Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk

This is the talk page of the namespace notice for the File talk space.
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk can only be edited by administrators and template editors. All editnotices (except those in userspace) are protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so the "protection" status as set by the protection tab is mostly irrelevant.

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk is marked with the CSS id and CSS class name ".filetalk-namespace-editnotice", so that editors can apply their own CSS customisation if they wish, in particular to hide it (see WP:CSSHIDE.)

Editnotice wording on file talk pages[edit]

The template says: "This page should not be used to: Request or contest deletion". However, that is exactly what an editor is asked to do when a speedy tag is placed on a file by the speedy tag wording: "...please add: {{hangon}} directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this file should not be deleted on its talk page". Editnotice wording should probably be changed to remove the contradiction. --Van helsing (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing "or contest" from the first bulletpoint. --Van helsing (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp[edit]

Revamped the editnotice, to make it clearer and bolder and cover more issues. Some might argue it's too big (and may have a point), but what is the File talk: space used for anyway? Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you've never been to File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg, I assume? Not sure what the most edited file talk page is, but that one would be my bet. Amalthea 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yes I'm sure that's a leading candidate. No, never been there, but aware of the image/controversy. Feel free to amend what I've done. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. This was way to big. Uses of file talk space include WikiProject tagging, adding {{oldffdfull}} and {{oldpuffull}}, etc.. Your version got really in the way for making valid edits; I actually think that the current version is to big, but it is acceptable and noticeable. It's noticeable enough that people should see it, without getting in the way when someone is making a valid edit. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a change this big should have some amount of consensus first, IMO. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? I think it is a good in-between type notice. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, relatively low-volume page = WP:BRD. Isn't that better than before? Anyway, I've changed my version taking on board your comments/revisions, including some of the text and in particular the height of the whole thing. How's that? Note, incidentally, the Totally New(TM) CSS ID permitting regulars to these pages to customise their monobook.css and hide the message altogether. That should be kept whatever happens - it's done by the {{fmbox}} parameters id and class. Rd232 ^talk 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This current version looks good to me. It's eye catching, but not so enormous. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little link at the bottom right of the editnotice, to the template page, where there are instructions on how to hide it. Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection problem[edit]

{{editprotected}} There is some problem with the protection of this page: on the one hand I see "edit this page" instead of "view source", but on the other hand I can't edit it. And it is also in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that pp-protection as I can see no log of protection, and it is now no longer populating the category you pointed out. Are you sure you can't edit it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positively. The window says "This editnotice can only be edited by administrators". Debresser (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is protected by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, and User:Rd232 has now added a notice atop of this page explaining the situation. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hide this template link broken/adding link to this page[edit]

The hide this template link is broken, it redirects to this page when you click it.

Can we add a link to this page in the template, since it is not clear from the average file page where this template is at currently? Ikip 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not broken, there's just no way for a simple click to hide the message - you have to follow the instructions on the page. I've clarified the link. Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bright red template with a stop hand on all file talk pages[edit]

Has anyone observed how much file talk page messages have gone down since this warning has been universally adopted? A bright red template with a stop hand is not going to encourage editors to edit. Ikip 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they shouldn't be encouraged to edit; there's generally somewhere better for newbies to go (and experienced editors won't be put off). For reference, the old version of the notice is here. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are Media Talk pages for?[edit]

There is a big list of things we aren't supposed to use the File_Talk: namespace for, but no list of what it should be used for. I think we could use a few. The list seems pretty exhaustive.

Surely, if they were just not supposed to be used, the link wouldn't exist. — trlkly 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion they are used correctly - for discussion about the image source, copyright, perhaps other permissions (eg model release?), relationship with alternate versions of the image, etc. The negative list is there because so often they were being used incorrectly. A positive list (of common uses, rather than all uses) isn't included because it would make the notice even longer. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see "used correctly" and I think "consensus when I made this, which will never change because any attempt to alter consensus by direct change would be 'used incorrectly', so consensus should be build on talk pages", leading to the inevitable question: where is the consensus now?

Requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in, or contact the graphics lab.)

I see problems with this right off. The article talk page is about the article, not really extraneous but possibly related issues, such as coloring and all sorts of weird file editing issues that only file editors would care about. What if there are several, equally relevant articles? What about 20 equally relevant articles? "Try" and open a discussion in all of them? Oh, I suppose in that case I could just use some other process to alleviate this problem... Other, still distantly related talk boards! (And of course edit some other pages to get any previous editors involved, because they aren't watching some other talk board that probably either gets too much or too little traffic.)

When all I could have done was open a discussion on the image talk page to get the attention of the few people that probably care or know how, as the case may be. This seems like bureaucracy to me, and should be removed. Int21h (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still wondering[edit]

It's been over 3 years this this thread was opened, and over 2 since the last participation, yet I still have come here in search of an answer to the questions raised above. In particular, I concur with the analysis by Int21h (talk · contribs) that the File talk page seems to be precisely the appropriate page for a discussion about the contents of the image and possible corrections to it. Barring further elaboration as to the reasoning behind the prohibitive message, I'm inclined to disregard it. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GPHemsley:- Agreed, and fixed. Be bold about tweaking these things when they seem broken. – SJ + 23:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2015[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File talk/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Account creators no longer have the tboverride right (instead they now have tboverride-account) per this discussion. As a result, they no longer have the ability to change edit notices and should be removed from the usage section in the documentation. In addition, template editors aren't mentioned there. FunPika 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local comments on Commons files[edit]

I've noticed that quite frequently, local talk pages are used to comment on files that exist on Commons. I wonder if creating a switch to inform users to put their comments on the Commons file talk page instead of the local one makes sense, like so: <includeonly> {{#ifexist|File:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} |Defaulttext |{{#ifexist|Media:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} |Alternativetextpointingtocommons |Defaulttext }} }} </includeonly> One may use a Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File_talk/default and a Template:Editnotices/Namespace/File_talk/commons subtemplate to contain the text in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]