Template talk:Artwork

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Template talk:Painting)
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Artwork 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.

LUA and Wikidata[edit]

This template should be rebuild as LUA module at Module:Artwork and have the option to fallback to Wikidata, see phab:T89600 (part of Commons:Structured data). Multichill (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Use for objects[edit]

{{Edit request}}

Following discussion on Village pump, I have made {{Object}} a redirect to this temaplete, so that it can be used for museum objects, etc., which are not artworks. Accordingly, please sync from the sandbox, to add |maker=, |material= & |Place of discovery= parameters. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the translation for the new parameter does not exist on translatewiki. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so Andy Mabbett is proposing to add 3 new fields:
  • Place of discovery internationalized at {{I18n/location|discovery}}
  • maker no i18n yet
  • material no i18n yet
I would like to make sure that we have consensus about adding those fields and about precise name and placement. Traditionally we were trying not to add too many fields which would be only rarely used, and usually placed fields required for a single institution in specialized templates, like the ones in Category:Infobox templates: based on Artwork template. To me Place of discovery is the least controversial, I think we can use it for archeological artifacts. As for maker, which would be an alternative to "Author" and "Artist", I would propose to rename to creator. I think I run into that word being used more often in that context. At the moment we list medium, materials, techniques in the field medium. Would we use material in addition to medium or instead of medium? To me both of those field sound kind of the same and I am not convinced if we need both. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If we have, say, a limted editon ceramic plate, the artist may be Andy Warhol, but the maker could be Acme Ceramic Company Limited. Likewise a coin, where the artist is an individual engraver but the maker is Birmnigham Mint. It would be unusual to describe a railway locomotive as being in the "medium" of steel and brass. The alternative to adding these parameters, which was the recommendation at VP, is to fork the template. I would be content with either option, but a prompt decision would be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to use a creator field and add a "role" parameter in {{Creator}} to show what the creator has done. Actually I would support renaming "artist" to "creator" to avoid this sort of naming issues.
Currently, the place of discovery is sometimes provided through a {{discovery place}}, but I agree that a new field may be convenient.
I think the current "medium" field is fine for materials. It is currently used for both the material and for the technique used, but more often for the material. --Zolo (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy thanks for the examples - they are always useful. So the "maker" in your examples is more generic term for "manufacturer" that can also work in similar situations as "creator". I guess I am fine with this. Zolo, you suggest of renaming "Artist" to "Creator". I guess that would be the most generic term and would solve the issue of more specific terms not fitting the object well and we would not require separate artist/author/maker, or we would add to existing "artist"/"author" a "maker". I guess I could go both ways. I also feel like "Medium" and "materials" are close enough that they do not meed to be split. How some of those terms playing in other languages? Sometimes we come up with different fields in English, which translate to the same word in other languages. Such fields are really hard to explain. In Polish there are separate words for "maker"/"creator" and for "Medium"/"materials". --Jarekt (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Another case I encounter relatively often is engravings that require two creators: the original designer and the engraver. A creator field + {{Creator|role=}} could also accomodate this sort of cases.
All those words translate fine in French, except "medium" that sounds a bit odd, and is currently rendered as "Technique/material". --Zolo (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{Creator|role=}} would not be so easy since all Category:Creator templates would have to be modified (by adding |role={{{role}}}}) to allow passing the role parameter to the actual {{Creator}}. that why I prefer to use {{Occupation}} in front of creator template. However we could formalize it by creation of {{Creator role|creator|role}} which would be something like '''{{Occupation|{{{role|}}}}}''': {{Creator:{{{creator|}}}}}, but optimized to look properly and allowing stacking. Any other opinions about 3 proposed new fields? --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I added "Place of discovery". I added material as an alias to medium (alongside technique). I think we will have to make do with those 3 very related (but not identical) concepts to share a single medium field, but I added it as an alias for clarity and just in case we split them in the future. As for maker and an not sure what to do and would like to hear more opinions of people using this template. I do not want to add a field which will very rarely be used, but if other people think it is useful it also seems to be such a rarely used broad term. In the examples used as manufacturer/producer. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled. Can we move forward with this? Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes please! I find this a really useful template and it would be great if it could omnivorously ingest metadata for cultural artefacts from the Palaeolithic to today. In parallel it would be great to have Template:Specimen tidied up so it can deal with the majority of natural history objects from fossils to taxidermy. There will be some great fun edge cases such as: this fossil necklace but I think we should avoid worrying too much about nature/culture theory! Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

wikidata:File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - Two Dead Bohemian Waxwings - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

there is a wikidata icon leading to the main page and I do not see any entry in the artwork template. Are there any mistakes in the last changes?--Oursana (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, previously you could omit the "wikidata" field and the icon would not appear. With the current code, it looks like you have to set it to "no entry" to suppress the icon. I think you're right that this behavior is just an oversight with the most recent changes, I don't think it was intended to make the icon appear. In fact, the most recent changes also appear to have broken the demo functionality. —RP88 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It is my fault. I will try to fix it in the next few days. --Jarekt (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


When used in a category, such as Category:Birmingham Quran manuscript, this template throws an error if no "source" is included. Can this be fixed, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want to use that template for a category? See Template:Artwork#Additional information. --Leyo 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, The messages/categories like that can be suppresed by adding empty "strict=" parameter to the template. --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thank you for your helpful response. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don’t mark that source is “no source”[edit]


Now the template adds the fileinfotpl_src id to the source field, even if it contains only {{Source missing}}. As in {{information}}, this should be added only if the field displays source indeed. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)