Template talk:Externalimage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2008 March 2. The result of the discussion was keep.

If an image is available online, but cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to use {{externalimages}} to provide a direct link to the image and a (referenced) description of what the image depicts.

Contents

[edit] Media

Can we expand the use of this template for links to all types of media? It would be great to have links to videos and other related media. Billscottbob (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Principally yes, but how do we make sure the quality of the material is sufficient? For example at Xmas last year a lecture on battles was excesively linked in wikipedia, but the video was rather bad. With images we have less problems of this kind.
The simples approach would be renaming this to external media, however I want to consult at least my codeveloper before taking this step. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm critcal of creating a template for all external media and would prefer several for specific media. That makes it easier to provide guidelines for each type. Apart from video and soundsamples is there anything else you think we should link? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plural

Can we fix it so that if a template transclusion has more than one image then the title says "External images"? Also on the other templates? Harryboyles 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it because it turned out that the singular is the norm. This will be a lot of coding and I don't know if it's worth the effort. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"External links" are still plural even when theres only one link. Think outside the box 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, but the template code stays singular, that is less to type and thus less chances for errors. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

This template and the associated audio and video ones are a bad idea and invite all sorts of trouble. I'm surprised I haven't seen {{externalimage}} used before now considering it's over a year old.

  1. By linking to images on external websites, we significantly increase our maintenance work. As it stands editors do not regularly check external links to make sure they still exist, are of good quality, and are not spam. These templates may exacerbate the problem by increasing the number of links that must be regularly checked.
  2. We are linking to content which we do not control. It would be easy for someone to replace the content with something obscene. Enough said.
  3. We are linking directly to content. People generally do not like hotlinking, as is done on War against Nabis. I expect that OTRS will receive a large increase in complaints due to high traffic from Wikipedia.
  4. They take up a lot of space and make reading the actual article difficult. Imagine an article with tens of images linked!
  5. Most importantly these templates go against our commitment to free content, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. We are not building just an encyclopedia, we are building a free one. Did you know that editors have asked content-holders for permission to use content on Wikipedia under a free license? And did you know that in many cases permission has been granted? These templates will discourage editors from even asking, because the templates will be seen as "good enough". They are not good enough! We want free content!

By and large you need to make templates idiot-proof, and even then Wikipedia editors will still use them wrong. Editors will hotlink to content and annoy site administrators. Editors will not attempt to find free content alternatives. Articles will become bloated with large captions with no relation to the body text.

I hope that we can start some discussion on how to handle all of the problems I've outlined above. I think the community can come up with improvements to the current template that will solve the issues. ~MDD4696 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Maintenance has so far not been a real problem, the solution is explicitly intended to provide a link as long as no better solution is available. It stayed small and it got replaced in many cases.
  2. So what we do have enough obscene material in commons and anyone can put obscene images in any wikipedia article without us having any more control that via externalimages what is absolutely done considering writing.
  3. What some anonymous people like is of no concern here. Are there so many externalimages that there are any complains? Will there ever be?
  4. no more that eight externalimages have been linked in articles and this way they are far better readable than articles with the same number of uploaded images. This is no argument.
  5. The content is available online without paying money. As long as JStOR sources aren't forbidden I don't see any difference. And after all it is only a temporary solution until there is an image in commons. So far this has always been preferred to links.
You seem well aware of wikipolitics but little of the actual problems acquiring accurate images. We don't get the images we need, that's it. So we use the best possible solution and link to them. In a lot of cases later on images of the content were found and provided a better solution. Then there is no need for external images.
Just show me ONE idiotproof template in wikipedia. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as point 3, I don't see why we can't be considerate of others. Wikipedia generates a lot of traffic and could negatively impact unsuspecting webmasters. Anyways, can we emphasize somewhere on the template description that these templates are not generally intended as a permanent or long-term solution, only as placeholders until free content can be found? ~MDD4696 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Added comment about removal and counterclause because for example the image of the Macedonian phalanx in commons is not accurate for the Hellenistic armies. etc. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Behaviour when left justified

Without detracting from MDD4696's concerns, I still find the concept of this template entirely congenial. Sometimes linking to external images is the best we can do if our focus is presenting content in the best way we can. It can considerably enhance an article. However, I have a couple of quibbles about the implementation. Firstly, the template behaves badly when it is left justified (see midwater trawling). Secondly, and less importantly, it inserts a spurious line feed (or should I say a spurious blank line) before it displays. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it behaves badly when justified?
I don't see a problem with a blank line. Is that perhaps based on the download speed? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well here's another example. There is an adjacent right justified navigation box on this page. If you insert left justified images, they display correctly down the left side of the page. Your box, however, ignores the position where it is entered in the text, and does not display until it is level with the bottom of the navigation box. In addition, there is no white border, so the text that wraps round the box is jammed up hard alongside it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem a bit confused. You have to define on which side an image appears. The images also just appear at the bottom of the infobox if the infobox is quite long. I don't see your problem. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the alignment issue; the infobox CSS class the template derives from was automatically bringing in a clear:right attribute. Hopefully removing that doesn't break the layout anywhere else. Kirill 15:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill. Can it also be given, say, a 6px border so the text wrap round isn't jammed against the box? --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. Kirill 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)