Open main menu

again problems with collection (P195), location (P276)Edit

please see Portrait of Bernhart von Reesen (Q3937475), File:Albrecht Dürer - Portrait of Bernhard von Reesen - Google Art Project.jpg Oursana (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oursana: Looks completely fine to me with both English and German interface, both Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (Q653002) and Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Q4890) are displayed in the "Current location" field of File:Albrecht Dürer - Portrait of Bernhard von Reesen - Google Art Project.jpg as they should. Would probably be useful if you point out what problem specifically you see. LG, --Marsupium (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, IMHO Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (Q653002) shouldn't show up in the institution field, some time ago in similar cases Jarekt could take it away. I hope you agree with me, LGOursana (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Problems with Uffizi, see File:Bonaventura Berlinghieri - Madonna and Child with Saints and Crucifixion - WGA1954.jpg--Oursana (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it is just saying that the museum is Uffizi Gallery and the actual location is at the Uffizi house. Maybe separating Institution from current locations as it is proposed below would made this more clear. --Jarekt (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I split the Collection and Location fields but I am not sure if the data from Wikidata is properly assigned to each field. --Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)--Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
see File:Giotto di Bondone 034.jpg should be Cappella Scrovegni--Oursana (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened on that page. This is the version before your edits and after you were done. Anyway, not a template problem and now cleaned up. Multichill (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Current location retrieved from accession numberEdit

In File:Giuseppe cesari (le cavalier d'arpin) - portrait d'un architecte - 1591.jpg, the Louvre shown in the current location field, apparently because the painting has an accession number from the Louvre. I don't think that really makes sense. The painting is a long term loan from the Louvre to the Grenoble Museum, but the Louvre is not the "current location". Zolo (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply break up "collection" out of "current location" field like in Wikidata? --Marsupium (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like the cleanest solution. We should probably not show both when they have the same value though. --Zolo (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sure! --Marsupium (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That would be perhaps the cleanest solution. --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree too--Oursana (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

place of creationEdit

The "place of creation" entry hasn't been capitalized like all other entries. --Cold Season (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Should be   Fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

formatting problem for (very) long urls coming from WikidataEdit

Please see this file to see the problem: File:Gerard Dou - The Dropsical Woman - WGA06647.jpg. I think these urls should be collapsed somehow. The Japanese characters make me need to scroll right in order to view the file info with Qid/title. Jane023 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Jane mentioned to me that the link http://www.louvre.fr/jp/oeuvre-notices/%E3%80%8A%E7%97%85%E6%B0%97%E3%81%AE%E5%A5%B3%E3%80%8B%E3%80%81%E4%BC%9D%E7%B5%B1%E7%9A%84%E9%80%9A%E7%A7%B0%E3%80%8A%E6%B0%B4%E8%85%AB%E3%81%AE%E5%A5%B3%E3%80%8B on File:Gerard Dou - The Dropsical Woman - WGA06647.jpg messes up the whole layout. It would probably be good to render that as https://www.louvre.fr/jp/oeuvre-notices/《病気の女》、伝統的通称《水腫の女》. Multichill (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Jane023 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I was experimenting with mw.text.decode function that suppose to fix that issue, but it does not seem to help. In other cases like that I usually add "title" qualifier to help format the displayed string, like in d:Q378034, but you are right the software should be able to convert such strings to proper characters. --Jarekt (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Why don't we store the URLs in Wikidata in not encoded form? (I do that usually.) --Marsupium (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jarekt: That’s for HTML encoding, like < and  . What you need is mw.uri.decode, although you should take care of special ASCII characters like spaces and brackets, which are also decoded by this function. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed thanks to Tacsipacsi suggestion. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jarekt: The special characters problem also applies to the unencoded URLs—AFAIK there is no restriction prohibiting these special characters in stored statement values. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

TechniqueEdit

Wikidata has a fabrication method (P2079) property used for example in Weight for weighing gold dust (Q61752716). I think it would make sense to indlude it in the "medium" field (the parameter used to be called "technique"). -Zolo (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of parameter "other_versions"Edit

Calling out to @Perhelion:, @Mattes:, @Vincent Steenberg:, @Oursana:, @Urbandweller:, @Villy Fink Isaksen:.

Sorry to disturb you guys, but given the fact that you use the Artwork parameter "other versions", this may be of concern to you.

Recently one of my edits with "other versions" was deleted by another user with the explanation that "other versions" should be seen as other versions of the same photo, i.e. not another photo of the same artwork. I see the parameter as a tool for those of us interested in art history, to connect to other photos, but also to sketches and drawings leading to that particular artwork, to later interpretations by the same artist and to graphics derived from the artwork - which is a much broader view, and also a very useful and informative one.

The user was adamant that his way of seeing things was the only one - you can read the discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parsecboy#File:Carl_Neumann_-_Action_off_Jasmund_-_1864.png.

The user gave the kind advice to "ask on the template talk page", so therefore this call.

If you agree, please support the statement that Other versions include other photos or scans of of the same artwork as well as sketches and drawings leading to that particular artwork, to later interpretations by the same artist and to graphics derived from the artwork.

Your help is appreciated (and your friends') - or you might risk having your own "other versions" removed by some zealous user.

Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rsteen: you don't need a straw poll to confirm that Parsecboy was wrong here. That other_versions field always had broad usage. That's why the documentation describes the field as "Links to files with very similar content or derivative files". It's actually quite common to put a version with frame or a related drawing in the other versions. See for example File:Vincent van Gogh - The Bedroom - Google Art Project.jpg. I restored your edit. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain the reasoning here? I can only fathom two possibilities: you are either asserting that two different pieces of artwork, by different artists, and in different mediums, are "different versions" of the same image (a patently absurd argument if I ever heard one) or the field "other versions" actually means "similar or related images", in which case the field needs to be renamed, because no one with a passable understanding of English would interpret "other versions" that way (and that's what categories are for). Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I have used this parameter in both ways, I don't see why we need to define anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I agree with Yann and Multichill. Parameter Other versions is the same in all the infoboxes, and we were using it for over 15 years, and just because someone is reverting your edits @Rsteen:, we do not have to rethink how we use this parameter. See documentation of {{Information}} or {{Artwork}} for how to use it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain how two different works in two different mediums by two different artists are different versions of the same image? Yes, the painting and woodcut are surely based on the same sketch by the Danish naval officer who was present, but that only means that these two images are derivatives of that work, not of each other. Parsecboy (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
it is also used for pendants. In art historical literature for centuries is always talk about different versions by the same or different artists without any master version. Obviously the wiki commons majority gets it right. “other versions” doesn't state "same image", but same subject; rkd uses “Physical connection". I do not see a need of willful misunderstanding--Oursana (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I also see no need for an increased restriction, if the field is not overused. The requirements are not strict (linear). Granted I use the field more than less. If the image has no very specific category and no more comparable versions exists, the conditions can seen relaxed anyway. -- User: Perhelion 09:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Support:

  1. --Rsteen (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. --Pixel8tor (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Oursana (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Urbandweller (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Artwork" page.