This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Remove from content categories
{{Edit request}}
These template, along with virtually all others, are of no interest to viewers (as opposed to editors) of Commons. At present these institute pages are being placed in the related category where there is little likelihood of have a proper gallery pages for the institution. I would therefore like to see this template edited so that it does not automatically add the page to the category for the institution. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Alan Liefting: I don't agree. The category page for an institution should show everything Commons has relating to that institution -- including whether or not it has an Institution template. For starters, it's the easiest way to find out whether an institution does or does not have such a template that can be added to its images. It's also useful for debugging; and recently has been very useful for matching these templates to appropriate Wikidata items.
As to whether the templates should be displayed in the headers of such categories, my view would be yes they should. They give browsing viewers quick information about the entity, with relevant wiki-links and authority control information. That all seems very appropriate for a casual browsing viewer to be able to find. Jheald (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the template should be added to a category page and the gallery page but the template itself should not be categorised in a category that consists of content for viewers. Templates should be categorised of course but only within the template categorisation hierarchy. It is often that case that editors forget that they are but a very small subset of those who visit Commons and carry out edits without thinking of the majority. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that we don't separate out stuff based on namespace.
What currently exists is a partial separation between content (stuff for viewers) and what could be loosely described as infrastructure (templates, policies, quidelines, user pages, etc). This separation needed to be made complete. Templates such as say {{Benin}} or {{ISO 3166-2/AU}} are of absolutely no use to viewers. The same goes with most of the templates. They are use to build pages. They should be in the "back end" for the "back room boys". Alan Liefting (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
So sometimes we do have categories like Category:Paris maintenance where some of the templates, etc. reside, but all of them need to be easily accessible from Category:Paris because that is where users expect to find them. It is just hard enough to maintain a single category tree that it is hard to justify creating and maintaining 2 parallel systems and it is not like we have so many templates in each category that they are make it harder for "viewers" to find stuff. For me this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't like Category:Paris maintenance. I will put it up for deletion. It is a combination of editor and viewer categories which is the wrong way of doing things, and it is a confusing name. As for there being two parallel category systems there is no such thing. Categories The category system is very complex as seen in this diagram.
What is missing from Commons is a complete set of WikiProjects to link all of the editor related categories on a particular topic. We have to get out of the mindset that Commons is for editors. It is for viewers and every edit should be made to reflect this fact. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I wish we could but it is automatically generated by the {{TemplateBox}}. But we do have it when you are creating new Institution page and click "Click to preload this page with an institution template" link on the top. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done no consensus for change. @Alan Liefting: you might want to take a look at Commons:Structured data. That would make most of these current constructs redundant. Multichill (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)