Template talk:Artwork/Archiv/2011

(Pseudo)namespace or category ?

Since it does not appear possible at the moment to create "categories in anyhting but name", I am not sure which is best between using categories or a namespace/pseudonamespace. Maybe we have to vote. Here is a small comparison table, feel free to expand.--Zolo (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

	Category	Namespace
functionalities	Could make it easier to generate lists of artworks in a category looking like Creator:Berthe Morisot/works2 (if infos are stored in an "artwork" page, there will be one intermediary category to bypass, so that would be more tricky)	Having a separate namespace could make searches and formatting more precise, and it gets transcludable to Wikipedias
maintenance	requires ugly and easily forgettable "onlyinclude" tags	Would lead to the creation of many pages which may not be very easy to maintain. Having a category + an info + photo pages would also make browsing a bit slower.

1. I vote for a new Namespace. This would be consistent with other namespaces like Creator: and Museum:. Categories are far too complicated to manage for this purpose. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you remind what is the purpose of proposed (Pseudo)namespace or category? Is it something like Category:Infobox templates: based on Artwork template? --Jarekt (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

More or less: I was following up an idea discussed some time ago: store data about the artwork in a different place from the data about the file, at least in some cases. This way they can be shared by various images of the same work.--Zolo (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One other question if we use a namespace is: can we call it "object" rather than "artwork". I don't think it is too much of a problem to call the "artwork" and use it for non-artworks, but a namespace is much more visible for the end-user.

Could we try that for Category:Collections of the Muséum de Toulouse ? The museum has entered a partnership with Commons, so we should try to have something good. It happens that there are several photographs of each object so it could make sense to use the namespace there - but the word "artwork" is clearly not the right one in this case (I must say it may be one more reason for using categories directly).--Zolo (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is kind of a linguistic illusion but somehow I feel that {{Category definition}} seems to widen the meaning of "category" and so I feel it quite appealing to have

{{Category definition: Artwork
 |artist=John Doe
 |title=Portrait of Myself
 |etc.}}

This "category definition" template could also allow to distinguish categories tbat are really artwork categories from categories that transclude {{Artwork}} without being real artwork categories. So could we do that ?--Zolo (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Duck-shaped box - Louvre E219 for an implementation. The things that bother me are:

1. the "onlyincludes" but it could be included by default in a preload form and a bot could check it.
2. the uncollapsed museum and artist templates--Zolo (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But apart from that it is true that it avoids the trouble of having a category plus a data page to maintain.--Zolo (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So I'll use categories. If it is considered better to use a dedicated namespace, it can still be moved later on by a bot (the move could also be done the other way round but we should probably avoid create many pages and delete them afterwards.)
I would suggest to add the artwork template with a photo at the beginning of the page. Does Category:Duck-shaped box - Louvre E219 (hopefully the museum template will soon be collapsed by default). If so is there a way to autmatically adjust the image size to the artwork template size ?
Yet another point: should the information template come before or after the artork template. I think this is better after but in the case of a painting detail, it may be confusing (if people don't notice it is a detail). A possible solution could be a "detail" parameter that would display a header like: "this image shows a detail of the following artwork."--Zolo (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

More extensive testing

I have refined on my previous attempts: see Category:Neolithic artefacts in the Muséum de Toulouse. It uses two templates

• {{Category definition: Object}} in the category. Is is basically an artwork template with some added parameters:
  • homecat (required) used to call the page in files
  • image (required) so that the most valued image of the artwork is more visible
  • type (optional) mostly useful for little known archaelogical objects; it should allow to have at least one word translated when the rest of the description is not.
  • defaultsort (optional), simply a defaultsort
  • + The "strict" parameter is always on.

• {{Object photo}} for files. It is an iformation template plus an "object" parameter to call the object description.

Some remarks:

• The other versions is replaced by {#ifexpr: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:{{{Homecat|{{{homecat|}}}}}}}} > 1 | see [[Category:{{{homecat|}}]] }}</i>. I think it is the only maintainable solution we have.
• It would really be nice if the information template had a "strict" parameter (see File:Durer Young Hare.jpg)
• {{Category definition: Object}} automatically categorizes the files in the homecat. Given the very high number of categories that may be concerned and the generally low images / object ratio, I think it is more convenient. But obviously it can be changed if it is too rigid.
• To limit depth, and to get a nicer layout for the image, it may make sense to merge {{Category definition: Object}} with {{Artwork}}, but to keep it reasonably simple to use, it would require some codes like strict = {{#if: {{{homecat|}}} | 1 | {{{strict|}}} }}--Zolo (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to say... First, it is impressive and, although I don't support the use of categories by artifact (they are heavy and I would definitly prefer a [pseudo-]namespace), your proposal does seem to be the only complete and consistent approach by now. That's a big point and that's great work.

On the other hand, the complexity it involves leaves me a bit confused... I don't feel the need for 2 new templates, and {{Category definition: Object}} has quite new esoteric params for me: is it really necessary to add homecat and defaultsort? And what about type, which is by far too magic for me...

Can't we just make some minor and simple changes to the templates we already have to fit in the scheme you proprose (I mean using {{Artwork}} instead of {{Category definition: Object}} and {{Description}} instead of {{Object photo}})? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Once the template is stable, I'll do a documentation page. For now I try to answer without being too lengthy:

• I would also support incorporating {{Category definition: Object}} functionalities into {{Artwork}}.
• I think {{Object photo}} is much more convenient than a mere {{Information}} because:
  • You just need to write object=XX rather than {{category:XX}}. The page remains more readable.
  • It provides a quick link to the photograph description part.
  • If we get a "strict" option in {{Information}}, it can be added by default to {{Object photo}}.
• About type:
  • It is not absolutely necessary and is probably useless for sculptures and paintings.
  • The way it works is probably not immediately clear but I think it is easy to use: you just need to type plain text (it doesn't work so well right now simply because the list of supported types is in infancy).
  • I think it is the best way to provide many translations for objects that not so many people know (I suppose you see what I mean with Greek pottery). I would like to add a link to Wikipedia too but I have have decided to wait hoping that we would have an easier and more maintainable way to do that in the future.
  • An alternative would be using {{Object type}} directly in the description. But it would nest templates and I don't think it is so intuitive for contributors.
  • The "type" option was not displayed in the category in my previous proposal, if have changed that. It is an ugly provisional way of displaying it, but you see the idea.
• About homecat, without the "type" option, it doesn't serve any purpose, with it it provides simpler link to the category page. Anyway it could be included automatically in a preload form and the missing ones could be added by bots.
• About defaultsort. I think it is neater that {{DEFAULTSORT:}} but it is definitely not indispensable.--Zolo (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC) (revised --Zolo (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

I have simplified the way the "type" parameter works. Better ?--Zolo (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not removed "homecat", but ~changed a bit the way it is used: now it doesn't look like a bug when one forgets to fill it.--Zolo (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

template on a single page + labels "gallery field"

We have an annoying 40 transclusion depth limit, and apparently it won't change with the new version of MediaWiki. Could this template be on a single page, I think it would gain save at least two of depth. (Put another way, I want to make Category:Bedroom in Arles (Amsterdam) transcludable but I am short by one on depth, so to speak). I can create {{Artwork/label}} - waiting for the translatewiki messages. --Zolo (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for translatewiki messages. May be we should lobby for faster switch. --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From #Translatewiki messages, I am not sure anything has been sent to them yet. Should I contact Multichill ?--Zolo (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would not hurt to ask. I am mostly curios what is the process is it something we can do or is it more complicated. --Jarekt (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename gallery field

I think the current "Gallery" field should be called "Institution" (or "Museum"). Gven the existence of <gallery></gallery>, "gallery" is slightly confusing.--Zolo (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support good idea - I will change it if there is no opposition to it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment How about just calling it "location"? --  Docu  at 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have field called "location" used for location within the museum (floor/ room name). In older files the field was (and often still is) used for city. --Jarekt (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done sort of. I added parameter "institution" as an alternative to still valid "gallery", in the main template but layout still uses Gallery. --Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:"{{Str left|{{{Artist|}}}|1}}"|"<"|

Is there something I don't understand about "ifeq" or is it supposed to be "{" rather than "<" in {{Artwork/layout}} (artist field) ?--Zolo (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Try a few tests in a sandbox to see what is going on, but this line of code picks the first character from {{{Artist|}}} and if artist is and creator template than it is at this point already expanded to a table and the first character is "<". Try Special:ExpandTemplates and expand {{Creator:Rembrandt}} to see. This is used to see it there is a need to try to see if there exist creator template matching authors name and if creator template is used than an expensive call to ifexist function is avoided. --Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see now thanks. It seems quite logical once you understand it.--Zolo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Depicted person/place

Just a small question with regards to templates associated with {{Artwork}}.

{{Depicted person}}, {{Depicted place}} and {{Signed}} (and probably others) are all used in various artwork contexts but look different in that the latter two are in bold font whereas the first one isn't. Just wanted to check if there was a specific reason for the difference and if not then if there is a preference either way since a standardised look in my opinion would work best. /Lokal_Profil 17:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

{tl|depicted person}} was apparently created to be used as a field similar to "artist" and "title" in some images. It was not originally meant to be used in {{Artwork}}. I think it makes sens to have the same layout for {{Depicted place}}.

Many art-related templates were created before {{Artwork}}. At the time we use {{Information}} or other templates that had less fields than artwork. It made sense to have some key words in bold, but I think we can remove most of it. By the way, I think {{Signed}} can be replaced by the more comprehensive {{Inscription}} (it is heavier to use but the upside is that we need only know one templates for all types of inscriptions).--Zolo (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

see translated versions

When we try to see translations of the template, the fields that were translated through translateWiki don't show as translated (unless we add "?uselang=XX" in the url of course). Admittedly this is not a big problem, especially if we get translateWiki for all fields, but would there way a way to fix that ? --Zolo (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I found it quite annoying too, but I think the only way to fix it is to translate the rest of the fields. --Jarekt (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

title parameter

Relatively few public domain artworks or objects have a real "title" in the sense that their creator has given them some name. I thought that it was fine to use the title parameter for customary titles like Mona Lisa or en:Burney Relief, preferably with some indication as to the origin of this title (or at least with a reference that way user:Vincent Steenberg does. Apparently this is debatable practice. Anny thought on that ?--Zolo (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Artist

The scope of the template is quite broad and the word "artist" may sound a bit odd for companies, cartograhers etc. Should it be replaced by "creator" ?--Zolo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support. Creator is more appropriate. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The template name is "Artwork" and "artwork" is produced by "artist". We might no know the artist name - only his company, or an artist can be a cartographer - I do not see a problem there. Like with past discussion on "institution" vs. "museum" or about name "creator", I prefer a clear specific name which captures most of the range of uses over broad all capturing name which mean something different to different people. --Jarekt (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Other fields

The other fields thing appears broken : when used, the code appears on the top of the template instead of adding a new row. Any ideas? Jean-Fred (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to work fine in the sample below --Jarekt (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Title
Artist	Artist name
Title	Title
Date	between 1503 and 1505 date QS:P571,+1503-00-00T00:00:00Z/8,P1319,+1503-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1505-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Medium	oil on poplar wood
Dimensions	76.8 × 53 cm (30.2 × 20.8 in)
Source/Photographer	source
Field Name InfoField	Field Value

Oh, one has to specify style=html ? Did not know about that. Thanks Jarekt. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Template {{Information}} is based on wiki tables, most other infobox templates are based on html tables which produce more readable code. As a result the other field hack uses different code in both cases. At some point I added style parameter to {{Information field}} but forgot to document it. Sorry about it - I will add info about it in the documentation --Jarekt (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bug in the author field

Using this template, the record creator: Creator goes out of the artwork box (it is displayed above the blue box) whenever the Author parameter is non-empty (it works fine when it is empty). Don't know how to solve that. --Zolo (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bad one. I do not thing anybody tried to used bullets with creator templates in the author field before, since code like "artist=A: {{Creator:Paul Aichele}} B: {{Creator:Paul Aichele}}" works just fine, but it should be fixed. I will look into it, but if anybody else has any ideas please help. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is strange:

• I get this issue with Artwork+Creator, artwork+Institution, Book+Creator and Book+Institution with 2 bullets and 2 creator/institution templates
• No problem with 2 creator/institution templates without bullets, with 2 bullets and no creator/institution templates or a bullet with creator/institution template and bullet without. Also no problem with Information template which uses very different mechanism to create table.
• Special:ExpandTemplates with the same code as User:Jarekt/e parses correctly while User:Jarekt/e does not

This last bit worries me the most. Is Special:ExpandTemplates broken? I think that there will be no fast fixes here. Can we change Template:NARA-image-full so it does not run into this problem? --Jarekt (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can change Template:NARA-image-full, except for that there should be one less new line when a creator template is used that when it is not, so it looks a bit ugly.--Zolo (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

special insitutions, customized templates

It appears that for some institutions (NARA, the British Museum perhaps) template:artwork is not optimal, and some degree of customization may be desirable. On the other hand, this template was created to get uniformization, which is certainly a major concern, so we should probably avoid recreating too many brand new templates. One option I see is: allow customized templates based on artwork and in the same time make artwork more customizable. For example, label names could be customizable, so that "accession number" could be rendered as ID, or "artist" as "author". It would most of the machine readability, while sounding more natural/technically correct--Zolo (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was struggling trying to fit requirements of Template:NARA-image-full into format of Template:Artwork and there was no easy way to fit NARA matadata into our fields. I do not think proposed customizations would help. That said, I was also noticing that for some objects "author" is more applicable than "artist", same might be true with "accession number" and "ID". I agree that allowing user to pick one or the other would be beneficial. May be we can allow the template to show one or the other depending on parameter used by the file. --Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see two solutions. Either an "artist" parameter and an "author" an author parameter or an "artist" and an "artist label" parameter. The second solution is more complicated but also more flexible.--Zolo (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is to add a few more "other_fields" parameters like "other_fields_1" etc. to allow addition of fields at different locations, for example after "artist", after "description" and after "notes"in addition to already existing "other_fields" which can add fields at the very end. This approach can accommodate easy customization. --Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is manageable, yes it is definitely more customizable. Something like {{Nordic Museum artwork |other field 2 = {{{original description|}}} |other field 2 label = orginal description But then in the end it may end up being simpler to split up template:artwork, using something like en:template:infobox/row, so that we can easily create new templates using the building blocks.--Zolo (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The syntax is better than that see last example of Template:Information field/doc and imagine possibility of injecting those fields at other locations within {{Artwork}} template. I do not expect need for so many infoboxes here as to need something like en:template:infobox. --Jarekt (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay I see--Zolo (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done I added few extra "other_fields" in 3 key locations so we can inject new fields not only at the end but also inbetween other fields. See {{NARA-image-full}} for an example of customized {{Artwork}} template, where "Artist" was renamed to "Author", "Source/Photographer" was renamed to "Source", "Accession number" was renamed to "Record ID", and extra "Record creator" field was added. --Jarekt (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Transition to Translatewiki labels

As some of you might have noticed in Template_talk:Artwork#Translatewiki_messages, we are in the process of switching to Translatewiki labels. As a result in the coming weeks you should expect new version of the template with no subtemplates, current draft is in Template:Artwork/sandbox, and deletion of most of current subtemplates. In order to simplify code of Template:Artwork/sandbox I am also planing on replacing and retiring many of the alternative parameter names, including ones using capital letters. --Jarekt (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Messages just became active thanks to Roan. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Switched to the single template with translatewiki-based translations. I will wait for a day or two to make sure it is working fine and delete some of the unused subtemplates.

I looked at {{Information}} and they support parameters with and without capitalization of first letter. I will use the same convention there. I might replace and retire some other alternative parameter names, currently used. --Jarekt (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there an easy way of finding all the "MediaWiki:Wm-license-artwork-*" messages on translatewiki? /Lokal_Profil 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this list. Multichill (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What happenned to title thhough ? It seems that many translations are missing (including French and Spanish)--Zolo (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lokal_Profil 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zolo, In the past we used wm-license-book-title with 72 translations. But during transition to translatewiki we switched to our own wm-license-artwork-title which at the moment has only 21 translations, and no fr or es version. I assume that the reason for two "titles" is that in some languages book title might use different word than painting title. I assume that The problem will correct itself soon as the new translations are added. --Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done I think the transition is finalized. I deleted all unused subpages of {{Artwork}} and {{Painting}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please add the Spanish (:es) for Title (that is, Título)? Thanks in advance. --Zaqarbal (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

whitespace oddity

This version looks as if there was a leading whitespace in the "medium" and "accesion number" fields. It somehow disappears in the following revision (no idea of what happend I tend to be confused with white spaces)--Zolo (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Yes there were extra spaces. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

customized templates

Given that some institutions, inscluding several that have teamed up with Wikimedia, have quite specific requirements for their documents, should we use more customized templates for batch uploads ? For the Nordic Museum, it could (roughly) look like Template:Nordiska museet image/testcases--Zolo (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Customized templates are fine when image metadata differs significantly from fields in {{Artwork}} and {{Artwork}} can not be easily used. Customized templates are fine, but they add another layer of templates adding to expansion depth limit issues. They also need to be maintained and sometimes internationalized. They are also less readable to people used to our few standard templates. So I think it is simpler for everyone if we avoid them if possible. One approach, often used by user:Multichill, is to create such templates but substitute them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Artwork series

Is there a template or some other preferred method to upload several images of paintings (or other works of art)? On each image description page, I'd like to have the name of the series and links to all other images in the series but without typing all of this each time. bamse (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You can create a templates using {{Art series}}, as in {{The Famous Scenes of the Eastern Capital}} Parameter 1 for the name of the series parameter 2 for the number of the work within the series (if relevant). The template also has a category parameter for autocategorization. It can make the maintenance of some templates significantly easier but it has some significant drawbacks and should be avoided. To link to other images in the series you can add a link in the series name like {{Art series|1=[[:Category:My series|My series]]}}--Zolo (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would rather not link to the category of the series since there are often many images of varying quality. I'd rather link to a certain set of similar images (equal colors, resolutions,...). This way I'd also be able to sort the images. Basically what I am looking for is something like a "Navbox" on wikipedia. If I use a navbox template like this on a certain page it provides links to all articles in the series without linking to the article it is used on. Is there something like that for images on commons? That is, I'd like to create a template in which I specify a set of images in a series and when used in an image description page, the template shows all other images (but not to the image on whose description page it is used on). bamse (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is also a {{Navbox}} in Commons. However it is a bit heavey and I dont think it is really intended to be used on files, I think it is simpler to create a gallery like Rijksmuseum Amsterdam/Collection/Paintings/Leeuwarden series and link from it in the file description.--Zolo (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks. I'll try that. bamse (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Medium = {{engraving}}

I have been doing a tidy up of templates, and find that a few people have been using in the template parameter medium the template {{engraving}}. Would those who set the template consider whether that is a useful addition and allow for it if it is. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I found less than 10 {{Engraving}} templates and replaced them with {{Technique|engraving}}, since I do not think we need more technique template shortcuts. --Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like many uploads by user:Jimmy44 use numerous non existing or nonsensical templates like {{Creator:?}}, {{Institution: }}, {{ }}, {{Lithography}}, {{Engraving}}, etc. I cleaned some of those but likely others remain. --198.151.13.10 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with microformats in artwork template

There is a problem with the microformats emitted by, or example, File:Hals-Massa.png:

• There is an invalid ADR microformat (and another, which is valid, for Haarlem).
• There is an hCalendar event, whose start-date is 1582 (the artists birthdate), but which lacks the mandatory 'summary' property.
• It would appear that the hCalendar event refers to the creation of the artwork, whose date is rendered in <span class="dtstart">1626</span>

I am very familiar with microformats, but didn't implement those discussed above. Who can help me fix this? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to help. I copied Template:Artwork to Template:Artwork/sandbox. The best way would be to alter Template:Artwork/sandbox and create tests in Template:Artwork/testcases which can be used to see if new features are working. I can help with changes to Template:Artwork if needed. Than I can copy tested code from Template:Artwork/sandbox to Template:Artwork. --Jarekt (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if it can help but I notice that apparently similar templates may work or not work, depending on something I cannot identify: compare Claude Monet with Heinrich Adam.--Zolo (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know much about microformats, so I do not know which form is correct. Microformats code is copied from version to version of the template without much understanding of who put it there and why. Microformats emitted by a file might be coming from different templates:

• template:Artwork is encapsulated with <div class="hproduct"> and is emitting:

• <span class="identifier"> for Accession number
• <span class="locality"> for Location. this is probably wrong since this field is mostly used for location within the museum.
• <span class="description"> for Description
• <span class="fn"> for Title
• <span class="fn value"> for Artist. This one often encapsulates {{Creator}} with its own microformatting.

• template:Creator is encapsulated with <div class="vcard"> and is emitting:

• <span class="fn" id="creator"> for Name field (which might be in some very complicated form)
• <span class="nickname"> for Alternative names list
• <td class="bday"> for birth day. Should it be <span>?
• <td class="adr"><span class="locality"> for work location field
• <td class="adr"> for Authority field calling {{Authority control}}. I deleted that one.

• template:Institution is encapsulated with <div class="vcard"> (this might be incorrectly copied from {{Creator}}) and is emitting:

• <span class="fn"> for Name
• <td class="adr"><span class="locality"> for location field. I just added this one.

So I am not sure is format or use of existing microformatting is correct and if additional microformatting should be used. --Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Tool or bot for converting {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}

Hi all! Some images, like Category:Archaeological objects are doing much better if they have the details filled in an {{Artwork}} template rather than using {{Information}}. I converted some, for example: File:Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union 2011 - Rider from Lupu Dacian Silver Hoard.JPG, File:Helmet of Iron Gates at Detroit Institute of Arts 1 - 2011-03-03.jpg, File:Helmet of Cotofenesti - Front Top by Radu Oltean.jpg, but this is not very productive. Is there a tool or bot that can convert from {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}, at least the basic data. Then of course, the user has to fill in the much more detailed {{Artwork}} fields. Also, it would be great for the Upload wizards/tools to allow the selection of Artwork template, if the user knows that he uploads "artwork". For example, all objects I uploaded in this category: Category:Dacian artefacts in the National Museum of the Union should use the artwork template, but I couldn't select it at the upload time. Happy holidays!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I like to use AWB to replace "{{Information" with "{{subst:Artwork/subst" with additional fields. Without AWB you can do the same replacement (see here), save, and edit again to add details. --Jarekt (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought about AWB. When you mean without AWB, you mean replace manually for each image from an already updated to Artwork source image. Correct? I've been doing that, if that's what you mean. But I would love to automate this. Thanks for the help! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By manual I meant that if you replace replace "{{Information" with "{{subst:Artwork/subst" you get edit like this. Try it. --Jarekt (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Artwork}} from {{Book}}

Sometimes, the artwork is extracted from an old book, for example, see Category:Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus. The artwork itself is best described with {{Artwork}}, while the book with {{Book}}, especially when the illustrations are done by another person than the book author. What do you suggest in these cases? Maybe use the {{Book}} inside the Source or References fields of the {{Artwork}}? I tried, but there were some issues. In the sample image here, I used the templates side by side and they look ok, and I think is a good compromise. It was easier since I created a template for the whole book: {{Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus 1726}}. But what should be/is the standard in these cases? I didn't find this in the docs. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just link to the book template from the source field, or add book template after artwork template (similar to what {{Art Photo}} does). --Jarekt (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Didn't know about that template. Makes sense. Unrelated, but now that I look at {{Art Photo}}, should this template replace most of the usage of {{Artwork}} since most paintings are photographed? Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For most paintings we use {{PD-art}} and do not pay any attention to who photographed or scanned the image, even combining source and photographer fields so you either have one or the other but not both. In most cases we do not have any detailed description of photographing process. {{Art Photo}} was intended for a rare case where there is an artistic photograph by famous photographer of an artwork, most likely a sculpture by some other artist. One of the features of the template is to keep multiple licenses clear. For most other cases, in my opinion, this template is an overkill. --Jarekt (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)