Template talk:Created with

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

seealso {{Created with/sandbox}} for development

Workflow:

  1. Created with ... templates‎ (there are templates for 118 + 90 different tools)
  2. Created with .../lc templates (one for each language, for all tools)
Created with ... /lc templates (one for each tool and each language) — deprecated
  1. Created with/lc templates (now only one for each language)
  2. Created with template

The first template is user visible, it gets all the parameters, but works also with none. See a short description.
The second template creates parts of the nationalized text for the box,
the third template completes it. This step can also be dropped, see {{Commonist}} for that exception
The fourth template at last displays the box (formatted with the parmeters width and style),
and now the categorization occurs (controlled by the parameters category, key, sub, err, w3c - because the categorisation is not done earlier all these parameters are to be passed through from the first to the last template).

It is the same workflow with the 117 Taken with ... templates. For the parameter passing see also #Chain and #Final dot.

Help[edit]

Hi I'm using this template via Template:Taken with Canon Digital Ixus 500. Is there a way to edit the teplate Template:Taken with Canon Digital Ixus 500 somehow, so that files placed into the more suitable category Category: Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 500?--TUBS 07:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to work now. ✓ Done --TUBS 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Width[edit]

Hi, is it possible to extend the width of the box to span the entire screen, like almost all other templates like Quality Image, Location, ... The current size doesn't fit optically with all the rest of the layout of an image page. -- H005 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that these templates are usually within the gray summary box on the description page - unlike quality image etc.
See the images in Category:Uploaded with Commonist or this SVG.
Watchduck (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse for {{Inkscape-hand}}. /129.215.149.99 13:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 
This vector image was created with Inkscape, and then manually edited
.
I think making the width 100% would look bad on widescreen/hi-res monitors since the text only takes up a little part of it. Rocket000 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

I think the yellow is too eye-catching for an rather subsidiary information. I'd rather like to see it like this:

This file was uploaded with Commonist.

This vector image was created with Inkscape.

Any thoughts? Greetings, Watchduck (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Watchduck (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda liked the old colors. It was distinct and easily recognizable... but I guess this is fine too. Let's just not make this bigger than it needs to be. I changed the dimensions back. Rocket000 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may do the same with Template:Taken with, so they'll look alike. Watchduck (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forgot about that. Rocket000 (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design (part2)[edit]

I was wondering where those 'created with' based templates should be placed in the image? Inside the information description? outside of it? In the second case, would such rendering (with an optional syntax) possible? Esby (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible with {{Information|Other fields={{Information field|name=Software used|value={{Created with Inkscape|2=v}}}}}},
or shorter (for copying)   |Other fields={{InFi|Software used|{{Inkscape|v}}}}
or everywhere inside or outside the information description just   {{InFi|Software used|{{Inkscape|v}}}}

  sarang♥사랑

@Esby: I actually was looking for somthing like this. Can you also do this like {{Object location}} or {{LargeImage}} so that it sticks to the infobox so that it forms a visual unity?
@Sarang: If somebody wants to keep the template tiny, that is fine. If the default stays for the tiny version thats also fine for me. However, I would like to have at least the option to change it for a template. The template is kind of small (compared to {{Information}} and it looks off. As the provided example templates show, this can not only work but also look good.
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Kuru: Sorry for answering not earlier. Die Abmessungen sind einstellbar - aber am besten ist es, das dem jeweiligen Vorlagenlayout zu überlassen. Für alle Dateitypen, aber speziell für SVG habe ich Image generation entwickelt, und ein script erleichtert den Umgang mit den unzähligen Parametern dieser Vorlage. Die Ausgabe ist kleinformatig und wenn möglich einzeilig, und demnächst wird auch da noch was optimiert werden; natürlich nur bei default-Einstellungen! Wenn du nicht davor zurückschreckst dir das Wesentliche aus der recht umfangreichen Doku anzueignen - es lässt sich so einiges designen. Und falls du begründete Änderungs/Erweiterungswünsche hegst, oder Fragen hast, kannst du mir gerne auch damit kommen. mfg -- sarang♥사랑 15:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naja, die Originalanfrage ist von 2011. Da finde ich eine Verzögerung von zwei Tagen jetzt nicht weiter schlimm.
Dass andere Abmessungen möglich sind habe ich schon gesehen und habe damit auch schon herumprobiert. Ich habe auch versucht mit dem style key zu arbeiten. Die Dokumentation dazu ist aber kurz gesagt ein Horror (bzw. sie ist nicht vorhanden). Somit finde ich eine umfangreiche Dokumentation nicht schlecht, sondern eher förderlich. Es dauert vielleicht etwas länger bis zum fertigen Endprodukt, das passt dann aber auch auf die eigenen Bedüfnisse.
Ganz konkret geht es mir um Template:Created with CombineZP bzw. Template:Created with CombineZM. Es ist ein Standarddesign, trotzdem finde ich den kleinen grauen Balken hässlich. Ich füge bei allen meinen Bildern diese Information unterhalb von {{Information}} ein (siehe z.B. DisplayPort connector-male-front oblique PNr°0441.jpg) wobei es hier eine optische Verbesserung wäre, wenn sich die Vorlage mit {{Information}} verbindet. Ich habe aber auch schon gesehen, dass Benutzer diese Vorlage im Bereich der Beschreibung einfügen. Hier wäre eine Vorlage mit voller Breite und in solch einer Größe natürlich Unfug. Somit wollte ich versuchen das Design anzupassen und es als Option anzufügen und gleichzeitig den Standard bei dem hässlichen grauen Entlein zu lassen.
Die Idee wäre hier schlicht gewesen, dass es einfacher wäre es aus {{Created with}} zu beziehen anstatt hier eine neue Doppelgleisigkeit aufzubauen. Ich werde ja sehen wie weit ich komme. Wenn ich Hilfe brauche weiß ich ja jetzt wen ich fragen kann :)
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove width:100%[edit]

The width:100% is causing layout glitch when there is an object floating to left preceding this template as shown below:}

Left-floating object
 
{{Created with}} width=100 (was default)

This results in this template exceeding the browser's width and causing the horizontal scroll bar to appear which is visually disturbing. A common issue with {{SimplSVG}} when parameter {{{1}}} is properly applied. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Width default is now 90%[edit]

The width, now defaulted with 90%, is individually adjustable with any value.

Some examples for now possible widths:
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with}} width=90% (now default) ... seems to fit enough in most cases
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=88%}} width=88%
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=80%}} width=80%
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=60%}} width=60%
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=4%0}} width=40%
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=22.75px}} width=22.75px   (will need 3 lines)
Left-floating object
 
{{Created with|width=200%}} width=200% to show a very very long box
Width example (a)
 
{{Created with|width=auto}} width=auto
Width example (b)
 
{{Created with|width=}} width=

It will work properly as soon as all the templates using {{Created with}} pass the width value through to the final sub-template. It will need an admins help because most of the templates are blocked. sarang♥사랑 07:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit all sub-templates like {{Created with/en}} as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation[edit]

(4 April 2014) Because the change in the protected template was from width=100%; to width={{{width|90}}}%; and not to the suggested width={{{width|90%}}}; it is only possible to overwrite the 90 from outside; the other possibilities for width: auto (which is the default, if not inherited), a length specification (with e.g. px, em, mm), initial or inherit cannot be used. As a fact, any invalid value for the percentage, e.g. non-numeric values, change to the default which is auto. This is demonstrated in the above "Width example (a)" where the final setting is not width=auto but the wrong width=auto%. The second try "Width example (b)" should set to width= (the default) but sets to width=% which is invalid and sets therefore also to the auto default.

In {{Created with/en}} the setting is currently |width= instead of |width=, that means that the parameter settings cannot be passed through: no matter what is done outside, the final width is always auto. This is not the intended option.

I think we can live with the situation in {{Created with}}; but the change in the {{Created with/en}}/{{Created with/it}} needs correction to accept the settings. Best would be:

  • width={{{width|90%}}}; or
  • width={{{width|}}}; (gives "auto" if not overwritten)
  • the possibility to overwrite the default value in the templates using "Created with"
The chain is e.g.
  1. {{Created with Inkscape}}, width can be set   {{Autotranslate}} gets it with |5={{{width|}}}
  2. {{Created with Inkscape/en}}, width is passed   from {{Autotranslate}} via |width={{{5|}}}
  3. {{Created with/en}}, width is passed   with |width={{{width|}}}
  4. {{Created with}}: if any width is passed it is used   with |width={{{width|}}}, automatically the default is taken

Currently {{Created with/en}} does not pass any value but sets to auto, which gives finally the invalid width=% in {{Created with}}.

Required situation[edit]

Once again:

Because the mentioned 6 templates are protected only an admin can edit them. Other templates using "Created with" are maintainable by unprivileged editors. sarang♥사랑 08:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you mean such a thing? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks fine. I tried to explain better what should be altered in each of the protected templates. If you like it more, I can provide at another place the complete sources for the different templates, then you can just copy&past the whole content, and do not need to check all the details. How about that? sarang♥사랑 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done

Expansion needed[edit]

For {{Gnuplot}} we need the code part

  • {{#switch:{{{w3c}}}|I=Invalid SVG c|V=Valid SVG c|C}}

expanded to

  • {{#switch:{{{w3c}}}|I=Invalid SVG c|N=PNG c|V=Valid SVG c|C}}

sarang♥사랑 09:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request|technical}} → User: Perhelion 06:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done Rillke[reply]

Final dot[edit]

It is possible to add some more text to the generated localized output text. To do this, the additional text is passed with the parameter more= from the first to the last template.
To have the possibility to add this text string before the final dot (the full stop or period), the solution is a bit complicated.

1: Parameter more= can get any value, default is the simple dot ".", and is passed as parameter 4.
If the more= option is used, the output of the dot is suppressed, and it can be added with the more= text string:
Normally it starts with a separator to the preceeding text, and ends with the final dot;
A continuation to the generated text can be like " (case 1)." or "-case 2" or ". See xyz."
2: The second template can add some more text inbetween, as is done in {{Created with Inkscape/lc}}, and passes it.
3: {{Created with/lc}} generates the final text without dot, and closes it with the value of more (just the default "." or any more complicated layout - ending with the dot)
4: {{Created with}} performs the output of this text.

The more-text can be as well localized (nationalized). sarang♥사랑

Another style expansion[edit]

{{Edit request}} The template can be used much more if there were additional style options. It uses three style declarations, 

<div class="mw-content-{{dir|{{int:lang}}}}">
{| cellspacing="0" style="color:#000;background:#DDD;border:1px solid #BBB;margin:.1em;width:{{{width|}}};{{{style|}}}" class="createdwithtemplate layouttemplate"
| style="width:1.2em;height:1.2em;padding:.2em" | {{#ifexist: File:{{{logo}}}| [[File:{{{logo}}}|{{#if: {{{iconsize|}}} | {{{iconsize}}} | 20px }} |link=|center]]| {{{logo|}}} }}
| style="font-size:.85em;padding:.2em;vertical-align:middle" |<!--
-->{{{text|empty}}} .....

where the first one is modifyable with the parameter "style". It would be helpful if the two others have also the possibility to be modified.

2nd: style="width:1.2em;height:1.2em;padding:.2em" with style="width:1.2em;height:1.2em;padding:.2em;{{{style2|}}}" and
3rd: style="font-size:.85em;padding:.2em;vertical-align:middle" with style="font-size:.85em;padding:.2em;vertical-align:middle;{{{style3|}}}"

Can somebody do this? Thank you sarang♥사랑 05:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

icon links[edit]

{{Editprotected}}

Please replace 

| style="width:1.2em;height:1.2em;padding:.2em;{{{style2|}}}" | {{#ifexist: File:{{{logo}}}| [[File:{{{logo}}}|{{#if: {{{iconsize|}}} | {{{iconsize}}} | 20px }} |link=|center]]| {{{logo|}}} }}

by 

| style="width:1.2em;height:1.2em;padding:.2em;{{{style2|}}}" | {{#ifexist: File:{{{logo}}}| [[File:{{{logo}}}|{{#if: {{{iconsize|}}} | {{{iconsize}}} | 20px }} |link={{{link|File:{{{logo}}}}}}|center]]| {{{logo|}}} }}

. Otherwise, templates such as {{Created with Hugin}} are forced to infringe their logos' copyrights. Thanks in advance,    FDMS  4    23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Microsoft Visio[edit]

I tried to add en:Microsoft Visio to the Category:SVG created with ... templates and |Other fields={{Igen|mv|v|s=:Maps}} to the information template in File:ShanghaiMetro141228.svg but things don't work as intended. Sorry for causing this mess. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another category[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Please replace
-->[[Category:{{#ifeq:{{{err}}}|0|Valid SVG c|{{#switch:{{{w3c}}}|I=Invalid SVG c|N=PNG c|V=Valid SVG c|C}}}}reated with {{{toolcat}}}<!--
with
-->[[Category:{{#ifeq:{{{err}}}|0|Valid SVG c|{{#switch:{{{w3c}}}|I=Invalid SVG c|N=PNG c|S=SVG c|V=Valid SVG c|C}}}}reated with {{{toolcat}}}<!--
to allow the additional category. sarang♥사랑 13:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Awesome! Thank you! ~riley (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better category handling[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Please replace the content of this template by the (well tested) content of Template:Created with/sandbox. 0 -- sarang♥사랑 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I need another expansion, allowing more generalized use, with an additional parameter for categorizing.

Thanx, -- sarang♥사랑 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! about categorization[edit]

I made {{Sheepit}} 2 months ago using this "Created with" template. At that time, automatic categorizaion into Category:Rendered with Sheepit worked well.

But now, after the update just above section, categorization doesn't work. (e.g. File:Human ventricular system - right side view.png). What should I do? @Sarang and 4nn1l2: --Was a bee (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Was a bee: I am sorry, it is my fault. The new version of {{Created with}} checks a bit too much whether all needed parameters are passed - and when later the parameter toolcat is not needed, nevertheless it didn't work without its presence. I'll repair it, for the meantime I inserted this parameter in your template. -- sarang♥사랑 16:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template description said that toolcat is required - which means with value! The workaround worked well, and the categorization was done. Now I changed your template that is uses c_text and toolcat, and it is the first example of the new possibilities of Created with I had prepared it for. -- sarang♥사랑 17:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarang: Thank you! it works now. Kamsa hamnida. Danke! --Was a bee (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction pending[edit]

The above inconvenience is now repaired in template:Created with/sandbox. But it is not such disturbing that only because of that the version must be transferred; it can be done but IMHO it is not necessary, or urgent. -- sarang♥사랑 15:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expert help needed[edit]

Because I got out of my wits, I need professional help.
Whatever I am doing, I always get the "Warning: This page calls Template:Autotranslate which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call)."

I am maintaining the almost one hundred thousand files in the subcategories of SVG files without W3C-specification.
To get some order into that great amount, and to find out which files come new into these categories, I am trying to have some sortkey within categories
(when I know who is tagging the files erroneously I can contact the users; this makes sense with the new files - people are adding files every day).

A useful sort key for that purpose seems the creation date of that file. Module:File has a function "dateWorkCreated" to get that value.
When the template Created with gets a unspecified file to categorize it, it needs the creation date for the construction of the sort key.
However I try to get that value, with an own-written function or using that of Module:File, this warning arises and in the meantime all ~100.000 files are Pages with template loops.
I am sure that there isn't any template loop, I cannot explain what causes that failure message. The correct creation date value is returned to the invoking template, but always accompanied by that message. When I invoke the Module for the creation date, it works without complaints, but the invocation in the chain of several templates and with Autotranslate, makes troubles. So I assume that there goes something wrong - or that somebody just believes that looping occurs. Very desperate, -- sarang♥사랑 13:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sarang, the issue you described I reported at phabricator:T196464 2 years ago. Maybe you could add your testimony there. As for the solution my approach was to create Template:Autotranslate/clone 1, clone 2, 3 and 4. I usually try clone 1 and if it still causes trouble than I switch to #2, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, in my case the clones are not a solution, it is something else (the html coding in Module:File ?). I contributed to the phab. -- sarang♥사랑 17:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second dot error again[edit]

The last change brought again the second final dot; sorry, my fault. Because it is IMHO not needing an immediate repair, please let us wait until the next maintenance of that heavily used template. -- sarang♥사랑 10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Layout error when Template:ordered list or simple br tags used inside this template[edit]

This template does not appear to be able to handle {{Ordered list}} or even simple br tags inside of it. It might benefit from using div tags instead of span tags in the ./layout subtemplate, but I haven't experimented with it. See this edit, where I worked around this problem. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design again: This template shows subordinate information, and should not be highlighted in any way[edit]

red background
now with more noise added to the Inkscape logo

The {{Created with Inkscape}} still draws undue attention to itself, when no information about the SVGs validity is provided. It used to be bold, which was removed after a request in this discussion. Now it uses a red background, which also seeks an inappropriate amount of attention. This template provides additional information, so it should never visually imply, that it conveys important information. Appropriate uses of red on a file description page are {{Delete}} and {{Speedy}}. (So is a bit of red in {{LargeImage}}.) In the mentioned discussion I have proposed a more modest layout, namely a colored (top right) triangle with mousever text. Watchduck (quack) 12:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified files are a matter for maintenance, and as such the moderate highlighting is helpful.
When somebody does not like his/her files tagged with that box, just have it validated and provided with the specification. -- sarang♥사랑 13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All kinds of things require maintenance. Examples that are actually important are {{Uncategorized}} and {{Check categories}}, and they don't use red. Even {{Disputed}} (which is a first step toward the deletion of a file) uses only a red border. The generally accepted meaning of red is warning, and this is not a warning, because there is nothing the user needs to be warned about. If this kind of noise inflation is accepted, actual warnings will need to be bold and big and blinking. Watchduck (quack) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarang: Great — now that you moved the noise to the logo , you can remove it from the background. Watchduck (quack) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@~riley, Jdx, and 4nn1l2: You have previously fulfilled Sarangs edit requests, so I would like to ask your opinion about this matter. The warning color red (#FEE, #600) was introduced in this edit in September. But this is not even remotely important enough to be formatted as a warning. Please note, that SVGs not passing the W3C validator is virtually always because of some Inkscape specific code, which has absolutely no real life implications. Before and above I have proposed a more modest formatting for the validity information (colored triangle with mousover), which Sarang has ignored. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Watchduck here. -- H005 23:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

section 2[edit]

@~riley, Jdx, 4nn1l2, Sarang, and H005: I started a general discussion about this topic: Village pump § LOUD TEMPLATES (red, bold, big, warning symbols) --Watchduck (quack) 12:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now archived. --Watchduck (quack) 11:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and how it appears now after correction
Hi folks, it is so easy: when you do not like the red box, just do it in a correct way !
Wikimedia has today 53,432 files with an unspecified {{Inkscape}} template (and 24,293 with {{Adobe Illustrator}}) which is of no use - many of these file are not created with Inkscape, and have never been. Files with such a wrong transclusion get the red background so the uploader can immediately see that he is doing wrong and should correct it. When the uploader ignores that help and uploads the file nevertheless with that bad description, the box remains red.
When people do not want to use the correct specification it is better to avoid that {{Inkscape}} - then no red box will appear. Or they wait - I am permanently repairing such wrong file declarations; but despite to my efforts the number of unspecified creations is growing with each day... Some people are famous in adding there files.
The problem is not the warning red color - if there is any problem, it is the bad habit of using the {{Inkscape}} (and other templates) that way! -- sarang♥사랑 06:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it is almost the same with setting unqualified and unchecked the {{Valid SVG}} template, such increasing the number of currently 27,584 files - where in fact many are W3C-invalid! On the other hand, it would be so easy to do it the right way. -- sarang♥사랑 08:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that you are trying to pressure users, to care about something only you care about. W3C validity of SVGs is of no practical relevance. Invalid SVGs usually contain some Inksape specific tags, which do not cause any problems. On the other hand, there are practical problems, that do not cause the SVG code to be W3C invalid - as seen in this example.
But even if this information were relevant, it would still be ridiculous to manually add it with a template. If we want this information to be displayed below every SVG image, then of course it should be added by a bot for old images, and as part of the upload process for new images. Human time should not be wasted to do the work of computers. We need humans to do what humans are good at - namely to describe and categorize the content of images. --Watchduck (quack) 13:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoKalliauer: Do you have an opinion here? I mean especially about the human vs. script issue. (I ask, because you wrote User:JoKalliauer/Optimization.) --Watchduck (quack) 18:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Watchduck: I personally do not run into this issue (I add the validity if I see that it is not existing), and I don't want to take a side.
Sarang was kind of my SVG-Mentor/Master, when I started SVG-Editing, so I learned much about SVGs from him. Editing complicated templates is still something I don't do and ask Sarang to do it.
I personally use created with-template (almost) always with validity, not saying anything if everybody should do it this way.
A file-description should contain a machinereadable the original author/a correct source/valid license, everything else is imho optional, and maybe desired. Maybe it is bad to not add the tool, okish to only add the tool, and correct to add the tool with validity. I think that's a question about quality. Wikipedia (depending on the locale) has high quality-standards, but Wikimedia has imho basically none. E.g. basically none runs a spell-checker on commons.wikimedia such as e.g. User:Aka (User with most contributions) on de.wikipedia.
An essential task should imho not depend on the workload of one User, I saw too many people who left the project and hardly visit here any more. Iff the validity is considered as essential, we should consider writing a bot, otherwise the workload will be overwhelming.
The question between your both opinions is, as far as I understand, if it should be allowed to only specify the Tool, without the validity.
For checking the validity you do not need to use any script, e.g. https://validator.w3.org/#validate_by_uri works for urls, however without script it might be too cumbersome/timeconsuming to use, and the use of a script that is not in the preferences is imho too complicated to demand someone to use it.
  • If {{Inkscape}} without validity is bad habbit (as User:Sarang suggests) or
  • if a specific template is used by many Wikimedians this way, it is -decided by the community- that it is ok to use it this way (as User:Watchduck suggests)
This should be discussed at Village pump and imho not on this talk-page, it is not a objective clear task it is imho a bit philosophic/political.
If there is no outcome/consensus/conclusion where both agree, there might be two further (in-)possible solutions:
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Iff the validity is considered as essential, we should consider writing a bot, otherwise the workload will be overwhelming." Excactly. But I have yet to hear a single example, what this information is needed for. Before we can speak about a consensus, maybe someone should bother to actually claim, that this is of some practical use. --Watchduck (quack) 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The validity status serves mainly for category diffusion (valid, invalid, uncheckable, unspecified). -- sarang♥사랑 07:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarang: Is that supposed to answer to the question, what this information is needed for?
I paraphrase: "We need this information, because we can then create categories based on that information." --Watchduck (quack) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of several attempts 1) to diffuse the overcrowded categories (e.g. Inkscape had about 76K files in that category), 2) to give an impression which tools tend to generate SVG with W3C errors, 3) to show the files with the most W3C errors; W3C-in/validity is normally not saying anything about quality of the image but it may show that some tools do not care about the rules and syntax.
So the categories are diffused by tool, by validity, by "topic", by shown code, by size, and some other criterions. The practical use depends on what is one looking for; may be that it is not so essential, but at least the categories are diffused as much as possible.
Categories too overcrowded are not useful. -- sarang♥사랑 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much wrong here, I barely know where to start. For a category to become more useful by diffusion, it has to be useful in the first place. Originally the purpose of {{Inkscape}} was to promote the software, and nothing else. The (hidden) category Created with Inkscape was attached to it, but that does not mean, that it was ever needed for a practical purpose. (That you have repeatedly unhidden this technical category illustrates, how much you overestimate its importance.) If you want to diffuse a technical category by technical details, there is nothing wrong with that - but you can not just conscript other users to help you with it, by usurping an old template, and declaring new parameters to be "required". If some people want to use the SVGs on Commons for code golf, that is fine. But no one else needs to care for a second. If some photographers want to diffuse Taken with Nikon D70 etc. by technical details (lense, aperture...), they can also not just declare that information to be "required".
There is still the practical aspect I have mentioned before: If some people want to sieve SVG code by technical details, or photos by lense and aperture, it is just not feasible to do this manually. If you want to do this, and actually achieve something, then talk to some people, who can help you to write a bot. Once this misguided template stuff is off the table, this could actually become interesting. Subcategories for SVGs using clones or filters might be worth looking at. I am happy to help, if I can.
(For context: Sarangs reasoning about category diffusion can already be found here.)
Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

section 3[edit]

The title This template shows subordinate information, and should not be highlighted in any way does not describe correctly the issue; the template shows subordinate information, yes - you do not need to use it. But when you use it the wrong way, i.e. mandatory parameters missing, this will cause an error treatment. You are free to leave it - to not use it; but when it is used that should be done as required. I do not try to pressure other users, the highlight tells just that something is wrong, and the text describes what is missing.
​The validation can be part of the Image generation template; the W3C-error count can be specifed, when omitted it is assumed with 0.
There exist a series of user templates including a "Created with ..." template; normally they use a parameter to set the error number (if not 0).
In some cases and with some SVG tools or some users, only W3C-valid SVG exist; this makes such a parameter obsolete.
AFAIK Tilman generates only W3C-valid SVG. Therefore his own-written templates e.g. Nim-products of 2-powers; key matrix; ternary dual or Nim-products of 2-powers; key matrix; ternary dual needed just a small expansion to chance the state from unspecified to the specified form (without passing a parameter for the error number).
Since I made that expansion, the template {{Created with bin2svg}} is used in a correct, specified way - without any need to change the file descriptions -- sarang♥사랑 08:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by topics[edit]

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page.
Administrators/template editors: Please apply <nowiki> or {{Tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.

Watchduck

This template and its transclusions should be able to categorize pics by topics too, to be handled via {{Igen/top}}. For example, {{Created with Paint.net|top=f}} and {{Created with Adobe Photoshop|top=f}} should categorize pics into Category:Created with Paint.net:Flags and Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop:Flags.

Can you fix it? Daniele Fisichella 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create useless categories. But please do no put them in the general category tree, and do not forget to use __HIDDENCAT__. --Watchduck (quack) 10:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Created_with&oldid=822636347"