Template talk:Artwork/Archiv/2013

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

Boldfaced or italic original-language title?

Shall the original-language title of the artwork within the parameter title be boldfaced or italicised? Since the template description says it should be boldfaced whereas the example code given will italicise it. Perhaps can anybody correct it. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I never noticed that part of the documentation, so I was never adding boldface or italic to the titles, but it sounds like a good idea. It is something that needs to be done on each page separately, so there is nothing to correct. --Jarekt (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You are of course right that each page has to be formatted according to the documentation so that the output fulfils its claim. However, the documentation itself is contradictory. It says:
boldface the original-language title, for example:
  • {{en|''The Title of the Picture''.}}”
But in the example “The Title of the Picture” won't be boldfaced but italicised! Therefore the documentation should perhaps be corrected. Anyway we could even consider to add an optional parameter for an original titel if known (probably only titles given by the artist himself should be permitted) similar to the parameter title_orig in en:Template:Infobox book or the parameter ORIGINALTITEL in de:Vorlage:Textdaten with one of the outputs the undetermined documentation proposes. --Marsupium (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In many languages, it is customary to add italics to titles. I think adding boldface as well looks slightly better. It is true that usage may vary across languages, and that it is not always clear what the "title" of an artworks means (given by the artist, used by all art historians ? or just used in the museum's database ?). {{Title}} tries to deal with those points. --Zolo (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess the Wikipedia Manual of Style dictates the use for all of Wikimedia, which says: Italic type should be used for the following names and titles: … Works of art and artifice … Paintings, sculptures and other works of visual art
It would be a good idea to strive for a consistent style and describe explicity the formatting of the parameter descriptions, if they deviate from plain (un-italicized, un-bolded) formatting, and also actually format the example texts themselves to reduce contradictions and confusion. Note that even the Mona Lisa-example further down the guide doesn't italicize or embolden the titles.
I have also noticed that some titles of portraits include the year when the person lived, in parenthesis, also italicized, like in File:1stLordClifford.jpg. The original title probably doesn't include these numbers, so should they be just erased? ~ Nelg (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should reconsider the handling of artwork titles in Commons, taking in consideration en:WP:VAMOS#Works of art (which I am adapting for German Wikipedia right now). In Anglo-American (and also German) use such titles seem to be italicised normally. I think titles should be italicised, too. However, with titles in Commons we have the problem of the possible but not necessary existence of an original language title. If we boldface a title it should be the original language title – if existing – rather than the translated one, so I would prefer to change the template description here and the function of {{Title}} somehow that way and find a possibility to indicate the origin of a title (by artist, by use and so on as Zolo said above) explicitly since there is no possibility to denote them in an article text here! --Marsupium (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Parameters

Workes the parameter inscription? I tried {{inscription}} and {{signed}} with File:Dürigen, 1897, T05.JPG.

There may be something wrong with {{Reproduction}}, too. See Template talk:Reproduction. --PigeonIP (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thank you. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Localization de:

References = Anmerkungen ? Better would be “Referenzen” Because parameter notes = “Bemerkungen” is nearly in German the same as “Anmerkungen”. The relevant string is here MediaWiki:Wm-license-artwork-references/de -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 17:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done I changed the master copy at http://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Wm-license-artwork-references/de. I am not sure when it is going to update. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

German translation of „Dimensions“ and „Object history“

Please translate the topic „Dimensions“ into German „Maße“ (instead of Ausmaße) and „Object history“ into „Provenienz“, see for example.Thanks.––Oursana (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done--Zolo (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I have begun to map this template onto Wikidata properties (see wikidata:Wikidata:Artworks task force). It is still fairly crude but inputs are welcome ! --Zolo (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. However what kind of uses do you imagine? I imagine filling parameters of Template:Category definition: Object and similar templates. May be even create Object/Artwork namespace similar to Creator/Institution. What were your thoughts?--Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure actually. Wikidata's development team is supposed to start working on Commons integration in a few months and I have no idea what will come out. In an ideal World, I suppose we could just add |depicted artwork = Q12418 in the description of File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg to get more or less the same thing as now, but with all data about the artwork itself stored in Wikidata. Otherwise, yes, possibly create an "artwork" namespace that would serve as an itermediary step between Wikidata and file descriptions. --Zolo (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

placement of license template

I've been using the Artwork template for years and I've never quite understood the intended placement of the license on the file's page. There is a place for it in the template, but most files I've seen (because of the upload process?) have a separate header for the license, usually (but not always) with the template int:license-header or similar (what is the usage difference between int:license-header and int:license anyway?). So should, e.g., PD-art-100 go there, under a separate header, or in the field within the Artwork template? I can see the logic of separating it (the boxes are usually large and overwhelm the summary section), and I'm wondering if there is any explicit policy about which placement is preferred. Also, would there be any way using a template like Artwork to automatically create the headers for the summary and license and show the appropriate fields there? What I mean is, the user would enter PD-art-100 in the permission field of the template, but the page would render with a license header and the PD-art-100 under it instead of in the summary? And can this sort of instruction be included in the Artwork doc? Laura1822 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The "usual" license placement is the same as with {{Information}} template, either:
  • "Permission" field, or
  • int:license-header section
In the past many people had strong opinions for either placement and place them there. As a result we have two standard places. You can always check current uploads filled by the upload wizard to check the "most" standard placement and layout. Which I believe is the option #2. --Jarekt (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! My confusion is now clarified. Or something. A hint of this in the documentation would be helpful, though perhaps most people don't worry about things like this! Laura1822 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
To be exact, the subject permission just grants the publication if the media is unfree w/o permission, e.g. OTRS approval. So the license does not fit in the field "permission". {{int:license-header}} is there to create a license section. --Mattes (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Template:artwork possible?

In Template:Artwork/doc#Media articles missing out the template Category:Template:painting possible should probably be replaced by Category:Template:artwork possible? --Marsupium (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

feel free to change it. --Jarekt (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done (By the way I have provided a few German translations. Since I am sort of a newbie please simply revert them if they are not correct.) --Marsupium (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Location

I am using the template on images of artworks to include all the information and credits. I put the artwork location with template:location, because many of the artworks I am working on are public artworks. It is possible to make sure the location used in the template does not get in conflict with the location provided in the image? I think the location provided in the image is often more accurate (in particular if it is automatically detected by a camera. For this reason it should be the principal location (the other one could be mentioned but not generate a conflict). thank you, --iopensa (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Pyb (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Height or width inconsistencies

Please see Template talk:Size#Height or width inconsistencies which mentions some problems with the documentation of both the Artwork and Size templates. It seems better to deal with these on one talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData

I have added TemplateData Fields to the template, need some feedback link Rasel160 (talk)

See Commons:TemplateData: TemplateData are to be added through {{TemplateBox}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
changed to TemplateBox format new link Rasel160 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

border

{{Edit request}} Could someone fix the border, which has dissappeared? --Cold Season (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done This was my error. Thank you −ebraminiotalk 19:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Credit Line De:Anerkennung/Exhibition history

I doubt, if this is the right translation in German. Better would be Erwerb, see http://www.museumsbund.de/fileadmin/geschaefts/dokumente/Leitfaeden_und_anderes/NachhaltigesSammeln_2012.pdf P.18., http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/. Exhibition history is not translated, should be Ausstellungsgeschichte.--Oursana (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Credit line translation comes from here. I added your Ausstellungsgeschichte to Exhibition history in Template:Artwork/i18n. There are several other terms which are not translated to German yet.--Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographer

Several file pages contain e.g.

| Photographer   ={{Institution:Prado}}

(example). What shall be done with those? --Leyo 22:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In {{Artwork}} template both source and photographer goes into "Source/Photographer" field. As I recall it that was because you either had the image done by some user or it is downloaded from somewhere. So I would propose to merge the content of photographer field with content of source field. --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but in this case we already have “Museo del Prado” in the Source field. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the line above might just be removed in all similar cases. --Leyo 08:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree--Jarekt (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance category for pages using nonexistent parameters

I suggest adding an examination for nonexistent parameters used in file description pages transcluding Template:Artwork. This has previously been done for Template:Information. The affected file description pages are found in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. Thousands of parameter errors (spelling errors, markup errors, vandalism, use of wrong template) have already been fixed (semi-)automatically or manually. Thoughts? --Leyo 08:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, do it! Multichill (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yup, sounds good! Jean-Fred (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support overdue --Mattes (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the list of parameters at Template:Artwork#Parameter complete? --Leyo 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice, I had long thought it would be good to check that.
The list is not really complete. There are at least {{{other_fields_1|{{{Other_fields_1|{{{other fields 1|{{{Other fields 1|}}} }}} }}} }}}{{{other_fields_2|{{{Other_fields_2|{{{other fields 2|{{{Other fields 2|}}} }}} }}} }}}. At some time many files had a "country" parameter as well, It is not shown, and useless, but it does not really do any harm. --Zolo (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I implemented the examination. Category:Pages using Artwork template with incorrect parameter is being filled.
I did not define the legacy parameter country as allowed. IMO only current parameters should be used to avoid confusing users. If there is relevant information, then it needs to be moved to another parameter. --Leyo 03:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Useless "Country" parameter is a strange case. To my knowledge it was never used but a lot of early images used it. We should expect much more of them. --Jarekt (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed the empty Country parameters I could find. For the ones with a content, what about moving it to the Location parameter? --Leyo 11:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think "country" is originally from Commons:10,000 paintings from Directmedia, and it seems to refer to the nationality of the artist, not to the place were the artwork iskept, so I think it can be safely deleted. --Zolo (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
I've corrected a few pages:

  • If a parameter has been misspelt it will be sensible to search for occurrences of that misspelling and correct them all in one session.
  • There were a few cases where a hard space had been used in the parameter invocation: "|0xA0Medium =" for example. I'm not sure how best to search for those, so there may be more.

--Mirokado (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I do not know how to find such cases.
Do we have a consensus concerning the removal of country, also for non-empty parameters? If yes, this could be done by a bot. --Leyo 12:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Country, was never a part of this template or its predecessors. It was used by Directmedia mass upload, since they had it. I think it is safe to delete. --Jarekt (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
OK. Shall I add a request on COM:BWR or do you want to do this with your bot? --Leyo 22:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I will tackle it. Directmedia uploads have many other issues as well, so I might fix few things at the same time. --Jarekt (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support just beware that this task is dangerous or hard to code (may have a pipe inside another template) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There are currently 200 files in the category that match \|\s*[Cc]ountry\s*=. --Leyo 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I clean up all "country" images last week, but I guess the template changes were still not applied to all images so more and more images are found. Anyway I removed "Country" from those 200 files. --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
I've cleaned out the category, except for half a dozen files that IMO should not be using the Artwork template at all. They appear to be photographs of a parade. The uploader seems to be asserting that they are commissioned photos he took of a performance. Is there a "photo of performance" template? Laura1822 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Provenance, Publisher

What shall be done with image description pages using the parameters Provenance (example) or Publisher (example)? --Leyo 12:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Provenance is a more precise term for Object history. It was debated if we should use it or not and it was rejected as too elitist. Publisher is more of a problem, we can always add it to Notes, or this. --Jarekt (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the remaining Provenance cases. The other case, however, is too complicated for me to perform in a semiautomated way. --Leyo 22:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought I fixed remaining Provenance cases too. I guess we split the work. I also agree that the remaining cases in this and book and information categories are getting too varied for automatic or even semiautomatic fixes. One think that might help is sorting. If we sort based on the name of the first mismatched field we might be able to find groups of files with similar issues. That might be helpful. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Using the search in VisualFileChange I get 112 hits with \s*\|\s*[Pp]ublisher\s*=. The majority are “File:Lovro Janša …”. So it might be worth to fix these cases in a semiautomated way, but I don't know what is the best solution.
I agree that having some sort of statistics on incorrect parameters would help. Also statistics on uploaders (that might have used always the same incorrect parameters) would help. --Leyo 09:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)