Hi there,
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}. Unfortunately there are some files, where reviewer is not filled it at "reviewer" in {{flickr}} but by using {{flickrreview}}. This causes two templates to show up, which are semantically wrong. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ketchikan1.jpg&oldi... for example.
Maybe that would give us the change to occasionally "subst" it in order to receive a "normal" description page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKetchikan1.jpg&di...
Otherwise machine reading could rescursively read the templates and get the information from the fields as well.
Comments? Criticism?
Regards,
Flo
PS: In my opinion we should simply delete it and replace it by {{information}}
It said "if it works, don't try to fix it", and as I found out - if you DO want to fix it, make a copy and then do your tests... Yuval
On 8/24/07, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Hi there,
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}. Unfortunately there are some files, where reviewer is not filled it at "reviewer" in {{flickr}} but by using {{flickrreview}}. This causes two templates to show up, which are semantically wrong. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ketchikan1.jpg&oldi... for example.
Maybe that would give us the change to occasionally "subst" it in order to receive a "normal" description page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AKetchikan1.jpg&di...
Otherwise machine reading could rescursively read the templates and get the information from the fields as well.
Comments? Criticism?
Regards,
Flo
PS: In my opinion we should simply delete it and replace it by {{information}}
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8/24/07, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}.
A good step.
Maybe that would give us the change to occasionally "subst" it in order to receive a "normal" description page:
This is the direction I'd like to go.
Otherwise machine reading could rescursively read the templates and get the information from the fields as well.
No it can't. ... not reasonably. The only way to reliably recurse in anything external is to have a copy of all the templates, and to implement a full mediaiki parser. The only truly complete parser is the (rather slow) one in MediaWiki. ...
You can try to handle the cases in a third party parser, but you'll always be chasing your tail: People constantly change our markup and templates ... and the only standard they apply is how it looks in mediawiki. :(
"Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote on Friday, August 24, 2007 7:10 PM:
On 8/24/07, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}.
A good step.
Maybe that would give us the change to occasionally "subst" it in order to receive a "normal" description page:
This is the direction I'd like to go.
Otherwise machine reading could rescursively read the templates and get the information from the fields as well.
No it can't. ... not reasonably. The only way to reliably recurse in anything external is to have a copy of all the templates, and to implement a full mediaiki parser. The only truly complete parser is the (rather slow) one in MediaWiki. ...
You can try to handle the cases in a third party parser, but you'll always be chasing your tail: People constantly change our markup and templates ... and the only standard they apply is how it looks in mediawiki. :(
Then it should be request for deletion and "subst"-ing {{flickr}} and some {{if}}s.
Regards,
Flo
On 8/24/07, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Then it should be request for deletion and "subst"-ing {{flickr}} and some {{if}}s.
Thats my view, but it is not urgent. We've been this way for a long time. ... we need to move forward, but I'm happy with one step at a time.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Otherwise machine reading could rescursively read the templates and get the information from the fields as well.
No it can't. ... not reasonably. The only way to reliably recurse in anything external is to have a copy of all the templates, and to implement a full mediaiki parser. The only truly complete parser is the (rather slow) one in MediaWiki. ...
We could use html tags (eg. <span class='reviewer'>) and parse the html page instead.
On 8/24/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
We could use html tags (eg. <span class='reviewer'>) and parse the html page instead.
That means someone who wants to use our entire database must spider millions of pages on our site... unless we start dumping html too.. which is blah.
It also bring about other issues because the tags wouldn't change the site behavior so when someone introduces their own custom templates which break the behavior ... it's more likely to go unnoticed.
I'm not just speaking hypothetically ... The whole inconsistent template thing has caused at least one large reuser no end of headaches.
On 8/24/07, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}. Unfortunately there are some files, where reviewer is not filled it at "reviewer" in {{flickr}} but by using {{flickrreview}}. This causes two templates to show up, which are semantically wrong. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ketchikan1.jpg&oldi... for example.
No. Reviewer and Flickrreview are something totally different. The first one is used by FlickrLickr and Flickr_upload_bot and people who manually upload Flickr images. Flickrreview is used when a second user, per Commons:Flickr_images reviews the image. Merging them is impossible.
Also note that merging the templates might break my script that checks misuses of the template.
Bryan
Florian Straub wrote:
Hi there,
I just changed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Flickr to now use {{information}}. Unfortunately there are some files, where reviewer is not filled it at "reviewer" in {{flickr}} but by using {{flickrreview}}. This causes two templates to show up, which are semantically wrong. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ketchikan1.jpg&oldi... for example.
I have disabled showing {{flickrreview}} when there's no reviewer.
On 8/25/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I have disabled showing {{flickrreview}} when there's no reviewer.
I still don't see why the {{flickrreview}} should be included this way. It breaks the entire Flickrreview system. '''Only''' admins and [[Commons:Flickr images/reviewers|designated users]] are allowed to fill in the flickrreview tag. They are absolutely not the same as the reviewer parameter to {{Flickr}}. I think it should be removed from the Flickr template.
Bryan
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:08:43 +0200:
On 8/25/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I have disabled showing {{flickrreview}} when there's no reviewer.
I still don't see why the {{flickrreview}} should be included this way. It breaks the entire Flickrreview system. '''Only''' admins and [[Commons:Flickr images/reviewers|designated users]] are allowed to fill in the flickrreview tag. They are absolutely not the same as the reviewer parameter to {{Flickr}}. I think it should be removed from the Flickr template.
What's exactly the difference?
Regards,
Flo
2007/8/27, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net:
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:08:43 +0200:
I still don't see why the {{flickrreview}} should be included this way. It breaks the entire Flickrreview system. '''Only''' admins and [[Commons:Flickr images/reviewers|designated users]] are allowed to fill in the flickrreview tag. They are absolutely not the same as the reviewer parameter to {{Flickr}}. I think it should be removed from the Flickr template.
What's exactly the difference?
The reviewer in {{Flickr}} has checked the usability of the image for Commons - whether it is a good picture, what it shows, etcetera. The reviewer in {{flickrreview}} has checked the copyright status of the picture - what license it is under.
I have to add two remarks here: * The current situation is that the 'reviewer' parameter is not shown at all, which I think is also not the intention. I would have liked to correct it myself, but the template is protected and I am not an admin any more. * The images from FlickrLickr (which are the ones that have this image) are pre-selected on having the desired license (CC-BY). I think it would not be a bad idea to re-add the {{flickrreview}} template, but with the flickrreviewer specified Eloquence or FlickrLickr rather than the FlickrLickr-reviewer.
On 8/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
- The current situation is that the 'reviewer' parameter is not shown
at all, which I think is also not the intention. I would have liked to correct it myself, but the template is protected and I am not an admin any more.
I would like it back as well. I just don't know where to put it.
Bryan
2007/8/27, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com:
On 8/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
- The current situation is that the 'reviewer' parameter is not shown
at all, which I think is also not the intention. I would have liked to correct it myself, but the template is protected and I am not an admin any more.
I would like it back as well. I just don't know where to put it.
I guess it should just be an extra field in the table that is created. Maybe with a text like 'selected by' or 'chosen by'.
Problem is that the FlickrLickr reviewer fulfils a role most similar to the uploader for other images, and that's part of the page that we (with good reason) cannot change.
On 8/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/27, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com: I guess it should just be an extra field in the table that is created. Maybe with a text like 'selected by' or 'chosen by'.
Sounds good to me. Requires changing {{Information}} though.
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:59:52 +0200:
An: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] Template:Flickr
On 8/27/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/27, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com: I guess it should just be an extra field in the table that is created. Maybe with a text like 'selected by' or 'chosen by'.
Sounds good to me. Requires changing {{Information}} though.
What about the current version with the sentence below {{information}} maybe put inside a nice box?
Regards,
Flo
Andre Engels wrote on Mon Aug 27 12:19:32 UTC 2007:
2007/8/27, Florian Straub <Flominator at gmx.net>:
What's exactly the difference?
The reviewer in {{Flickr}} has checked the usability of the image for Commons - whether it is a good picture, what it shows, etcetera. The reviewer in {{flickrreview}} has checked the copyright status of the picture - what license it is under.
I have to add two remarks here:
- The current situation is that the 'reviewer' parameter is not shown
at all, which I think is also not the intention. I would have liked to correct it myself, but the template is protected and I am not an admin any more.
- The images from FlickrLickr (which are the ones that have this
image) are pre-selected on having the desired license (CC-BY). I think it would not be a bad idea to re-add the {{flickrreview}} template, but with the flickrreviewer specified Eloquence or FlickrLickr rather than the FlickrLickr-reviewer.
What is the reviewer in Flickr for anyway? If the picture is good, you'll see it. If not, request it for deletion like any other one.
Regards,
Flo
On 8/27/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Andre Engels wrote on Mon Aug 27 12:19:32 UTC 2007:
2007/8/27, Florian Straub <Flominator at gmx.net>:
What's exactly the difference?
The reviewer in {{Flickr}} has checked the usability of the image for Commons - whether it is a good picture, what it shows, etcetera. The reviewer in {{flickrreview}} has checked the copyright status of the picture - what license it is under.
[snip]
What is the reviewer in Flickr for anyway? If the picture is good, you'll see it. If not, request it for deletion like any other one.
Regards,
Flo
Your answer is right there :) The reviewer section is for people who have reviewed the image through the FlickrLickr system, which means they were pre-selected according to license and then somebody went through and chose the useful ones, which were then uploaded to Commons.
This means that the person "reviewing" them was not in fact checking the licenses, as that had been done automatically when the images were set aside for human review. Thus there will be two "reviewers", the person who chose the picture to upload and added the information/categories/etc., and the person/bot/system that checked the license.
Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:49:08 -0400:
On 8/27/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Andre Engels wrote on Mon Aug 27 12:19:32 UTC 2007:
2007/8/27, Florian Straub <Flominator at gmx.net>:
What's exactly the difference?
The reviewer in {{Flickr}} has checked the usability of the image for Commons - whether it is a good picture, what it shows, etcetera. The reviewer in {{flickrreview}} has checked the copyright status of the picture - what license it is under.
[snip]
What is the reviewer in Flickr for anyway? If the picture is good,
you'll
see it. If not, request it for deletion like any other one.
Regards,
Flo
Your answer is right there :) The reviewer section is for people who have reviewed the image through the FlickrLickr system, which means they were pre-selected according to license and then somebody went through and chose the useful ones, which were then uploaded to Commons.
This means that the person "reviewing" them was not in fact checking the licenses, as that had been done automatically when the images were set aside for human review. Thus there will be two "reviewers", the person who chose the picture to upload and added the information/categories/etc., and the person/bot/system that checked the license.
Wouldn't it be better to introduce a template that says exactly how the image was chosen and transfered?
Florian Straub wrote:
This means that the person "reviewing" them was not in fact checking the licenses, as that had been done automatically when the images were set aside for human review. Thus there will be two "reviewers", the person who chose the picture to upload and added the information/categories/etc., and the person/bot/system that checked the license.
Wouldn't it be better to introduce a template that says exactly how the image was chosen and transfered?
[[User:FlickrLickr|Chosen by]] [[User:Foo]]
On 8/27/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Florian Straub wrote:
This means that the person "reviewing" them was not in fact checking the licenses, as that had been done automatically when the images were set aside for human review. Thus there will be two "reviewers", the person who chose the picture to upload and added the information/categories/etc., and the person/bot/system that checked the license.
Wouldn't it be better to introduce a template that says exactly how the image was chosen and transfered?
[[User:FlickrLickr|Chosen by]] [[User:Foo]]
Also [[User:Flickr upload bot]] uses the reviewer parameter. Also some users fill them in manually. Without the link sounds ok to me.