Template talk:NARA-image-full

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

Why ?[edit]

Why create a dedicated template? Doesn’t {{Artwork}} do the trick ? Jean-Fred (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My purpose was to model the fields for the template after the National Archives' catalog records. It's certainly possible to manipulate other templates to do the same thing, but this one is more tailored to its intended use and includes some NARa-specific parameters (like the identifier) that make it much easier. It also means the description pages will hopefully be much more structured than they would be if everyone uses more general templates in their own way.

Additionally, the idea is that we will be able to create a tool that can easily translate a catalog record into the wikitext needed for upload, so that an editor can simply copy and paste the tool output into the upload form. This template would hopefully make that a lot more straightforward. That's my thinking, at least, but I am not really plugged into the Commons community and its conventions. If you have suggestions, I would love to hear them. Dominic (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The convention are to use standardised templates (the triumvirate {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Book}}) − and as a general rule custom stuff is discouraged (there are exceptions − on top of my head, {{Fotothek-Description}}).
But in cases like this, it kinda Just Makes Sense™ to have custom stuff. I do not really know what is best.
But do not worry and keep working on it : even if this custom one is discouraged, it can always be used as subst:ed at upload time. Would be handy in any case.
Jean-Fred (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to use a dedicated templates as long as we are not completely sure about how to organize it. In the long run, it will probably make sense to sust:ed it. Here I would suggest to base the template on {{artwork}} rather than {{information}} for at least two reasons:
  1. there is a "title" field, which would look better than writing "title" inside the "description" field.
  2. the name of the author appears at the beginning, which would be more readable for this kind of things.--Zolo (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd use artwork -- that is more for paintings. It has a separate author and photographer field, which could get confusing when dealing with actual photographs. But, I don't like the subheadings inside the Description field... if possible, I think the text should be combined to make it flow more like a normal description, and definitely not in italics, unless a Description override is provided (in which case it should be presented as plain text, with the original title and source info below it). But, that is the type of thing which can be changed at any time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not partial to the italics, if you want to get rid of it. The only reason I chose to use subheadings is that I wanted to distinguish descriptive text that comes from NARA and the descriptive text added by Wikimedians. I agree, though, that it can look a little funky, especially when there is only a title. Dominic (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As a general note, please feel free to make any aesthetic changes you think would be improvements. Actually, I would appreciate that. :-) What I really wanted to do with this was simply make it appear as normal as possible while using NARA's terminology to be able to clearly to fill in the metadata. If one of the fields would go better in a different place than I had it originally, that's fine. I am not much of a template coder, so some of the things I did were because I was limited by the fact that I was just plugging these into the {{Information}} template (for no other reason than that that was the standard template I was aware of; I don't really know if {{artwork}} would be more appropriate). Dominic (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

|Other pages=[edit]

I'm obviously doing something wrong here, but I was just trying to get an "|Other pages=" parameter, so we don't have to use the "Other pages" field for multi-page documents like we've been doing. Any help would be appreciated. Dominic (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do. What is the difference between 'Other pages" and "other_versions"? --Jarekt (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
They are supposed to look the same, except that "other pages" will be for listing the other pages for multi-page documents (e.g. at File:A bill to provide a temporary government for the territory of Arizona, page 2.tif) while "other versions" should be fore listing the image's TIFF/JPG/DjVu/PDF equivalents (and derivatives?). It looked a little confusing mixing the other pages of a document with other versions of the same file, as we were doing. Dominic (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done I think it is fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Full of errors ?[edit]

{{NARA errors}} is currently placed on top of this template. It reads "Please do not overwrite original files: [..] Please help us by reporting errors! [..]. "

If there are not too many errors in these files, I think it's preferable to present the description in a way that it doesn't starts with maintenance requests and instructions on overwriting. The template could easily go below the standard information template. --  Docu  at 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I kind of dislike this box as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"full of errors" is an odd (slightly insulting) way of putting it. I want to communicate two things: upload new versions under a different name, and if you feel the urge to correct an error, please report it so that NARA can update their own record. I notice a lot of people have been doing things like uploading crops and other small changes over the original versions, or making edits directly to NARA's copied metadata. This is natural, because it's how things normally work on Commons, but it's not a great idea when we're trying to faithfully represent archival documents and metadata. It's a wiki, so feel free to change the template to communicate that in a better way. I'm not a very good graphic designer or template whiz. :-) Dominic (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
« because it's how things normally work on Commons » − well, we do have COM:OVERWRITE. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Overwriting happens way too often. I don't think this is limited to NARA images. People even replace FP with their own version . --  Docu  at 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There is an {{original}} template. May not be precisely accurate in this case but it does have the same message. It may look a little less alarming than the yellow template at the top. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I was actually just trying to match the yellow color scheme from the other NARA box included on all these pages, not to be alarming. ;-) I'm not offended if anyone has a better way of presenting this; in fact, I'd appreciate it. I don't mind {{original}} with slightly modified language, if that is preferred. Dominic (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yellow hint below file description unclear[edit]

The yellow hint below the filedescription "The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields."" is quite unclear if you don't know what it is about already. It should probably be reworded a little so it is clearer. See Commons:Village pump#Don't fix it for a discussion that arised because of this issue. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Text parameter[edit]

I have made an edit to this template and updated the doc page. Please confirm that this is the correct behaviour for the template and make any further changes that are needed to the doc page. Allen4names (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source field[edit]

I'm not entirely sure why there's a custom "source" field. The source field that goes to {{Artwork}} says "Intentionally blank". I'm asking because this source field isn't machine-readable, so every image that uses this template is a file with no machine-readable source. Anon126 ( ) 04:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The {{Artwork}} source field is a strange one (for historical reasons) and says "Source/Photographer" and holds either where the image was downloaded from or the name of the photographer. The "Photographer" part made no sense to in case of NARA images (since that would be th so in the custom template we used a regular "Source". If there is some machine-readable marking you would add to it, we can figure out how. Also we might switch from {{Artwork}} to {{Photograph}} which just might be a better fit. --Jarekt (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's quite simple; just add id=fileinfotpl_src to the relevant {{Information field}}. Anon126 ( ) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{edit request}}

If the only reason for the custom "Source" field is to stop it from saying "Source/Photographer", please add id=fileinfotpl_src to the "Source" {{Information field}} for machine readability. Anon126 ( ) 17:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove extra brace[edit]

{{edit request}}

There is an extra brace before {{Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files}}. Anon126 ( ) 04:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How to get rid of "Transcribe" button[edit]

I was just browsing and noticed that a few images were already transcribed based one a DJVU file built from the TIFF files at Commons.

The DJVU doesn't have the "Transcribe this" link but the images do. Is it possible to get rid of this link now? Thanks, The Haz talk 01:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think |text=no should do it.--Jarekt (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT USE[edit]

This template is unacceptable, some issues:

  1. NARA-place is far too inaccurate, therefore an {{object location}} is REQUIRED for any media commons wants to keep. However, {{NARA-image-full}} doesn't permit this, by adding cruft both above and below the info. It also contains Google Maps spam within the info, but that's an "Institution" problem on the side of commons.
  2. There is no decent permission row for the REQUIRED {{PD-USgov}} mark, instead the media are additionally tagged with {{NARA-cooperation}} in an extraneous license section, for those reader who missed far too many NARA tags in the summary section.
  3. The warnings not to overwrite the original TIFF are REQUIRED, but out of line on a derived JPEG. Likewise any info helping to find the original record is REQUIRED, but not to a point where commons duplicates the complete junk found in those original records, it's undocumented and meaningless here.
  4. The error reporting is too complicated and/or does not work, e.g., a trivial horizontal flip cost me some hours today after I stumbled over the request.

Be..anyone (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]


Please change "Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without an ARC Identifier" to Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without a National Archives Identifier, as the name of the identifier has changed. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Awesome! Thank you! jdx Re: 08:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)