Commons talk:Nordiska museet

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

license[edit]

(e.g. File:NMA.0031751.jpg) How does the museum know this is PD if no date, no author is known?

By the way: the date given is wrong. Should be: {{other date|?}} (uploaded {{ISOdate|2010-11-18}} 10:31:15) or similar.

Is there no description known? Or will these be added later?

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

These uploads are a bit surprising, since a batch upload is in preparation. I left a note to Nordiskamuseet‎ (talk · contribs) inviting them to the discussion. It seems the museum provides us with some very awesome metadata! Previous uploads may be fixed using these data. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, as someone who has been in contact with the museum, I can safely say that they have not uploaded images that they are not sure about when it comes to the copyright status. All images are PD-old.
The second question can be answered like this. The PR department and the uploaders were not totally synced, and the press release went out before there were actually more than a few pictures up. To show a few images, they decided not to wait for the batch upload. But the batch upload will help with all the metadata.
In short, have a little patience. This is our first really big partnership. Things will smooth out, eventually. Best wishes,//Hannibal (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. These not-so-great uploads are no big deal and I am certain all will work out quickly. Thanks for the heads-up! :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay - so this is only an advertising by-effect. ;) Well then, let's wait.
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope the real batch uploads will be better than this. ;-) No use of i18n templates, wrong spelling in author's name, no author cat.
Half off-topic: I noticed that there is not yet a Category:Black_and_white_photographs_of_Sweden available. Does anybody know if this is intentional? This category could be filled nicely by many of the museum's photos. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably because Category:Photographs_of_Sweden doesn't exist yet. Can easily be created if you think they'll be of use. /Lokal_Profil 17:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact maybe Category:Historical images of Sweden (I just found it) would be of more use for this project. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Filenames[edit]

Moved here from Commons:Batch uploading/Nordiska Museet

Many of the filenames are very long and complicated. I think it would be useful to create redirects from simpler names. We already have about 500 older files named "NMA.xxxxxxx.jpg" that will be redirected if/when they are moved or marked as duplicates of new files. Maybe more names following that standard could be automatically created as redirect to newer files. /Ö 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer slightly longer, but more descriptive, filenames rather than short and cryptic names. My original thought was even to delete the "NMA.xxxxxxx.jpg" files afterwards, but I guess redirect is better. I'm assuming that most people copy paste in filenames into articles in which case length only becomes a problem when reading the article in edit mode. In edit mode however a cryptic filename would probably still be more confusing then a long filename (within reason obviously). But that's just my 2 pence =) /Lokal_Profil 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

From Commons talk:Nordiska museet/Todo[edit]

What still needs to be decided before a todolist can be made?[edit]

  1. What must be done before an image is removed from Category:Images from Nordiska museet/check?
  2. What should be done with the images in Category:Images from Nordiska museet/checkbackside?
    How should e.g. File:Amma Pirkit Larsson, same från Tuorpon. Lotten von Düben 1868 - Nordiska Museet - NMA.0033114 2.jpg be treated?
  3. What should be done with the reverse side images once they have all been identified/isolated?
    Currently they are all in Category:Reverse sides of portraits. Which categories should be removed. Should any be left? Should these be put into a subcategory of "Images from NM"?
  4. Verify that artist makes sense (i.e. repro in source field and only one artist in artist filed). If artist is empty then should it really be? If there are two artists in the artist field then should one be a repro artist?
  5. Trim Swedish description to remove stuff like technique etc. which might be in other places in the template?

The above questions (and probably more) needs answering before a check-list style todo list can be created. /Lokal_Profil 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverese side images[edit]

These are currently in Category:Reverse sides of portraits. In my view they should probably have all categories except for "Images from NM" and "reverse side" removed. Possible exceptions would be the repro photographer category (still his/her photo) and the project category. To make the "Images from NM" category more useful the images could probably also be shifted to a subcategory of that one. Don't know which is the more efficient way of doing this though but I'll take a look at cat-a-lot. /Lokal_Profil 16:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most of the categories should be removed. /Ö 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Några bilder i kateorin är utsidan av fodral för fotografier. Till exempel Image:Mansporträtt - Nordiska Museet - NMA.0054089 2.jpg. De kanske kan vara värda en egen kategori. Dels eftersom de inte riktigt är baksidor, och dels eftersom de ofta har mönster som är gjorda för att vara fina att se på (till skillnad från många av baksidorna). Jag har dock ingen aning om vad som är ett bra namn på engelska för en sådan kategori. /Ö 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ö. --  Docu  at 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Portrait cases" possibly. but Yes i agree that it would probably be best to split this of. Is the category removal something which can easily be done with cat-a-lot? /Lokal_Profil 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You can easily move them to another category. (adding and removing categories works well too, I had remove the initial category when applied to front views). The tool was revised a couple of months ago and works great since. I never really got it to work before BTW. --  Docu  at 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
How should reverse sides of other kinds of images be categorised? For example Image:Stockholms slott överfört på glasplatta, stadsvy som visar Stockholms slott från Skeppsholmssidan - Nordiska Museet - NMA.0052789 2.jpg is the reverse side of an image of a building. /Ö 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish translation[edit]

The todo list should probably include a Swedish translation for the "check-list" part to allow users from sv.wiki to participate more easily. I've made a start for such a checklist below but it could still be improved and it relies on answers to the previous section. /Lokal_Profil 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Kategorier
  • Beskrivningar
    • Om du lägger in en ny beskrivning/redigerar en beskrivning, t.ex. med wikilänkar, så gor detta utanför infon i {{Nordiska museet description}}.
    • Lägg eventuellt in en beskrivning på annat språk.
  • Använd bilden på wikipedia =)
    • Tänk på att bilden även kan illustrera den använda illustrationstekniken.

Skapa röda personkategorier[edit]

Ska alla röda personkategorier skapas? En del av personerna verkar inte speciellt notabla. Men jag vågar inte riktigt ta bort dem eftersom det kanske bara är jag som inte letat efter notabilitet på rätt sätt i rätt källor. /Ö 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Är notabilitet ett kriterium för att skapa en kategori på Commons? Kategorier ska väl vara ett verktyg för att hitta saker som hör ihop. --Ainali (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(assuming Google translates this correctly) in general they would. At this batch, I left the ones in red I couldn't figure out who they were (it appeared that some just had their names misspelled, others died before the expansion of internet, so they didn't have any online images of/sources about them). BTW, not sure if Mrs. Ponse ever gets an entry in Wikipedia, but at least her husband. --  Docu  at 06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think non-notable people can never have their own categories. But I also don't think every depicted person should get a category just because we know their name. A bit more than a name should be needed. Most of the person categories I am thinking about have only one or two images, so there is not much that belongs together to put in a category. Multiple files of the same person are often different crops of the same image and are often already linked together by the other version field in the info template. For non notable people it is not very likely that we get more images to add to their categories.
I think it is good to think about what the image can be used when adding categories. For notable people the images can be used to illustrate those people, so it is good to have categories for them. For non-notable people the images can be used to illustrate lots of different things (e.g. early portrait photography techniques, 19th century fashion, ...), but not to illustrate that specific person. /Ö 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For reference most of the red categories can be seen at Commons:Batch uploading/Nordiska Museet/depicted together with the number of images (incl. reverse sides) containing it. My thought is that for notable people categories should be a given. For non-notable I'd say it depends on the number of images and the amount of information we hold on them. Another good time to have categories is when we have group portraits. Rather then having an image categorised with e.g. the contradictory "writers in sweden", "1901 births", "1983 deaths", "painters in sweden", "1899 births", "1925 deaths" it would instead be categorised as "person A", "person B", once again how messy the first case is depends on how much info we hold on them. /Lokal_Profil 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Images from Nordiska museet/check[edit]

Wikimedia Sverige chapter are having their AGM on the 26th. Before this there will be a session focusing on putting the NM images to use in articles. My thought was that if we have an easily laid out check-list then some of the same people (who would normally not be active on Commons) could help out with the todo list. This is what the Swedish bullet pointed list above was meant to be a stab at. However it suddenly struck me (again) that there isn't really a criteria for when an image has been "checked" and can be moved out of Category:Images from Nordiska museet/check. So I figure I'd check here and see what others think is a minimum requirement.

So far the one point I see as a definite must (and which is missing from the Swedish list above) is "check that the image and description correspond". /Lokal_Profil 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Error reports[edit]

So far I've been sending the error reports from Commons:Nordiska museet/Error reports to NM by using the form at digitaltmuseum.se. Although this gets the information to NM I consider it non ideal since a) it doesn't make clear that it's corrections found through the Commons collaboration; b) it doesn't guarantee that we find out about the correction etc. So my question (to the people interfacing with NM) is was this discussed when the collaboration was set up? is there a preferred way (from NM's POV) of doing it? And also who are the people doing the interface (I know of haxpett but no one else). /Lokal_Profil 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

related to this is the question about asking for a replacement image for the case where we (and digitaltmuseum.se were sent the wrong one) and for the case of the missing xml data for some images. /Lokal_Profil 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have asked them via mail, an answer will show up soon I hope. /Haxpett (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In the case of the Bundesarchiv in Germany they were watching the Error list themselves and marked the issues as ✓ Done. --Prolineserver (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As an aside. When the info in NMA.0054395 was corrected (at digitaltmuseum) I also crossed out this info from the {{Nordiska museet description}} (with a note about why). I don't know if this is the best practice though. /Lokal_Profil 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is something I should take up on Saturday. I actually don't believe many people will come, it will probably be more some discussion about future projects. --Prolineserver (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

What should be done better for the next upload?

  • Add a comment in the source code that the original description should not be edited. --Prolineserver (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If you ask Schlurcher to run his bot through Category:Images from Nordiska museet maybe a couple of suggestions will come from its edits. Obviously, the same can always be achieved by running it after the upload. --  Docu  at 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    It ran today. From this, it looks like nothing needs to be done. Most if not all edits were on images not uploaded by the bot. --  Docu  at 11:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Great! On Saturday we collected organisational issues that went wrong during the upload, and here I want do collect technical issues that can be improved. Wikimedia Sweden is about to get huge amounts of images this year. --Prolineserver (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there somewhere where the organisational issues (or the discussion on them) can be viewed, since I couldn't make it to the AGM? Great to hear more images are coming our way =) /Lokal_Profil 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the details are not finished, I prefer to take this off-wiki for the time being. Let me get back to you after I get home from the US (mid-next week).//Hannibal (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Just making sure they weren't somewhere I'd forgotten to look =) /Lokal_Profil 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanted: The royal wedding 1976[edit]

I've noticed that NM has images from the 1976 wedding on Flickr. Would be great if some of these could be uploaded to Commons as well, as the wedding's article is not yet illustrated. Thanks! /Urbourbo (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I poked some of the Nordic museeum people I know and told them about this request. We'll see if anything comes out of that. On a side note, you can come to the Nordic museeum tonight and talk to them. Hope to see you there. /Haxpett (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, And thanks for the invitation, although I'm a notoriously online wikipedian. :) Any news on the wedding images? Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Nordiska museet link[edit]

Please note that Template:Nordiska museet link no longer generated the desired link. I have fixed this but as a result the id now has to be entered as {{Nordiska museet link|NMA|0051831}} (instead of the earlier {{Nordiska museet link|NMA.0051831}}. I'll put L_PBot on updating the current templates. Give me a shout if anything looks weird/doesn't work afterwards. /Lokal_Profil 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)