Template talk:Institution

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Institution has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.
Please test any changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in a user subpage, and consider discussing changes at the talk page before implementing them.

Use outside of art organizations?

I work with an organization which has photos of household products, and which has applied free licenses to some product photos.

In the Template:Institution documentation, it seems that the expected use is for art, and that the institution template might be used in the template:artwork.

I applied the institution template into the default template:information, which is what template:artwork replaces if it is used. In my case, I replaced the "author" field with the institution template, because that is what seemed like the most natural use.

Is it correct to say that when the default information template is used, then if the institution template is used, then it should go into the author field? Can anyone show examples of an organization which is sharing files on Commons, using the institution template, and which is not an art organization? Thanks for any comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry It is a little unorthodox but I think it is the best solution. You could also do "unknown photographer working for {{Institution:Consumer Reports}}". --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest to use {{Artwork}}! It should not only be used for artworks but for all physical objects with an esthetical approach, hence for industrial design, too. But I don't think Consumer Products should be in the author field and it should be "unknown photographer working for {{Institution:Consumer Reports}}" since the "subject" of the file/image isn't the photo which should be described by {{Information}} or {{Artwork}} but the coffemaker. I don't see why the consumer report itself should be interesting for Commons, what is interesting is the coffemaker. So like this:
Author Zojirushi
Title Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100
Object type Coffemaker
Description
English: Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.

The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".

Other project data: Rolling Ratings 2016

CU: 06881-0031
Source/Photographer photographer: Brendan Wixted,
Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The author information is needed for the license and proper attribution. Maybe if we use {{Art Photo}} template than we can separate information about the photograph from the information about the object in the photograph. --Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, of course! --Marsupium (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jarekt, Marsupium: I am feeling uncertain and would like more information, if either of you can tell more. I was imagining that there could be a simple and certain process for any organization to share media files and use the institution template. I hesitate to use {{artwork}} because that does not seem like a natural fit for my organization. It might be a short-term solution but in the long term I want any organization, including government agencies, research institutions, universities, and GLAM institutions outside the arts to have a good choice here.
I like the extra options in the {{Artwork}} template but am unsure about directing people to label odd file uploads as "artwork", when I think this is not what people commonly call art. Here are both template versions, updated based on the above suggestions:
Information template
Description
English:
Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.
The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".
Other project data:
Rolling Ratings 2016
Story: Coffee Makers Brand: Zojirushi Model: Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100 CU: 06881-0031
Photographer: Brendan Wixted
Date
Source
Author Consumer Reports
Artwork template
Author Consumer Reports
Title Zojirushi Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100
Object type Coffemaker
Description
English: Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.

The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".

Other project data: Rolling Ratings 2016

CU: 06881-0031
Source/Photographer photographer: Brendan Wixted,
Here are the problems in these cases:
  • As Marsupium says, the subject matter is not getting its own field. "Zojirushi coffeemaker" is free text in the description field. It would be nice to somehow note the creator of what is depicted, "Zojirushi", and the name of what is depicted, "Zojirushi Model: Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100" For the artwork template, I think that "object type" is supposed to be something like "painting" or "sculpture", not free options like "coffeemaker".
  • I am not sure that {{Information}} welcomes the use of {{Institution}} in the source field.
Other thoughts about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jarekt, Marsupium: I am feeling uncertain and would like more information, if either of you can tell more. I was imagining that there could be a simple and certain process for any organization to share media files and use the institution template. I hesitate to use {{artwork}} because that does not seem like a natural fit for my organization. It might be a short-term solution but in the long term I want any organization, including government agencies, research institutions, universities, and GLAM institutions outside the arts to have a good choice here.
I like the extra options in the {{Artwork}} template but am unsure about directing people to label odd file uploads as "artwork", when I think this is not what people commonly call art. Here are both template versions, updated based on the above suggestions:
Information template
Description
English:
Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.
The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".
Other project data:
Rolling Ratings 2016
Story: Coffee Makers Brand: Zojirushi Model: Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100 CU: 06881-0031
Photographer: Brendan Wixted
Date
Source
Author Consumer Reports
Artwork template
Author Consumer Reports
Title Zojirushi Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100
Object type Coffemaker
Description
English: Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.

The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".

Other project data: Rolling Ratings 2016

CU: 06881-0031
Source/Photographer photographer: Brendan Wixted,
Here are the problems in these cases:
  • As Marsupium says, the subject matter is not getting its own field. "Zojirushi coffeemaker" is free text in the description field. It would be nice to somehow note the creator of what is depicted, "Zojirushi", and the name of what is depicted, "Zojirushi Model: Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100" For the artwork template, I think that "object type" is supposed to be something like "painting" or "sculpture", not free options like "coffeemaker".
  • I am not sure that {{Information}} welcomes the use of {{Institution}} in the source field.
Other thoughts about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


May be the best way would be to use {{Art Photo}} and keep information about the object separate from information about Consumer Report Photograph. See below. --Jarekt (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Object

Title Zojirushi Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100
Object type Coffemaker
Permission
(Reusing this file)
PD-icon.svg This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.

Photograph

Description
English:
Consumer Reports tested this Zojirushi coffeemaker.
The Consumer Reports archives file name is "RR-2016-CM-Zojirushi-0031-ID".
Other project data:
Rolling Ratings 2016
Story: Coffee Makers Brand: Zojirushi Model: Fresh Brew Plus EC-YSC100 CU: 06881-0031
Date
Photographer Brendan Wixted
Source
Consumer Reports logo.png Consumer Reports owns this media and has licensed it for reuse with attribution under the below-described Creative Commons license. This is in accordance with the Wikimedia Commons licensing policy. Consumer Reports provided this to Wikimedia Commons as part of an ongoing cooperative project described on English language Wikipedia at WP:Consumer Reports.

English | +/−

Permission
(Reusing this file)
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Consumer Reports
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

OTRS Wikimedia

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2016051610024852.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard.
Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016051610024852

Other versions Derivative works of this file: Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker alt.tif
@Bluerasberry: As for {{Artwork}}: It is not just for artworks, more for objects in a broader sense (cf. also this). It carries the title for historical reasons. --Marsupium (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to documentation here

I actually do not understand this template, so if I misunderstand, then please someone speak up. Here is my current understanding -

  1. Template:Institution is a useful template to use on the file upload page of all the files that a single institution might upload to Wikimedia Commons
  2. It could be a standard recommendation in Wikimedia Commons that any institution sharing media files use this template to identify their uploads
  3. Any sort of institution is encouraged to use this template, including GLAM organizations, government agencies, universities, research institutes, or any other kind of organization that is uploading sets of media files to Wikimedia Commons

The documentation for this template currently says,

{{Institution}} creates an infobox for GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) institutions to be customized in Institution: namespace pages and used in Gallery" field of {{Artwork}} in File description pages.

Based on my understanding above, I propose to change this documentation to

{{Institution}} creates an infobox for any kind of institution to be customized in Institution: namespace pages and used in the appropriate field of the {{Information}} template or its specialized variants. Wikimedia Commons contributors may find this template useful to use as a way to identify the relationship between a file on Commons and an institution.
Specialized versions of {{Information}} include the {{Artwork}} and {{Photograph}} templates. Because this template is shared for use among any kind of institution, including GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) institutions, government agencies, universities, research institutions, or any other sort of organization, some sorts of organization make variations of the {{Information}} template for their field's specialized needs. The Institution template can communicate any of the following:
  1. The institution as the original source for a file on Wikimedia Commons
  2. The institution as the physical location for the subject of a photograph on Wikimedia Commons, regardless of whether the institution provided the photograph
The {{Institution}} template for an institution is not a controlled by the institution itself, nor is it restricted for use on that institution's own uploads. Instead, anyone may use the template to note a relationship between a file on Commons and an institution. For example, a museum might upload files to Wikimedia Commons, and visitors to the museum might take their own photographs and upload those to Commons. The photographs would have different copyright owners, but in some way, each could be tagged with the institution template to note that the subject matter of the file is related to the institution.

Thoughts? Am I understanding this correctly? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two places majority of Institution templates are placed:
  1. Template:Artwork: Institution field (in the past also known as "gallery" or "museum" field. When displayed it shows up as "Current location" field and we mostly meant it as the current permanent location, so when piece is traveling we do not change it. You can find similar fields in most other Infobox templates except {{Information}} template.
  2. documentation in of the top-level category for the institution.
In majority of the cases those are the only 2 places where you will find Institution templates. For "original source for a file on Wikimedia Commons" we usually do not use Institution templates, but source templates like the ones found in Category:GLAM templates. See for example File:Józef Piłsudski - List do towarzyszy w Londynie - 701-001-021-037.pdf where you have separate institution and source templates. --Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I updated the description a bit. is it better? --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Tool for matching Institution templates with Wikidata

I just found this Tool created for matching Institution templates with Wikidata. in case someone wants to play with it. --Jarekt (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata use for the name parameter

This template will certainy need a total rewrite but we can probably start with defaulting the name to parameter to {{label|{{{wikidata}}}}} (can't do it, lost my admin rights). --Zolo (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zolo: you can edit Template:Institution/sandbox with your proposed changes and use {{edit protected}}. Multichill (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: ok did it. While I was at it, I also added Wikidata for other parameters, see Template talk:Institution/sandbox. That should work, but without Lua the code feels rather intricated "homecat" parameter.
In terms of performance, using Wikidata unsurprisingly requires more memory. For the Rijksmuseum that's 8.6 Mb instead of 4.6 Mb when used in the institution namespace, and 5.8 instead of 3.6 mb in another namespace (limit is 50 Mb per page). --Zolo (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I tried your proposed edits and there is an issue, see for example:
{{Institution/sandbox
 |name        =
 |native name =
 |location    =
 |latitude    =
 |longitude   =
 |established =
 |website     =
 |image       =
 |homecat     =Van Abbemuseum
 |linkback    =Institution:Van Abbemuseum
 |authority   =
 |wikidata    =Q1782422
}}

which shows:

I was hoping that the new code will fetch the missing fields but it does not. I think that the issue is that you have to use {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{data|property=...|item=...}} }} syntax instead of {{{1|{{data|property=...|item=...}} }}}. Most Institution templates have the field names just not the values. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does not work if the parameter name is added added to the template but left blank... I added the "if" for the name parameter, but doing it for all parameters will make the code all but unreadable. I'll rather try to rewrite it in Lua, I see you have already tried {{Creator}}. --Zolo (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
LUA would be much better, but I'm quite the newbie when it comes to LUA. Some time ago I made Phab:T89599 and phab:T89597 to keep track of this conversion. Multichill (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lua version

(spin off of the thread above)

Ok, I started Module:Institution. It seems relatively straightforward, but it may take a while to make it suitable for deployment. --Zolo (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In Template:Institution/layout, I see a "stub label" parameter that does not seem to be usable from anywhere, can I get rid of it ? --Zolo (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: [1]? Does seem to be used, see Category:Institution template stubs. I don't think we need that one when we start using Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If stubs have q-code and they can pull stuff of wikidata than they should not be stubs anymore. The remaining ones we might just need to delete. There were over a 1000 stubs at some point and it seems like we are down to 400 and all I tried had a q-code, so I think we are in a good shape. Zolo can you base your module on Module:Creator? the templates were almost identical at some point and it would be easier to maintain if the modules are as well. I really need to finish and roll out Module:Creator. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok I think I now have a working Lua version, but I could use help with testing and moving translations to Module:I18n/institution. Note that categorization is namespace dependent, may need more tests in the institution and category namespaces.
Everything should work as in the current version, except that it does not add Category:Institution templates with authority control data and Category:Categories with authority control data. This categories are currently added through {{Authority control}}, that might make sense to handle it through Module:Authority control.
I have reused Module:Creator, including some functionalities that do not appear needed for "institution" at the moment. But I made a few changes, most notably:
  • I created a table containing parameters passed from the Wikitext, their equivalent Wikidata value, their default "demo" value and the category to be added when the parameter is missing. I found it easier to work with, especially for adding maintenance categories, which are rather numerous. This way we can also more easily add tracking categories to see which parameters come from Wikidata.
  • the args variable containing arguments coming from the Wikitext and others is defined at the module level rather than the function level. parameters containing only empty string are discarded. It means that the demo parameter should be using this way "|demo = true " rather than just "|demo = ". I think that's more intuitive, and that matches the way parameters behave most of the time in Wiki templates.
@Multichill the "stub" parameter is used but I don't see the any use of the "stub label" parameter. Anyway, with Wikidata inside, we should indeed probably get rid of the whole "sub" thing. For example with {{Institution/lua}}, Institution:Santo Spirito, Florence does not look at all like a stub. --Zolo (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Good job! Probably add some tests to Template:Institution/testcases to see if everything works and at some point swap this template. Probably need to baby sit it after the swap to debug any problems. Multichill (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


I added tests at Template:Institution/testcases. A few remarks:

  1. Image size in the Lua version is that of Template:Creator, which is a bit smaller than that of template:Institution. Not sure which is better.
  2. Image size is set through an imagesizeparameter in the current template. The Lua version uses imgwidth. Not sure which is better either, but we should probably have the same parameter for creators and institutions. Note that the current imagesize parameter does not properly works for all languages, as it is only passed in the English version of the template.
  3. bullet lists are broken (both in the current template and in the Lua version).
  4. Template:Creator adds substantially html ids and classes than the institution template. Perhaps we should add more for institution, though I am not very clear about the practical use. --Zolo (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Update Template:Institution/lang and it actually contains more than 40 languages. @Multichill: I seem to remember you were active on translatewiki, it might be worth moving it there ? I suspect "Coordinates" and "Website" are already there but I don't know how to look for them. --Zolo (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)