Template talk:Commons link

Latest comment: 11 years ago by George Orwell III

Why? How does this vary to {{small scan link}}? It seems superfluous. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{small scan link}} is a misnomer, it only works for scans for which an index has been set up. There are many works that have been uploaded but no index has been set up and no one has any present plans to work on them. This way we can see on an author or versions page what the status of the work is, it is half-way between {{Ext scan link}} and a {{small scan link}}. Examples, which led me to create this are here: Essays_(Francis_Bacon).--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The alternative I ran into is to use {{ext scan link}} for things that are on commons and that doesn't provide the information we need for prioritizing gathering available works.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not then just put a twist on small scan link, rather than create yet another template? eg. file = parameter, and ideally we would want to show a redlink for the Index: file so that someone creates it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I would merge all three but the template would get too complex I think. Feel free to merge them if you want. If you don't, I might but not today. The idea for a redlink for the index sounds good.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why didn't you just create an Index when you uploaded it in January 2011 (rhetorical)? There simply isn't enough trafic around here to 'hope' folks trip over something that interests them enough to start work on a project never mind set up an Index they'll never see again. All this accomplishes is the coordination of further clutter on en.WS imho. If we want better "results" - we need to constantly improve the workflow process and ease the amount effort needed around here in order to truly become hooked on en.WS. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded several versions of the work for someone else (who later dropped off the face of the Earth I think). I had/have very little interest in the work myself at this juncture. On the other hand, I have found it very valuable to be able to look at a page and see that the scans are available and I find it useful to track whether the work is here or at commons or somewhere else. I spend a lot of time looking for works, I probably spend ten times or more the time I spend on here (i.e. all WMF projects) searching for works on various archives, figuring out how the pages are organized to facilitate bot scraping, making lists of links, and planning and executing the scraping of the texts with Inductiveload and others. I really don't see a value to setting up indices for every one the moment it is uploaded to Commons - even though an index shell could probably be botted in fairly easily - in fact I see a negative value. I don't understand at all how the links are clutter, particularly why these links are any more clutter than the other two related types noted.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of Course you don't see the effect to en.WS specifically - you, by your own admission (and Much as I feared all along), are all over the wMF place, involved in one thing or the other and, imho, master of none (see your own doing - Index:Bacons Essays 1908 West.djvu created by yourself and now erroneously pointing to Commons instead of en.WS). [I say] if you want to help -- Run a Bot to determine if an English .DjVu/.PDF file exists on Commons and then create an Index for it here if one doesn't exist. This way we double our chances someone being interested in furthering the work here, be they initially click-in from Commons first or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I did not create that index, though I had touched it and hadn't noticed that it needed to be updated. BTW, it's a wiki, you could do that too. ;-) Sorry, if my work on here isn't as focused as you would like - or isn't the focus you would like.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make no mistake - I greatly appreciate everything you've done for en.WS. My actual point was that you can't depend on removal/insertion of such a specific external pointer when someone does create such an Index. Your assumption is they will land here on the DAB, go to Commons, come back here and create the Index then somehow remember to remove the link to Commons. I don't believe that will be the case based on past observation.
With the Index page created soon after Commons upload, they either click-in from Commons or the DAB but never "leave" en.WS again nor does the pointer become invalid by some other person's actions here. I believe you're just not being realistic here though there is little doubt you're trying to improve a somewhat flawed premise/setup inspite of that observation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, sorry to have taken your comments as snide and replied in kind.
Regarding the template, I think that sDrewth has a good idea and I'm going to try something in that vein that I think would solve the issues you're talking about. I do recognize, particularly after what you pointed out, that maintenance of these is problematic but a combined tag can probably get through that.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vote if we must circumvent Index creation upon discovery (not the actual desire to work on an Index), then yes - a combined template is perhaps easier to wrangle with maintenance-wise but I still believe it is far better folks discover an en.WS Index: waiting to be worked once the desire to do so materializes rather than just discover a File: over on Commons and hope desire to work it also comes back here with it at that same moment in time (if at all). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combined templateEdit

I have made a combined template which will automatically link to the index if an index exists, otherwise it links to the file and gives a lovely tempting redlink to the yet-to-be-created index page. Thus there is no maintenance to be done when the index is created. You can see the template at User:Inductiveload/Sandbox7 and examples of usage at User:Inductiveload/Sandbox8. You can give many parts to the file (just like ext scan link) as well as a title field if you wish to clarify the scan version (just like small scan link). As always, ideas welcome. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most definitely an improvement. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would anyone have any objection to replacing {{small scan link}} with this code? All but one page using SSL just have one parameters, and the exception is covered by the title parameter in this template, so it should be an easy change. After that, this template is superfluous, as the functionality will be subsumed (and, in face, extended) by the new code. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections and it seems to incorporate Billinghurst's suggestion above, thus all current participants in the discussion would appear to support it. Will current implementations of {{small scan link}} have to be modified to accommodate the new code?--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No changes will be needed to all but one instance. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objection if existing disruption of usage is as low as just one possible instance -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that we have it desirable that we minimise the maintenance aspects and include the "smarts" (while not extending to the "smartarse") within our templates. My questions around the template are how would it display a mixed example, eg. we have loaded part 2 of a work to WS, though we have yet to load parts 1 & 3. Though happy to implement and resolve that issue. I would like to see the sandbox 7 & 8 also loaded into the sandbox and testcases of {{small scan link}} and this discussion merged into the talk page for the other template when we do the deed
@GOIII I completely agree with your assessment that we should endeavour to create the Index files at the time of the upload, especially as the index process is less than obvious. The advantage/scope that I see is that this allows the for an easier conceptual extension for a secondary/broader scope
  1. interwiki of works that are in multiple languages, so the work can be done in one language and noted in the other, or even in part
  2. translations to be planned (undertaken?) as/if we look to use the Page: ns as a translation space as has been expressed and recently tried here. Here I see more realistic for documents (rather than books) that there is some great scope for such an approach and an inclusive transWS approach
billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It just doesn't cut the mustard with me not to create the Index soon after upload. I don't give a damn what takes place on Commons and I only deal with it because I must. If there really are hundreds of qualified files (PDFs? DjVus?) waiting to to be utilized by en.WS, then somthing tells me they aren't worth hosting for one reason or another to begin with (otherwise an Index would have been created). I'm not happy about playing completeness &/or copyright cop on some other person's junk. IMO, nobody respects en.Ws like those who actually participate on it here - what happens on Commons is secondary at best and matter of function at worst. Create the damn Index and be done with interaction once and for all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, and I think that tracking pages which have no index (but should) could be done by the template. This point should probably be made explicitly on the template doc page, and I don't ever expect to use a file link for files uploaded by myself. However, there are many, many works at Commons which don't have index files here (and I can't easily tell you where they are, since we have no way to track them properly from here) and it is better to allow someone point to them and get an Index redlink into the bargain than let them either not bother or use some sort of direct file link, which will need fixing upon creation of an index.
As for the "partial" index creation, the template doesn't support it, and would need a much more complex template to do so, though it is not impossible. I will take a look at that problem. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]