Template talk:Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old stuff about linking to categories

This template links a page to the article on the commons, containing the gallery of images related to the page. Use this template in the style {{Commons|PAGENAME}}, where PAGENAME is the name of the page on the commons. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives include Template:Commonscat, which allows links to categories without displaying "Category:" in the article, and Template:Commonspiped, which allows piped links.


This template now uses a parameter to define the target page on Commons. The format is {{commons|page name on Commons}}. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Given that Commons may be moving toward a category-based taxonomy, target pages will likely be Category:Pagename, which might not look nice as English text. So a second parameter to use for display might be considered. (In zh-min-nan: we are currently using {{PAGENAME}} to substitute for the display name (this is also because Commons pages are largely English), but this could run into the problem of long article names. We'll see.) A-giau 07:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've changed it so that the displayed link matches the current {{PAGENAME}}. Now, the parameter can either be an article or a category link. -- Netoholic @ 16:52, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


I am changing this so that the link order and placement match other sister project links. See Wikipedia:Sister projects. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

The other sister project links use different styles, just about half the one you've been inserting, i think using a definition list makes it hard to read and it's much better to use something that puts it all in one sentence.
I've also shortened it alot, Wikipedia Commons has multimedia related to x instead of Wikimedia Commons has images and other multimedia related to this article at: x which IMO is way too long. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:39, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
I don't mind the current version too much. I think the line break/indent is nicer when an article's title is long-ish, to avoid the link wrapping across lines. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

[edit] Possible move

This should probably be moved to Template:Commonspar, to conform with other sister project templates. -- Itai 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need. With very few exceptions, there is no direct page name match between here and Commons. Every link to Commons should be specified with a parameter. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
There are quite a few exceptions. Template:Pic is identical to this, except it uses {{PAGENAME}}. As can be seen in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pic, many articles use this template. I think it would be better to align the Commons categories with all other sister project templates, but shudder at the thought of making that many changes. -- Itai 19:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many articles are using Template:Pic incorrectly. For some, the link goes to a non-existent page on Commons (as in Mumbai (Bombay)), and others link to a redirect at Commons (like Brown Bear does). Much better to eliminate those problems. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Right. Well, amazingly, no objection on my part, but don't orphan it until we're sure there are no comments in Template talk:Pic. (I've left a note there, and have also dropped User:Patrick, the template's creator, a note.) -- Itai 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For pages with the same name on Commons, a template using PAGENAME(E) is more convenient, and there seems no harm in having a separate template for that.--Patrick 22:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
There is a lot of harm in creating multiple templates for one-shot reasons. In this case, too few page names match between here and Commons, as explained above, and the separate template is no more convenient because editors still should check Commons to be sure a page exists. Unfortunately, by making it "convenient" to add template:pic, editors become lazy and don't check as they should. We leave readers pointing to non-existent pages, or redirects - bad form all around. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Why do so many people dislike pointing at redirects anyway? Plugwash 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation sound files

Is there any standard for insterting standard pronounciation of, say, famous people or places in their respective articles? Nationalencyklopedin has a very neat system in their web edition where they link to sound files with a person pronouncing the article title in the native language. Very handy (except that they do it with often malfunctioning .aif-files).

Is there any policy worked out for this? Is there a template or a project for it? - karmosin 21:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commons Image Removal

I just wanted to inform everyone who is as surprised as me about the reason why there is no Wikimedia Commons image in this template anymore. It is a procedure to lower the amount of requests to the server and make Wikipedia available again. See: m:Image server overload 2005-03

[edit] {{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}

What's the point of having {{{1}}}|{{{1}}} ? --User:66.46.85.162 [[WP:~~~~|forgot to sign]] at 16:17, Mar 28, 2005

  • The entire link looks like this: [[Commons:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. The text before the pipe is the link target, a page on the Commons. The text after the pipe is the displayed text, so the user doesn't see the word "Commons" where it would be redundant. —Josh Lee 21:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Problem is, it doesn't work where the target contains a colon (:), which is how one links to categories in the commons. See [1] for an example of this (look under related topics).
    The ideal form for this template (widely used across many Wikipedias) should be: {{commons|target|displayed text}}. Please end this edit war and fix the template. It's embarrassing for the English Wikipedia. Kevyn 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revert war

and while i can't dispute the assertion that meta templates are a resource waste i get the feeling that a revert war on such a template is even worse. Plugwash 20:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] linking to categories

for a lot of items thier is a category on commons but not a normal page. (higher level taxa for example) right now the only way to use that with this template would be to rather messilly put the whole name including category in the parameter. Imo this template should be altered to provide seperate control over the page linked to and the displayed name on the link Plugwash 14:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We already have a Template:Commonscat. Is that something like what you wanted? -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
yeah thats the one though it uses the word multimedia which is seriously misleading in the vast majority of cases and its protected so i can't change it like i did this one. Plugwash 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

To curtail further edit-warring until a decision is reached, I've protected this template. Since I don't want to put the notice on the template itself:

— Dan | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Per Raul654's edit, I have now unprotected the template, as there shouldn't need to be much further arguing on the issue. — Dan | Talk 20:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
do you have a link to the arbcom desicion in full giving details of thier reasoning? Plugwash 20:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. — Dan | Talk 20:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Position

Would it be possible to have the box centered or left-aligned? With it being right-aligned, it often gets forced way out of sight down the page in articles that have long boxes on the right side. Alternatively, some way of adjusting the position so that it can appear on the right adjacent to the box, rather than having to go below it. Anyone know how to do this? - MPF 17:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah its a pain getting anything right alinged to sit nicely next to infoboxes. i usually resort to wrapping sections of the article in tables to force them to act as a single rectangle in the page layout. Plugwash 17:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definitive statement on how to use the template

Folks, I've read most of the 7-month discussion. Any chance of an up-to-date statement of the way(s) this can be used? Robin Patterson 00:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. And I strongly support Kevyn's plea from above. I'll copy it here:

The ideal form for this template (widely used across many Wikipedias) should be: {{commons|target|displayed text}}. Please end this edit war and fix the template. It's embarrassing for the English Wikipedia. Kevyn 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the current commons template is still ugly and seriously lacking in this respect. -Wikibob | Talk 2005 July 3 12:06 (UTC)

I'm in support of Kevyn as well. Changes are need. Swarve 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this template should be used even if there is only one image on commons as people may replace a commons image on a page with a non free one, and people may forget or not realise that a commons image is availiable if the template is not visible, therefore I have removed "more" from the template. Arniep 13:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basic

[edit] Variants

[edit] Not very obvious, Poor ease of use

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this template not very obvious when they are browsing an article? It really should make it plain that "hey you, yes you, if you click this link they you are going to get a gallery of images about X". Instead, it's often hard to notice, and when I do click the link, I am always slightly annoyed, in that I think "this content is really good! Why didn't they tell me this sooner and make it much clearer to me?". Let me outline the reasons why I think this template is has poor ease-of-use:

  1. It is usually included at the end of articles, not at the start.
  2. It is floating off on the right-hand-side of the page, and as such it's not very noticeable (in my experience the most useful content in the Wikipedia, and the web in general, tends to be in the middle 80% of the page, and not at the extreme left or extreme right, or the at the extreme top or extreme bottom; In fact, I tend to mentally filter out these areas because they usually contain ads, funding drives, useless logos, legal mumbo jumbo, etc).
  3. It uses a smaller font that the main article text.
  4. In a left-to-right language such as English, the most prominent thing in this template is the commons logo. Clicking on the logo takes me to a larger version of the logo, which almost always is not what the user will want.
  5. The first (and therefore more prominent) link and words of the sentence are "Wikimedia Commons". Clicking them takes you to info about the commons, which almost always is not what the user will want.
  6. The use of the word "media". Technically totally valid, but "media" is a weasely-techie-type-word that has limited meaning to most people. How about "images"?
  7. Why is the actual link on a new line, by itself? And why, when it is the most useful thing of all, does it come last?
  8. The final insult and piece-de-resistance is this: I can't even fix it! Someone, in their infinite wisdom, has decreed that this template is sacrosanct, and has protected it!

<rant>
Frankly, this template makes me want to grab a Usability or User Interface textbook, and repeatedly whack it against the head of the template's author, whilst shouting "Worst. Template. Usability. Ever!"
</rant>

-- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a new commonsgallery template, recently added by Last Malthusian, and updated by me to fix most of the things I dislike about this template. You can see an example of this at Maine Coon#External links. It differs from this template in the following ways: I've left-aligned it to make it more obvious, increased the font size, change the image to be of a camera instead of some silly abstract logo, removed all links except the one to the image gallery, made that link longer, and put it all on two lines to make it shorter, and last but not least it's not protected so that anyone can improve it. Hopefully now it should be far more obvious and noticeable than the previous template. Of course, please feel free to update the new template if you think anything doesn't work or can be improved in some way. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have deviated so far from the original, myself, which is recognisable to anyone who's read a number of Wikipedia pages - but, of course, pretty meaningless to anyone else. The Maine Coon is now a rather glaring exception from the rest of Wikipedia - something that I have no problem with (because I think Nickj's template is better, end of reasoning), but I can see someone else having a problem with it, if that makes sense.
However, I do unequivocally support having a picture that represents what the link is, instead of that 'silly abstract logo'. What would be perfect is if someone could create an image that had the camera on top of the Wikicommons logo. Normally I think of myself as fairly good at doing things myself instead of saying someone else should, but in this case I have no appropriate software and no skill, so I'm going to have to hope someone else will :-). Shouldn't be too hard to shrink down the camera image and paste it on top of the Wikicommons logo, surely. --Last Malthusian
Oh yes - I was going to wait for someone else to bring the subject up, but it might seem from my post that I think Wikicommons just contains image galleries. In the case of galleries that contain, say, sound files, we could simply use a template that had a picture of a Windows-Sound-Recorder-type-speaker or something. In the case of mixed galleries, we could use the current logo or even a picture that incorporated both images. --Last Malthusian 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Should probably note that I've changed the commonsgallery template again to use Nickj's wording and picture, but the traditional style. --Last Malthusian 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New format

<div class="infobox sisterproject">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|left|45px| ]]
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons]] has media related to:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;">'''''[[Commons:{{{1|Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div>
</div>

Please change the template as shown above. With this method, we can add more utility to this single template. See Template:Wiktionary for an example of how this method will work. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "media"

Is there some way to allow for a third parameter to change the word "media"? That word seems rather vague and I would like the ability to change it to something more specific. For example, in Johann Sebastian Bach, I would prefer that the box say something like "Wikimedia Commons has recordings, scores, and portraits related to: Johann Sebastian Bach". How feasible is this? -Sesquialtera II 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go even further. I'm wondering whether a better situation might be to have both the type of media and the image passed in as arguments to the template. E.g. {{commons|icon=music-note.jpg|type=recordings and scores}}, and {{commons|icon=camera-image.jpg|type=image gallery}}, and with {{commons}} using default arguments to give the same result as at the moment. That would both allow overriding the "media" word, and having an icon for music-related material or image galleries, plus it would keep backwards-compatibility. A rough mock-up of what a music-related example could look like is shown below. Thoughts / comments / ideas? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. For ease of use, we could have a {{commonsimages}}, a {{commonsaudio}}, a {{commonsmusic}}, and a {{commonsvideo}} template instead of requiring a |type=$TYPE tag parameter though. Also, I have taken the liberty of changing your suggested template around. What do you think of the changes? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Your changes make the templates more the wording more general, which is definitely a good thing, and I would definitely support having a variety of templates for different media types (seems simpler than having parameters). So yes, I think do it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How about having magic words...(with {{#ifexist:{{{music}}|...music text here...| }}) If the magic word is music, the icon and text will be just right. I think that would be great. But then a hundred thoundsand users will have to know it. Hm. ? NorwegianMarcus 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another language template

Can someone create this template? http://ur.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Commons&action=edit evrik 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I went ahead and did it, though I don't know if it is right .... --evrik 13:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eu InterWiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Commons. Thanks.--Berria 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix interwiki link to German Wikipedia

The German Wikipedia's Commons template is called de:Vorlage:Commons, not de:Vorlage:Commons1. Please fix the interwiki link. TZMT (de:T) 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Keenan Pepper 04:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

Please add the following interwikis to the code [[af:Template:Commons]] [[ast:Template:Commons]] [[bs:Template:Commons]] [[fy:Template:Commons]] [[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]] [[hr:Template:Commons]] [[ia:Template:Commons]] [[is:Template:Commons]] [[ku:Template:Commons]] [[la:Template:Commons]] [[lb:Template:Commons]] [[lt:Template:Commons]] [[lv:Template:Commons]] [[ms:Template:Commons]] [[nds:Template:Commons]] [[nn:Template:Commons]] [[oc:Template:Commons]] [[scn:Template:Commons]] [[sq:Template:Commons]] [[su:Template:Commons]] [[tr:Template:Commons]] [[tt:Template:Commons]]

Interwikis found using http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/

Thanks in advance --elwikipedista 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

One month later, I again urge you to update you interwikis [[af:Template:Commons]] [[ast:Template:Commons]] [[bs:Template:Commons]] [[fy:Template:Commons]] [[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]] [[hr:Template:Commons]] [[ia:Template:Commons]] [[is:Template:Commons]] [[ku:Template:Commons]] [[la:Template:Commons]] [[lb:Template:Commons]] [[lt:Template:Commons]] [[lv:Template:Commons]] [[ms:Template:Commons]] [[nds:Template:Commons]] [[nn:Template:Commons]] [[oc:Template:Commons]] [[scn:Template:Commons]] [[sq:Template:Commons]] [[su:Template:Commons]] [[tr:Template:Commons]] [[tt:Template:Commons]]

af:Template:Commons ast:Template:Commons bs:Template:Commons fy:Template:Commons ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin hr:Template:Commons ia:Template:Commons is:Template:Commons ku:Template:Commons la:Template:Commons lb:Template:Commons lt:Template:Commons lv:Template:Commons ms:Template:Commons nds:Template:Commons nn:Template:Commons oc:Template:Commons scn:Template:Commons sq:Template:Commons su:Template:Commons tr:Template:Commons tt:Template:Commons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elwikipedista (talk • contribs) .

All set. - EurekaLott 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standarisation

This template seems to be a slightly different shape from the other similar ones. This is particularly notable at Da Vinci#External Links. Can someone with edit permission change this? Conrad.Irwin 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See also e.g. Frog. --Eleassar my talk 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, quite irritating once you've noticed it! - PocklingtonDan 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Made some changes; {{wikispecies}} and {{cookbook}} both used divs to do their dirty work, where {{commons}} used a wikitable; I've updated {{commons}} to use a more similar div layout, so they should look better together. May still need a little tweak, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Luna Santin 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better, looks great to me now. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is odd is the following: *{{commons}} produces:

  • Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Why is that and how can we fix this? Kusma (討論) 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it, but don't understand why. Kusma (討論) 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This template is really awful

and I would like to change it.

Why, you ask? Because just about every time I see it I click on the link that takes me to Commons main page instead of the specific article. Even though I know better, that's where I want to click. I'm not alone in this; in a random sample of 4 friends all of them did the same thing when asked to go look at the media on Commons from the template. (I know, I know, not scientific, but...)

The linked article needs to be the first link, because otherwise people click on the link going to the main page and are left totally confused about what to do next.

But I didn't want to change a highly-used template without comment. Is there any disagreement with changing it (other than consistency with the other sister project templates: they should be changed for the same reason)? If so, why? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Looks like it's been fixed. Stevage 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A good change, I always did the same. I still have to think twice when I see a Wikisource / Wikiquote templates, and the worst template in this regard is the Wiktionary template. / Fred-Chess 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to change this one, should we change them all to be consistent? See e.g. Template:Wikisource. Richard001 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Hi, please rearrange the interwikis by alphabet (so that one can see if the interwiki to xyz already exists or not). And please add iu:Template:Commons to that list. Thank you. --Thogo (Talk) 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Click

Template:Click (or something similar) should be added to the image. I'm sure this has been mentioned before so please don't link me to similar comments. -Indolences 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean so when you click on the commons logo it brings you to the main page at commons? Yonatan (contribs/talk) 01:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No I mean it brings you to the commons page of whatever you want to view. eg
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
 :would take you to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Commons -Indolences 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
They're haven't been any objections, so I was bold and implemented this for Template:Commons. Superm401 - Talk 12:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

You may want to copy and paste the updated list of interwiki links (more simple than adding each one individually):

<!-- interwiki -->
[[af:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[als:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[ar:قالب:كومنز]]
[[ast:Plantilla:Commons]]
[[az:Şablon:Commons]]
[[be:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[be-x-old:Шаблён:Commons]]
[[bar:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[bs:Šablon:Commons]]
[[bg:Шаблон:Общомедия]]
[[ca:Template:Commons]]
[[cs:Šablona:Commons]]
[[cy:Nodyn:Comin]]
[[da:Skabelon:Commons]]
[[de:Vorlage:Commons]]
[[el:Πρότυπο:Commons]]
[[et:Mall:Commons]]
<!-- [[en:Template:Commons]] -->
[[es:Plantilla:Commons]]
[[eo:Ŝablono:Commons]]
[[eu:Txantiloi:Commons]]
[[fa:الگو:انبار]]
[[fr:Modèle:Commons]]
[[fy:Berjocht:Commons]]
[[ga:Teimpléad:Cómhaoin]]
[[gl:Template:Commons]]
[[ko:틀:Commons]]
[[hsb:Předłoha:Commons]]
[[hr:Predložak:Commons]]
[[io:Template:Commons]]
[[ilo:Template:Commons]]
[[id:Templat:Commons]]
[[ia:Patrono:Commons]]
[[iu:Template:Commons]]
[[ik:Template:Commons]]
[[is:Snið:Commons]]
[[it:Template:Commons]]
[[he:תבנית:Commons]]
[[kn:ಟೆಂಪ್ಲೇಟು:Commons]]
[[ku:Şablon:Commons]]
[[la:Formula:Communia2]]
[[lv:Veidne:Commons]]
[[lb:Template:Commons]]
[[lt:Šablonas:Commons]]
[[li:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[hu:Sablon:Commons]]
[[mk:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[ms:Templat:Commons]]
[[nl:Sjabloon:Commons]]
[[ja:Template:Commons]]
[[no:Mal:Commons4]]
[[nn:Mal:Commons]]
[[oc:Modèl:Commons]]
[[nds:Vörlaag:Commons]]
[[pl:Szablon:Commons]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Commons]]
[[ro:Format:Commons]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[sq:Stampa:Commons]]
[[scn:Template:Commons]]
[[simple:Template:Commons]]
[[sk:Šablóna:Commons]]
[[sl:Predloga:Zbirka]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[sh:Template:Commons]]
[[fi:Malline:Commons]]
[[su:Citakan:Commons]]
[[sv:Mall:Commons]]
[[tl:Template:Commons]]
[[tt:Ürnäk:Commons]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Commons]]
[[tr:Şablon:Commons]]
[[wa:Modele:Commons]]
[[uk:Шаблон:Commons]]
[[ur:سانچہ:Commons]]
[[zh-yue:Template:同享]]
[[zh:Template:Commons]]

They have all been checked. Regards. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Cbrown1023 talk 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how you checked, but the Hebrew iw is wrong. It should point to he:תבנית:מיזמים. Odedee 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Your Hebrew is wrong: the link you gave leads to the equivalent of the {{sisterlinks}} template. The Hebrew template for Commons, is Commons. Although, it is not much used anymore, this page should be linked to it.
I've made another update to the list. It takes into consideration the changes in the be: wikis. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove or comment out the interwiki link "[[en:Template:Commons]]". Thanks! Korg (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --ais523 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

Image of box should be changed to reflect "media", like photo/speaker. Commons logo may also be kept with text, but smaller image. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Interwiki

Please add [[nap:Template:Commons]] and [[rm:Template:Commons]]. Kazu89 ノート 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for the link to be included in the left-hand bar instead

Hi all, I suggest that instead of putting the Commons link to a Commons article/category in a box at the bottom (where it, in my opinion, often breaks the layout), I suggest that the link should behave like a languuage interwiki-link. To make sure it isn't lost in a long list of language links, it could automatically preempt all language link versions and come first. For example, under "Cite this page" and above "Languages" Article X would have a "Commons" link. What do people think about the idea? Ingolfson (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)