main page instead of the specific article. Even though I know better, that's where I want to click. I'm not alone in this; in a random sample of 4 friends all of them did the same thing when asked to go look at the media on Commons from the template. (I know, I know, not scientific, but...)

The linked article needs to be the first link, because otherwise people click on the link going to the main page and are left totally confused about what to do next.

But I didn't want to change a highly-used template without comment. Is there any disagreement with changing it (other than consistency with the other sister project templates: they should be changed for the same reason)? If so, why? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Looks like it's been fixed. Stevage 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A good change, I always did the same. I still have to think twice when I see a Wikisource / Wikiquote templates, and the worst template in this regard is the Wiktionary template. / Fred-Chess 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to change this one, should we change them all to be consistent? See e.g. Template:Wikisource. Richard001 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image of box should be changed to reflect "media", like photo/speaker. Commons logo may also be kept with text, but smaller image. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add [[nap:Template:Commons]] and [[rm:Template:Commons]]. Kazu89 ^ノート 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I suggest that instead of putting the Commons link to a Commons article/category in a box at the bottom (where it, in my opinion, often breaks the layout), I suggest that the link should behave like a languuage interwiki-link. To make sure it isn't lost in a long list of language links, it could automatically preempt all language link versions and come first. For example, under "Cite this page" and above "Languages" Article X would have a "Commons" link. What do people think about the idea? Ingolfson (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Click (or something similar) should be added to the image. I'm sure this has been mentioned before so please don't link me to similar comments. -Indolences 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean so when you click on the commons logo it brings you to the main page at commons? Yonatan (contribs/talk) 01:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No I mean it brings you to the commons page of whatever you want to view. eg {{commons}} :would take you to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Commons -Indolences 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They're haven't been any objections, so I was bold and implemented this for Template:Commons. Superm401 - Talk 12:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This template seems unnecessarily bulky. I suggest a new look. Here is a comparison of what it could look like verses what it looks like now. It is about ten pixels wider, but it saves a lot of space vertically. Please leave your comments. _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 23:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How come the border around the table don't show up on some wikis, I copied the code from here and translated the message onto another wiki, but for some reason the border doesn't show up and it's left aligned see pa:Template:Commons. It has same stuff as here but it's showing up different. It's not just this, but even when we add a table the borders don't show up, anyone know how to fix that. Gman124 ^talk 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, It has beed fixed. Gman124 ^talk 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please add Category:Wikimedia Commons templates to this and {{Commons cat}}. Richard001 (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The documentation, where this category belongs, is not protected. --- RockMFR 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} please add: [[pa:ਨਮੂਨਾ:ਕਾਮਨਜ਼]] Gman124 ^talk 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - but it does not need an admin to do this as the interwiki links are in Template:Commons/doc (which is not protected) —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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. At the moment they appear identical in an article. ciao Rotational (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

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

I noticed you also did an identical editprotected request over at Template talk:Commons cat. Next time I recommend that you do the request on a single talk page and simply list (link to) all the templates that needs the same update. This saves both you the requester and me the admin to have to write on several talk pages.

And by the way, while I am thinking of it: I see that different templates use different names for this parameter: "float=left", "position=left" and "align=left". I think we should standardise on one name. My vote is on "float=left" since that is the same word used in the actual CSS code that is used inside the templates that makes it happen. We should probably bring this up for discussion in some more central template related place. I have to think a little about where.

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

Thanks, done.

I don't have the best experiences with central talk pages, but I guess it would've been better in the case.

align might be more recognisable and float more correct, but I don't really care either way. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the box centered or left-aligned? With it being right-aligned, it often gets forced way out of sight down the page in articles that have long boxes on the right side. Alternatively, some way of adjusting the position so that it can appear on the right adjacent to the box, rather than having to go below it. Anyone know how to do this? - MPF 17:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah its a pain getting anything right alinged to sit nicely next to infoboxes. i usually resort to wrapping sections of the article in tables to force them to act as a single rectangle in the page layout. Plugwash 17:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been fixed yet, but perhaps it's only affecting me for some odd reason. Anyway, the Commons logo has been failing to render on this template for several days now (see this screenshot). Thought I'd point it out. 75.154.67.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

This should probably be moved to Template:Commonspar, to conform with other sister project templates. -- Itai 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need. With very few exceptions, there is no direct page name match between here and Commons. Every link to Commons should be specified with a parameter. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

There are quite a few exceptions. Template:Pic is identical to this, except it uses {{PAGENAME}}. As can be seen in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pic, many articles use this template. I think it would be better to align the Commons categories with all other sister project templates, but shudder at the thought of making that many changes. -- Itai 19:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many articles are using Template:Pic incorrectly. For some, the link goes to a non-existent page on Commons (as in Mumbai (Bombay)), and others link to a redirect at Commons (like Brown Bear does). Much better to eliminate those problems. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Right. Well, amazingly, no objection on my part, but don't orphan it until we're sure there are no comments in Template talk:Pic. (I've left a note there, and have also dropped User:Patrick, the template's creator, a note.) -- Itai 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For pages with the same name on Commons, a template using PAGENAME(E) is more convenient, and there seems no harm in having a separate template for that.--Patrick 22:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of harm in creating multiple templates for one-shot reasons. In this case, too few page names match between here and Commons, as explained above, and the separate template is no more convenient because editors still should check Commons to be sure a page exists. Unfortunately, by making it "convenient" to add template:pic, editors become lazy and don't check as they should. We leave readers pointing to non-existent pages, or redirects - bad form all around. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Why do so many people dislike pointing at redirects anyway? Plugwash 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

bvmbvmb,mn ,m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.40.241 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} 1. Request addition of Arthur Erickson to list of architects. He was a modernist architect of great significance. There is a Wikipedia article on him and the website www.arthurerickson.com has more information.

2. Request addition of Fred Bassetti to list of architects. He is a modernist architect of significance. His work is as noteworthy and recognized as being as influential as the work of Wendell Lovett, an architect who is included in the list.

Architectsea (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The article List of architects, is not protected, and this template, {{commons}}, has absolutely nothing to do with that article; it isn't even used in that article. How did you end up here to make this unrelated request, and why did you think the article was protected?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Please take a look at Template talk:Commons category#Commons / Commons cat vs. Sister project links. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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 16:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Is it possible to introduce a second short form for aligning the template left? Instead of

 {{Commons|pagename|position=left}} 

I'd like to have something like this:

 {{Commons||left}}

(The to pipes "||" representing the default pagename.) --Jesus Presley (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Caterpillar D9 Since the commons has matured there are more and more special articles, not simple media galleries on the commons, so the template is at times inappropriate or inappropriately unclear. Notice for example: {{Commonscat|Caterpillar D9}} and {{commons|Caterpillar D9}} (above) have an identically worded message... and in the one case, an erroneous lead message; the commons 'gallery' of assumption is more of an article, than a media collection without meat (as are many pages such as the many atlas pages and those on special in-depth topics looks, and so forth).

Hence request the 'alt-text' parameter be added creating a more flexible text form of the template. Specifically request a code change from:

 | text     = Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
 to
 | text     = Wikimedia Commons has {{{alt-term|media related to}}}:

... which I've helpfully written into the test {{commons|Caterpillar D9}} You might want to incorporate the code change I worked out above for the OP as well in the light green div section above, as well. A two-fer enhancing your towering productivity for today! <lol> Test the switch though, it's been a few years since I did serious template coding... Again, like this request, the suggested/requested code changes which don't affect the status quo ante.
I'll leave the hard part for you... figuring out how to change the documentation! Best regards and thanks, // FrankB 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added the |alt-term= parameter for you. Please remember to update the documentation. I haven't added the short form of position=left, though. To me it seems like an awful lot of work to avoid typing a few characters, and "position=left" doesn't seem all that long to me. Maybe a simpler change would be to allow "pos=left" as well? Feel free to reopen the edit request again if you want this change to be made. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the colon be removed and a full stop (period) added to the end of the sentence.

The present punctuation dates from when the text was in a list format. When it was reformatted to a plain sentence in this edit, the colon should have been removed and a full stop added.

This change, if made, should also be made to similar templates that follow the same format. Examples are:

• Template:Commons_category – removal of the colon has previously been agreed at Template talk:Commons category#Colon
• Template:Wikivoyage

Nurg (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the colon and add a full stop (period) to the end of the sentence, as proposed above and tested at Template:Commons/sandbox. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't believe this hasn't been noticed in 5 years.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

hello;

i've noticed that the display of (at least some of) the commons-link templates doesn't seem to work properly on the mobile version of the site.

which is obviously a problem, in that .m. viewers can't see or access the links to supplementary wm materials.

the problem doesn't seem to be entirely consistent, but if you look @ the .m. version of this section of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Commons#commons_and_commonscat you will see the problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Commons#commons_and_commonscat

i first noticed it here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._S._Lowry

where the commonscat link seems to disappear entirely, compared with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._S._Lowry

i haven't tested it with other "button" templates, so i don't know how extensive it is, & i'm not a coder, so i have no idea what's wrong (nor could i patch it anyway, when the template is protected), so i leave this matter in your hands.

Lx 121 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe Wikimedia Commons is now encyclopedic enough to be wikilinked in this template. Mark Hurd (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I think it is great that you think that, however, I expect this to be a controversial change for some and you will need to have started a discussion somewhere that shows others think that Wikimedia Commons is now encyclopedic enough. I might suggest WP:VPR for such a thing or some other Villiage pump or noticeboard of that type. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like there is a consensus forming on this one. I have no problem with that, but we will need an administrator to either remove the page from the page cascade protecting it (none) or make this edit for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not done:. For reference, the discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:VPR#Wikimedia Commons wikilinked in templates. It doesn't look like we have a consensus there yet. Also, I've removed the template from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so it will be able to be edited by template editors now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In line 1, replace "sister" with "Sister project" to avoid a redirect within the template. Avoid redirects to save CPU cycles. Save CPU cycles to save energy. Save energy to save the planet.  — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:CHEAP. Editing a template to save CPU cycles will cause every single transcluding page (there are over half a million of them) to be invalidated and re-rendered (see Help:Job queue#HTML cache invalidation), thus using a lot of CPU cycles. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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) 09:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a bad idea. {{Sister project links}} does not display centred; and few other boxes (other than navboxes and succession boxes) are centred either. I don't see why this should be an exception to the normal right-floated position. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not discussing centering but formatting the template's introductory text with "br" parameter as above, so the full names of relevant authors will be displayed within one and only line, thus

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

MiewEN (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your original post said nothing at all about <br /> (which isn't a parameter, it's a HTML tag): it said "displayed as follows", which was vague; the most obvious difference was the centring (I could also have objected to the lost icon and border). Please put your proposal into the template's sandbox, so that it may be properly understood, demonstrated and tested, see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It might seem like a silly question but why is this a template, and in the form of a little box that can be easily lost on a page. Wouldn't any inter-project linking be better placed between the Toolbox and Languages menus over to the left of the article, as with links to non-english wikipedias. What are other people's thoughts? ClaretAsh 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking. I guess this might create technical difficulties, as sometimes there are no commons available, sometimes links lead to a category, sometimes to a commons page. But in all, I'd be in favour. --Jesus Presley (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No one will probably see this but, it is like that on the french wiki see Obama. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: I think that it's a beta feature. It seems to be associated with these system messages. We have equivalent messages set up, but I don't know how to enable the feature. Perhaps somebody at WP:VPT might know. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see exactly the same links in the English Wikipedia under the heading "other projects" between "print/export" and "languagues" in the left sidebar (Monobook skin). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Investigating, I find that this is indeed a beta feature on English Wikipedia. At Preferences → Beta features, enable "Other projects sidebar" and save. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of upsetting people by re-opening an age-old debate...

At present the rules about placement state:

N Do not place this template in a section all by itself.

N Do not place this template in a section containing columns.

Then it goes on to suggest placing it at the top of the External links section at the end of an article, if the article has a section for external links. If no such section exists, then at the top of the last section in the article, or to consider using {{Commons-inline}} instead.

All fine, except that with no External links section, the last section is usually the References section. This means that {{reflist}} cannot be used with its columns option if the Commons template is also present, because the latter template then usurps a whole column all to itself. But, it does that only if it's placed at the top of the References section in accordance with the rule book, in other words, with the {{commonscat}} template above the {{reflist|2}} template.

Since {{commonscat}} is in fact an external link and should therefore logically follow after the reference list, I've tried it with the {{commonscat}} template below the {{reflist|2}} template. That solves the columns problem nicely, but since it's not spelled out as such in the above rules, some editors won't accept such misplacement of the template without making a fuss, in effect limiting one to only the inline method. I've tried it with Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-0T and a couple of other locomotive articles and the result is not offensive to the eye or to page layout, in my opinion.

I therefore suggest that, when {{commonscat}} is placed in a References section with columns, it should be allowed to be placed at the bottom of the section, as in my example above. -- Comment by User:Cabayi at 23:07, 17 April 2017

Oppose. Placing this template above the Reflist template and using the "|position=left" option in the template as prescribed, does not affect the columns. - André Kritzinger (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Commons category#Location. Use the "|position=left" option when the last section is "References" and columns are used, and place the {{commons category}} template above the {{Reflist|30em}} template. - André Kritzinger (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Links to Commons now appear in the left margin in the desktop version. See, as just one example, Aloidendron dichotomum. So, just as we stopped adding links to other language wikis to articles, leaving these to be picked up from Wikidata, we should do the same for links to Commons (and Wikispecies), and no longer add templates to articles – they are redundant. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether links to Commons appear in the left-hand panel under "in other projects" seems to be dependant on some setting in Wikidata. Those links are not present there for every Wikipedia article. Further, sometimes links to Commons are added to articles based on convenience of navigation; e.g. some lists of a composer's works link to the Commons category of that composer. Lastly, the left-hand links are a) fairly new; b) not very prominent, so readers might not be aware of them. For those reasons, I think the traditional {{Commons category}} templates should stay. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This template should not display the link in italics, nor should it end with a period ("."). — Hugh (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. {{Commons category-inline}} doesn't do it, nor should this one. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: ... althought the phrase "Wikimedia Commons has media related to XXX" is a complete sentence, so a full stop is not wrong. Maybe a shorter phrasing would be preferable, eg "Media related to XXX at Wikimedia Commons" (from the inline template). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the above, this template should not display PAGENAME in italics, nor should it conclude with a full stop (.). — Hugh (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Every template I checked in Category:Interwiki link templates similar to this one had the page name in italics and a full stop. I think we should change all of them at the same time instead of changing just one. (Not completely sure what the best venue for that would be. VPT?) Enterprisey (talk!) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(pings to Hl and Michael Bednarek for further discussion on how to proceed) Enterprisey (talk!) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:Village pump (technical) is the right venue to discuss this. I don't think there's any MoS-based justification for italics, but if there is, some WP:MOS page seems more appropriate. I'd still support a shorter phrase that doesn't require a full stop.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)