Template talk:BArch-image

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

Mapping to the curent templates[edit]

{{BArch-image
|wiki description = BArch-description.comment + (Information.Description - BArch-description)
|short title      = BArch-description.headline
|archive title    = BArch-description.extra
|original title   = BArch-description.caption + BArch-description.1
|biased           = BArch-description.biased
|people           = BArch-description.people
|depicted place   = BArch-License.location
|photographer     = Information.Author
|date             = Information.Date
|ID               = BArch-License.signature
|other versions   = Information.other versions
}}

I believe that is correct mapping from the current templates to the BArch-image. Is that correct? --Jarekt (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that it is. I have added BArch-description.biased and BArch-license.location (that have I just noticed)
As a cosmetic change {{BArch-author-unknown}} could be converted to a standard {{unknown|author}}.
In most cases, we can remove the "permission" and "source" fields from information. But for derivative images, there might be some info we want to keep. That is we should pay attention to cases where information.permission is not set to [[Commons:Bundesarchiv]] or where the source is not {{BArch-link|.*}} (I do not know the correct regex for that but you see the idea). --Zolo (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
How about BArch-description.1 as in File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-97906, Warschauer Aufstand, Straßenkampf.jpg what do we do with that? --Jarekt (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I had forgotten that. I do not know what was originally intended but parameter "1" is also the "original title" (I added it above). We just need to make sure that the current description does not contain both "1" and "caption".

Mass application of this template[edit]

I wrote some AWB script for replacing current templates on Bunderarchiv files with {{BArch-image}}. Please verify that everything looks correct before more changes are made. See for example here. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds good. Actually "depicted people" (or "depicted person") may be better than "people" (more consistent with other names.
I am a bit unsure the "batch" parameter of {{BArch-License}} (alias "inventory" on the archives website):
Use it or drop it ?
Put it go to the "department" field, the ID field or some custom field ? I tries the department field but it may look a bit strange
it would probably make sense to have corresponding categories ("Category:Bundesarchiv - Bild 183"), but hidden automatic categories or standard categories ?)
Rather than adding it as a parameter shold also be possible to have the template compute it from the ID. --Zolo (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is potential use for it than let me copy it as well, so we do not loose it. We can probably extract it from {{{ID}}} but since we already have it, this would be easier. I do not want to start WWIII by categorizing Bundesarchiv images: we had such category structure, which was very useful for finding specific image (use CatScan to intersect Bundesarchiv-year category with Bundesarchiv-place category and you can actually find things) but it was all dismantled despite of a LOT complains (see here for example). I like the idea of {{BArch-inventory}} template, but I would skip the default option and not show anything. --Jarekt (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough... although when I see something like "Propagandakompanien der Wehrmacht", I would expect that clicking on it would lead me, to similar images from the same group, otherwise I do not much point. --Zolo (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That is true, that would be nice, but lets not worry about this now. We can always add it to the template latter.--Jarekt (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message about the new template at Commons talk:Bundesarchiv. --Zolo (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"deutsch"[edit]

Is the {{de}} useful ? I think the language templates are mostly useful to find the relevant template when there are more than one, but there is no choice, so I do not see any potential use. Beside, This file's caption is in French. --Zolo (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have strong opinions about those, so it is fine with me to remove them. I added them because I though all of them are in German and if one has a lot of descriptions in many languages in wiki description field than it it nice to also have language marked in original description field. Also language description templates and {{Description}} add html tags specifying which text is in what language, which might be nice for some automatic scanning tools. --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the overwhelming majority are in German, but still, it does not look nice for the few exceptions. Could it be useful to add span class="language de" directly for tools ? --Zolo (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed them. Another point that bothers me a bit is that it seems to call for translation, while translations should probably be in the "wiki description" (and errors from users seem to worry some people) --Zolo (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive description line[edit]

In the first line of "Archive description" it displays the message"

Description provided by the archive when the original description is incomplete or wrong the archive

Not sure exactly how this should read. The last two words "the archive" appear to be superfluous and don't make sense. Or perhaps "wrong the archive" should be replaced by "missing" ?. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is wrong perhaps some German speaker can check what the German version says at Template:BArch-image/i18n. --Jarekt (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
French googled translation = "Information provided by the archives where the original description is false or incomplete"
German googled translation = "The picture has no title or document of title is incomplete or incorrect, when captioning the image documents a new description (title = Archive) will be awarded."
So my first suggestion appears right - remove the trailing "the archive" --Tony Wills (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it was my (copy-paste) mistake. --Zolo (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"biased" message offensive[edit]

The "biased" boilerplate message in this template should be removed or modified so that the message can be selectively disabled once the image description and caption have been examined by a qualified editor. The universal and continuous display of the "biased" message borders on bigotry and I find it hard to believe that someone is getting away with this on Wikimedia. — Quicksilver@ 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the usual wiki solution is to rewrite it, fix it etc until it is not "biased". However, what we are asking people is to leave original descriptions alone even is biased, offensive or plainly incorrect. And something that might be fine to one "qualified editor" might be offensive to some other. That said, I think, technically it would not be hard to provide parameter that would have a little "softer" message if original historical descriptions are OK. However I do not envision anybody going through 82k files evaluating those descriptions. --Jarekt (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)