Commons talk:Localization

See also some old discussions at Commons:Multilinguality/Commons talk:Multilinguality.

Internationalization or i18n

Where does one learn about internationalization (abbreviated i18n)? I see activity by Emijrpbot (talk · contribs) on my watchlist and related discussion at User talk:emijrp. I found the significance of the int in {{int:license}} (added by Emijrpbot) at m:Help:Magic_words#Template_modifiers. Some additional discussion is at Commons talk:Template i18n. Translations may be added at translatewiki.net. But I couldn't find any Commons or Help namespace information or discussion on this effort. This was prompted by a discussion at COM:AN/U.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look into some of the related bot approvals (e.g. Slobot, Emijrpbot, Emijrpbot 3).

BTW the discussion you mention is more about rollback and file description pages (recent discussions: 1, 2). -- User:Docu at 08:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Slomox/Translators' hub could be moved into Commons or Help namespace with few changes. Commons:WikiProject Templates and Template_talk:Information contain some additional information on internationalization.

I know that the discussion I referenced was peripherally related to internationalization. Thank you for the link to the more relevant discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that some users removed the internationalized headers. I think there should be a concerted effort to make Commons more friendly to non English speakers people. It is a pity that some people do not see it that way, and undo the work of others. Yann (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We remove them because we don't want any stupid headers. That is as language-neutral as you can get. Rocket000 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I second this. While removing the 'int:' part for a header is a bad thing, removing the header all together is definitely the way to go. Lycaon (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. It's not like these headers carry any useful information anyway. Besides, the only "advantage" I could see with these headers (being able to edit one section only, and get a direct link to that section in the edit summary) got lost with theses international headers ({{int:license}} is put in the edit summary, but doesn't link anywhere). –Tryphon^☂ 10:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a header to have an [edit] link. For example. It would actually look pretty good inside the information box. BTW, it's impossible to have a anchor link (i.e. heading) that changes based on who's viewing it, and be able to actually use it. It must be static to work (obvious if you think about it). Rocket000 (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

en:Special:Preferences has a gadget to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". We could copy these to commons. Personally, I don't use section editing on file description pages, probably because I primarily edit categories and these are generally in various sections.

As a sample how an internationalized and localized file description page without headers can look, one might want to try ko:File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg. As of writing File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg has no headers. -- User:Docu at 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know the headers have to be static for anchoring to work. That's why I don't use them anymore since they became internationalized: they lost the little use I could see in them, and as you said, section editing can be achieved without headers anyway. Actually, I would love to see your example replace {{Information}}; but to ensure a smooth transition, there should be some way for the template to "know" whether it is under a header or not. It doesn't seem technically possible though. –Tryphon^☂ 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We could always blank/delete the system message MediaWiki:Filedesc (and it's subpages) after we add the edit link to the information template. Essentially making all the internationalized headers disappear. It woulds be like == == which creates nothing. Then we could take our time removing them. I normally put the license tag in the permission field (which is what it's for, right?) so that one isn't necessary at all (and a misnomer for PD stuff). Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the gadget would avoid adding anything to each page. -- User:Docu at 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Have I to stop the bot? emijrp (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather that you speed it up so it would eventually finish. -- User:Docu at 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It may good to wait for this discussion to end and to implement its conclusion, if any. So far, I don't see anyone defending the headers. Yann (above) favors internationalization but does not argue for the headers themselves. I would have thought that someone liked file page headers. Otherwise, why do we have millions of file pages with headers? I think internationalization and localization are good, but I am dubious of the value of headers. Since Rocket000 and Docu (by example) favor putting the license in the permissions field of {{Information}}, I will likely do the same. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Headers are useful because:

1. {{Information}} is not translated: at least, if you don't know English you'll understand what that table is meant for;
2. licensing tags are translated, but if you don't know them you won't understand their meaning, therefore an explicative header with a link to the relevant help page is very useful;
3. they separate the actual file, the "history" and the "links" parts from the description (the actual "page");
4. not all files have {{Information}} + licensing templates, there can be many other combinations of templates or simple text, then headers are useful to explain what is meant for what, also to non Commons-regulars.

I love Emijrpbot's work, I went here while trying to thank "him". --Nemo 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, I think we have to assume that all images have licensing templates. You might want to have a look at the Korean localization mentioned above to see how a version without "summary" and "license" header look like localized in Korean. -- User:Docu at 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care if images do or don't contain these headers. I would propose that people don't remove them from uploads and that people don't add them to uploads. So basically the uploader decides. As for a central place of discussion. It would be nice to have a central place to start, maybe Commons:Internationalization and localization? From these page we could link to all different projects like mediawiki (and extensions) translation at translatewiki, template translation at Commons:Template i18n, the headers bots, the translated upload forms, the potd translations etc etc. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I started the page, Commons:Internationalization and localization, with content from User:Slomox/Translators' hub (as I suggested above). That page was written for a different purpose so it will need some editing. Please continue this discussion at Commons talk:Internationalization and localization. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above was copied from Commons:Village pump.[2] Please continue this discussion below. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I like this page, but...

1. the title is bad. Internationalization and localization sounds kinda bad and redundant. I would just move it to Commons:Localization, as this would sound much better.
2. the text about the MediaWiki interface is not fully correct. Yes, the default translations should be made over at Translatewiki, but if a system message gets changed on Commons (for example MediaWiki:Welcomecreation) then this message needs to be translated here on Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

With no objections, I moved the page as above. I'll try to improve the wording about the MediaWiki interface. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Organize a rally?

It would be fun and good to organize a localization rally. In this rally we could improve a lot:

• Translate and check policies and other important project pages
• Translate and check local interface (mainly upload interface). We should for example check that all languages use {{int:Filedesc}} and {{int:license}}
• Translate and check templates
  1. Technical part: Is the template properly autotranslated, documented etc etc
  2. Languages part: Add more translations and check current translations
• Maybe more?

I think this would really boost the project. If we're going to do this I can prepare some things (like checklists) for the template part. Opinions please :-) Multichill (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As i18n in French is my hobby these last few weeks, I can tell we could use both todo-lists and help for this. French is in pretty good shape regarding policies, but other few languages are.

Also : it was suggested some time ago to relocate some i18n to translateWiki. Multichill drafted something about this. How is this going ? Jean-Fred (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, and I would try to do my best for this. It would also be good to find the templates that have other translations, but where /en is still the main template. Also, I think some important MediaWiki messages (like MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, which is important as it tells people how to change the language and gives them first tips) should be translated. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think we need a more commons-y rally. Translation isn't actually what Commons is about. I think a categorization rally or a filtering-out out-of-scope photos (orphan, old personal photos) rally will be much more useful for Commons. Let's leave the translation to transaltewiki.net.--OsamaK 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  I agree most translation should be done on translateWiki, but it is not. So either we plan to move it to translateWiki (and that could not be more fine with me), or it has to be done here.

  Besides, I don't think translation of policies and help pages should be done there. This is definitely Commons-y. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Localization of Template:Cdw

It looks like the localization of the above template doesn't work as I would expect. I made an update to the above template today, but I don't think this broke it. -- User:Docu at 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish upload interface

One might want to look into this: Commons:Village_pump#What_to_do.2C_if_the_owner_of_pictures_does_not_know_.28enough.29_English. Personally, I'm not able to get an interface in that language when changing my locale (except for the elements available on all wikis). -- User:Docu at 05:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

int:license -> int:license-header

Hi all, what is your opinion about this message? emijrp (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If 4 mio files already use {{int:license}} I would keep using that.

This calls MediaWiki:License that currently uses [[Commons:Copyright tags|Licensing]]. -- User:Docu at 19:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have said at the linked comments, MediaWiki:License is a label before a selection box, so that it has e.g. a colon (except English, where it has been removed, so that the colon is now missing in the upload form…), while MediaWiki:License-header is specifically designed to be used as a caption. There is no need to fix those 4 mio files you mention, of course, but OTOH, why not use the messages as they are designed? (While in English, the differences are really subtle, in other languages it might be more important.)

Another thing is that “it should actually *get initially saved* to the standard format, not need changing later”, as Brion Vibber said.

--Mormegil (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError updated

The other day, we updated the text of the text that is used on the upload form. I think it would be worth updating the 30 localizations of the string as well. These are available at Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError/ -- User:Docu at 13:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Localization for anonymous users

Currently all the localization only works for logged in users. Probably most our users are not logged in and see this site in English. We should offer anonymous users some options to make this site also accessible in other languages. Possible sources for the interface language:

• The language set in the browser
• The ipaddress (geoip)
• The wiki the user navigated from
• Set by the user using some sort addition to the sidebar

Once the language is figured out it should probably be stored in a cookie.

Not serving all the text in English will degrade text squid performance. Someone should make statistics to determine what the impact of a change like this will be. Multichill (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LanguageSelector is available, but it seems to have some issues. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: It might be helpful to install this extension on Test Wikipedia to see if the extension's issues are relevant for Commons. Maybe the issues aren't even important for us. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Just FYI: this is something we've been discussing and we planned to work on this during the 3rd trimester of 2010 (we have to work on the new upload interface and the staging area first); the main issue is probably going to be: how to do that without completely breaking the cache. We need input from the Operations tech team. guillom 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for a few Betawiki translations

Hi. Could anyone set up a few localization templates for me (well, not just for me, of course)? I would need {{Int:}} versions of "day", "days", "week", "weeks", "month", "months", "blocked" and "indefinitely". Curiously enough, {{Int:month}} gives something unexpected (From month (and earlier):). It would be very appreciated (this is in order to issue better translated block notices to users). Apparently the accepted way of providing this kind of translation is not through Commons. I don't want to contribute myself to Betawiki but I don't want to mess with the organization, that's why I rely on other volunteers... I hope this is the right place for my request. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Altering shortcut

Would anyone object to changing the shortcut Commons:LOC, so that instead of directing to this article (which already has Commons:INT), it instead redirect/shortcuts to Commons:Library of Congress (commonly abbreviated LOC)? Provided any pages linking to such are altered to reflect this change. If need be, there could instead be a Commons:LOCAL or something. Morgan Riley (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the language Help page?

Cross link: Commons talk:Language policy#Where is the language Help page?

Also this page here should first explain what this page is not what Commons is. I search for a Translation Help page!? -- Perhelion 08:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created today Commons:Localisation ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)