Template talk:Artwork/Archiv/2010

Painting or artwork?

Is there a reason this template is named "Painting" and not "Artwork" or even better "Two-dimensional Artwork"? It might be perfect for oil paintings, water colours and a few more techniques, but what about etchings, lithographies, copper and steel engravings and even historic photographies, which were produced utilizing a dozen of different techniques? "Painting" simply doesn't fit there - so why not rename to "Two-dimensional Artwork"? --Mylius (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Name "Painting" is shorter and simpler than "Two-dimensional Artwork", but you can use it other types of artwork. This kind of changes are rarely done because it involves changing 1000s of files or using confusing redirects. --Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally Disagree. "Artwork" or "Artwork-PD" would be more generally used, therefore would be more practicable. [w.] 10:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Layout

I have a question about the layout of this template. When I use it under normal sircumstances it appears directly under the "Add a note" button. But when I add a table or a thummbnail in the "Other versions"-section a white line appears between the "Add a note" button and template Painting. How is this possible and can something be done about this? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Header

I have another question: Why does this painting have a header? {{Information}} doesn't have one. What's wrong with a template without a header preceded by == {{int:filedesc}} ==. That would be a lot more user friendly, making it easier to fix description errors. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess it needs the header ("Painting information") to make sure that the painting is meant and not the scan/photo. In rare cases, I think there could be {{Information}} and {{Painting}}.

One could still use == {{int:filedesc}} == in addition, but even with {{Information}} it seems redundant to me.

If you are interested in an edit link for the initial section, you can use "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" in the "Gadgets" tab of Special:Preferences (section "Interface modifications"). -- User:Docu at 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Painting information" header is I think trying to make the template similar to {{Meta information museum}} template family. I think it would make sense to make it more similar to {{Information}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. Not only is the header unnecessary IMO, this template is also a bit over-designed. For example, when you insert tl {{Creator}} in the Artist-field you create a table within a table, which I think leaves a lot to be desired. If you make this template look more like tl {{Information}}, like you suggest, you don't have this problem. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the template seems also relevant for other kinds of 2D artworks. I think that if we want to use it for drawings etc, dropping "painting information" would be necessary.--Zolo (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot requests

Please see Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Template:Painting. -- User:Docu at 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cropped views of paintings

• 
  1: entire painting with frame
• 
  2: Category:Details of paintings
• 
  3:  ?
• 
  4:  ?
• 
  5: compare with [1]

Category:Self-portraits by Annemarie Busschers includes various images of the same painting. While some fit well Category:Details of paintings, I was wondering if there is category for #3 and #4: they seem frequent, but aren't really Category:Details of paintings. Still, I think it's something worth identifying through a category. -- User:Docu at 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain more clearly why they do not feel "Category:Details of paintings" to you? I mean, any cropped piece of the image of some piece of art is kind-of "detail". [w.] 10:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The samples here were probably made to provide details of paintings, but sometimes images of paintings are cropped/re-framed to fit the taste of a contributor of a specific Wikipedia article or to match the layout of another painting in some Wikipedia infobox. Where we do have a good reproduction of the full painting, it doesn't really matter, but sometimes this is missing. -- User:Docu at 04:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ACK., but in case of above given samples, "everything" seems to be available. In case, just some crop would be available, no-one probably could do anything about it, either, unless uploading some file representing "the whole" piece-of-art. What would be wrong about categorizing items #3, #4 "Category:Details of paintings" ??? [w.] 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that 85-99% is hardly detail, but it's still a partial reproduction. I added a sample #5 which might better illustrated this. -- User:Docu at 02:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To "non-level-4-en"-contributors, such very probably would not seem to be a problem (and there are quite a lot out there ;)) -- Maybe, something like 'crop' ore 'cropped' might help? (I'm aware that 'crop' usually refers to 'part of some file', but also to some 'part of some original').

The question, to me, seems more a question of 'worldwide understood terms' than of 'precise English'. Similar is successfully being used in aircraft maintainance (by getting descriptions down to 'more-or-less en:Pidgin'.) Best, [w.] 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

After some thought, maybe a hidden category, Category:Paintings with over-cropped borders, would suit this best. It could be applied independently of Category:details of paintings. One could check the ones that don't include {{Superseded}} or some other template to look for images that could need a better version. -- User:Docu at 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Related bot request

Please see Commons:Bots/Requests/BrooklynMuseumBot. -- User:Docu at 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Technique?

{{Editprotected}} Judging by what gets put into this parameter, shouldn't it actually be called "medium"? I'm really not an art expert, but my understanding is that "oil on canvas" is a description of the medium, not the technique, of a painting. Equazcion (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I need some more opinions before I change something like that. Huib talk 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other_versions

Please have the template pass "Other_versions" through as well. The line in the template should read:

| Other versions = {{{Other versions|{{{other_versions|{{{Other_versions|}}}}}}}}}

Currently only "Other versions" and "other_versions" work (note the caps/underscores). -- User:Docu at 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I am a little surprised we support "other_versions" since no other parameter has optional lower case spelling. --Jarekt (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't break anything, we could remove it, "other versions" is still missing. Anyways, I was somewhat puzzled by "Other_versions" not working .. -- User:Docu at 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not touch it without replacing all the "other_versions" with "Other versions" in all the files using this template. --Jarekt (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On edit toolbar?

It would be somewhat convenient if there was a button to insert the template on file description pages, e.g. on the edit toolbar. -- User:Docu at 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I added one to mine. See User:Jarekt/vector.js and User:Jarekt/monobook.js. However they only work with the old style editor so one has to undo " Enable enhanced editing toolbar" in My Preferences/Editing tab. I do not think the general public needs one so I would not add it for everyone. --Jarekt (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that MediaWiki:Edittools isn't the toolbar, but the "edit tools". I don't even use the "toolbar" Templates might be too long to add to the Edittools. Maybe the "toolbox" (on the sidebar) would be the better place. There is already a gadget for {{Information}}. -- User:Docu at 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Varia

This template is really useful, but there are a few point that I think could be bettered easily. It has been discussed before, but the discussion seems to have been interrupted :

• Do we have to display "painting information". There may be a few files where it can make things clearer but there are many more files where it seems quite strange (drawings, engravings ; for engravings of preexisting paintings it may even be confusing). What about not displaying anything, or making the display optional and only activated on demand ?
• Couldn't we add a "provenance" or "credit line" line as in museum templates. It would avoid to put a provenance item in a note section that sometimes contain many different types of infos.
• Replace "year" by "date", since the year is not always known

--Zolo (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Agree I agree with all three points. Some translations for "provenance" can be directly copied from {{Provenance}}. I don't know about "credit line" though. IMO, Commons is an independent database, and as such we don't have to credit anybody. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a technical distinction, but to me credit line just means provenance (see for example the Met : "The work's credit line indicates how the work came into the permanent collection or how it came to be on view at the Metropolitan Museum. "Bequest," "gift," "purchase," and "loan" are some of the terms used to indicate sources). I suppose the word came to be used because it emphasized ownership rather than location but I'm not sure. Anyway, most museums seem to use that phrase rather than "provenance".--Zolo (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It might just be what the donor wants to be mentioned there. For Brooklyn Museum, see the last part of [2].  Docu  at 08:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok sorry, credit line appears to be only the last "provenance event" (how it finally arrived in the collection) it's not a line, then just a point ? :(. Is it really compulsory to make a distinction credit line/provenance ? Actually the Met makes it [3], but it would make the template more complex. Maybe it would also imply that some quite widely used other info template should be reworked. For example, this object seems to have provenance not credit line data. What about using "ownership history" like the Boston Museum of Fine Arts ?

I don't think it necessarily says a lot about the provenance. It could just read "Gift in memory of the Zolo Wikimedia Commons collection".  Docu  at 09:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant : if we create a line about provenance, shouldn't we call it "ownership history", which sounds a bit clumsy but non-commmital, rather than "provenance" (which may imply comprehensiveness) or "credit line" (which may imply non-comprehensiveness)--Zolo (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the word provenance covers it sufficiently. Also I have no idea how to translate this into Dutch or German. Besitzgeschichte? Why not be comprehensive? When earlier provenance is unknown or can't retrieved, it's not the end of the world. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should be comprehensive. Personnally, I've nothing against provenance, but someone from the Brooklyn Museum (link provided by Docu) seems to say that provenance is not the right word when there just written "gift from.." If he's a professional curator or something like that, his view should probably be taken into account.--Zolo (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, I see. That's the same as "credit line" in {{Information Louvre}}, which is also sometimes mistaken for provenance. If you have a look at File:Charles I Lami Louvre Inv5579.jpg you'll see both provenance and credit line. I think provenance in this example is more informative than credit line. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So we have to decide which word we use if we add add a line. IMO, if ownership history is the most neutral, it's the one we should use, but it probably doesn't make much difference. Another question is : can we automatically move all infos contained in provenance/provenance events template from the notes sections to the new provenance/ownership history section ?

By the way, I think it would be great if there was another parameter in the provenanceevent template, so that we can write something like "1831 purchased by Louis Philippe at the Salon" in File:Charles I Lami Louvre Inv5579.jpg. But I don't know how to translate it in all the langages, and it's probably not possible to have one preposition that works in all cases. Maybe the simples solution would be one additional info parameter, where we can add anything of interest with a langSwitch --Zolo (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@1: I still don't see the controversy. I think the words Provenance covers it.

@2: I think the option "at" is already included in {{ProvenanceEvent}}. I will try if it works on this example. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@1:Okay for me. Maybe we should ask at Brooklyn Museum if it would be okay to move lines "gift from X" to a provenance line, even if doesn't deem them as "proper provenance

@2:"At" seems to raise translation problem. (In French you can't have "acheté à salon", nor in German "ewroben bei Salon". I don't know if there is anything to do, except maybe create a "other" parameter for infos that don't easily fit into the template

@2: Yes, I noticed that. First of all, File:Charles I Lami Louvre Inv5579.jpg is a very rare case. It's the only case I know. Secondly, you could argue whether an exhibition is relevant to the provenance history. From the information that is provided you can conclude that the state bought the work directly from the artist. But if you think it's important to mention these circumstances, you could add "exhibition=" or something like that to this template. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about how the template should look if we want it to be relevant for as many artworks as possible. I think I came to the view that it would be simpler to hide the names of the lines ("artist", "title"). That's what many museums do [4] and I think it is very convenient when the name isn't totally convincing. That would remove the question about "provenance", but I think it would also have more important advantages:
I'm a bit incomfortable with the word "note" that appears to be a catchall for all that we don't know where to put, but if the word doesn't appear, it isn't a problem. BrooklynMuseum asked what to do when there was not artist but a culture of origin, in this case, it would be better if the word "artist" didn't appear. I think the biggest advantage would be with technique. I'm not sure the word "technique" is really appropriate for "oil on canvas. The National Gallery uses "medium and support", but is not easy to have a phrase that doesn't sound too awkward. For sculptures, "material" should probably be used. I know ! sculptures don't use the painting template, but apart from small wording problems, I don't see any reason why they should't. So I think these small changes would make the model appear more flexible and still more usable, and that would be very nice.--Zolo (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

sum up

Given that the model is very widely used, it should probably handled with care. I sum up the main ideas that I proposed at the beginning and by other people before me, anyone can add agree or support to the proposition. If there is no opposition in say 10 days, I suppose I can ask an admin to do the changes ?

• Delete the black "painting information" line. Alternatively add "about this artwork", if we want to avoid potential ambiguity.
• add a line "provenance". We can see later how we refine this.
• Replace year by date
• + Move the source line below "under version" or at least behind ID, as it is not an info on the painting itself

• More controversial possible changes (that I don't think should be implemnted without the support of several people):
  • Ask if someone can make a bot to move "provenanceevents " to the provenance" line. But it may bug if only part of the events are inside templates.
  • If "painting info " is not displayed : recommend the use of the template for any artwork (the world technique would not be very relevant for sculptures but apart from that it seems okay)/ Altrnatively create a sculpture template and recommend the use of the painting template for any 2 dimensional artwork.--Zolo (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

inscriptions

(copied from template talk:Inscriptions):

Adding an inscription field may also be useful to trim down the notes. Would you agree with that ? And how do we call it ? Inscriptions would be the simplest solution but I the field should probably also include watermarks and things like that I think are technically not inscriptions. The Metropolitan Museum, that has one of the best online databases I know uses "Signatures, Inscriptions, and Markings" [5]. It might be too long to fit nicely in our template. Also, it seems to me that signatures are a form of inscriptions, so I think we could go for "inscriptions/markings", would that be okay?--Zolo (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Template Modifications

User:Zolo contacted me on my talk page if I could implement some of the changes discussed above, and I will give it a shot. I will try:

• Remove the "painting information black line".
• Add a provenance field
• Move source below ID

I will attempt to perform also other changes:

1. Make template much more visually similar to {{Information}} template and add alternative versions to existing parameters to allow easier conversion from {{Information}} to {{Painting}}
2. Use translatewiki for some or all internationalizations (the way {{Information}} does).
3. Rewrite the template using html table notation instead of wiki-table the way user:Rocket000 converted creator template.

I also think we should look into merging this template with very similar {{Meta information museum}}. My first attempt can be found here --Jarekt (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also name {{Painting}} might be getting too narrow may be we should rename it to something like {{Art information}}? --Jarekt (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Strong support. To me, there is no reason why this template should be restricted to paintings, and there's no point in having these two templates. Actually I'm not even sure the template should be restricted to artworks, but could be applied to any unique man-made object (I've tried to see how it looks like for a prehistorical artefact here for this file, I think it looks nice. To me the differences between the templates are mainly over vocabulary. If a merger is to be made, I think it would be simpler to keep the template painting (adding a accession number and a references line). Quite possibly, that's mainly because I worked with it. But I do think it would be easier to deal with a single template rather than with the many different forms of metainformation museu. More importantly, the meta information template conceived to be customized to a specific museum, (though I don't see much differences between the different forms of it) and it leaves alone the works from small museum and private collections that don't have any specific template. (uh I know the whole point is to create a new template)--Zolo (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support on all three points. You could even think about removing the lines that divide the fields of this template. They are unnecessary and esthetically unattractive, especially because {{Creator}} itself is designed as a table. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support, if it's technically feasible. Sometimes, the lines disappear on my browser (I don't know why) and it clearly looks better.

It will be very useful to make it more compatible with Information template to facilitate the transition. --V.Riullop (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ID/references/catalogues

• To contextualize a bit, if we merge metainformation and painting, the nicest way to handle inventory numbers and other IDs would probably be: have an "accession (or inventory) number" field (as in the metainformation template), and find another place for other IDs, but this raises the question of where we should put catalogue numbers. As we should probably also keep the references field of metainformation, I thought we could put catalogues there. Hence this discussion:

Zolo has asked my opinion about the creation of a new references line and to move there the templates of catalogues raisonées with the complete name of the reference. It is fine to me. "References" is used in the Met, "Catalogue references" in Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, "Publication History" in the Art Institute of Chicago, "Bibliography" in the National Gallery of Art and Musée d'Orsay. They all have the same purpose and any of these names is fine. About the name of catalogues raisonées, the common form abbreviated with an initial could be combined with the full reference with the aid of templates. For example:

• W.610: Georges Wildenstein (1964), Gauguin. 1, Catalogue, Paris: les Beaux Arts, no. 610.

--V.Riullop (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem with doing that may be that if we have many references beside the catalogues (like in the impressive bibliography in some of the examples cited above), it would be more readable to have the name of each author first. Maybe we can create a catalogue field, with only name of the author and number, and the full reference in notes (or what the National Museum of Western art calls "standard ref" ([6]).

A bot can certainly do all what needs to be done for existing entries. It would begin to make quite many fields, but if the template looks good, I'm not sure it is necessarily a problem (unused fields don't show and it is more readable to have many fields rather than many things packed in a catchall notes field--Zolo (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to add a list with all the bibliography. Catalogues raisonées or standard references is enough. The references parameter of {{Meta information museum}} is hardly used. Browsing the files I have only found some links to the museum website and only one bibliographic reference. --V.Riullop (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, some we do it that way, (and when the Art Insititute of Chicago decides to upload its online datase, we do the necessary changes :-)?--Zolo (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New proposed version of the template

I have changed Template:Painting/test which is suppose to replace Template:Painting/layout. I

1. modified it to look like {{Information}} by removing lines between cell, etc.
2. changed some field names:
   1. Notes -> Description (the way {{Information}} and {{Meta information museum}} use it)
   2. ID -> Accession number (after {{Meta information museum}})
   3. Source -> Source/Photographer (after {{Meta information museum}})
3. "Current Location" still uses 2 fields but they are on top of each other instead of next to each other.
4. Moved Notes/Description below "Title" field

I also created new template {{Museum}} very similar to {{Creator}} and intend to use it to create pseudo-namespace "Museum:" with pages defining basic information about different museums/galleries and collections and intended to use it in "Gallery" field and example can be found Museum:Glyptothek Munich. Page User:Jarekt/a compares intended new Painting template to other templates. --Jarekt (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support. No objections here. However, since this template describes paintings, maybe it's a good idea to put the fields in the same order as the art historian convention (which is: artist, title, date, technique, dimensions, location, museum, accession number). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is in mostly in this order:

1. Artist
2. Title (used with paintings) and/or Description (used with ancient sculptures, etc.)
3. Date
4. Technique
5. Dimensions
6. Current location: using 2 subfields "gallery" (top) and "location" (bottom). The prefered way would be to provide a {{Museum:...}} page in he "Gallery" field which already has Gallery location, than we can use "Location" field the way {{Meta information museum}} use it to specify location within the museum, if known. But old {{Painting}} way will work too with gallery name at the top and gallery location at the bottom.
7. finally Accession number and other fields. --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was to put these 7 key facts first followed by additional information such as description and source. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Yay! I was hoping for somebody to do this for a long time :-). --Dschwen (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me however I'm not sure about the title/decription/notes repartition. I suppose that notes from template paintig will be moved to description, which means above date and technique, which should probably be avoided. A good part of the description field of metainformation should be moved to technique, and when this is done, what remains it quite short, so I believe it can be called "title". Of course, it will not be the perfect word for a coin or things like that, but I think it's okay (most museums simply don't give any name to the title section, but I'm not sure we can do that on commons). Obviously, making the necessary changes will not be quick and simple, it will require a good deal of manual changes and a period of transition, but I do think it's the most convenient solution. Then we can keep the note section at a more conventional position below the accession number (this one we probably could rename "description").--Zolo (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, to me the simplest solution would be this: call "description" the current "notes" field, and add something in the template so that when the "title" field is empty, "description" moves to the same place as "title". This way we can easily apply the template to files using {{Meta information museum}}: they will just look the same as now! Furthermore, taking up Vriullop's point on compatibility with {{Information}}, we would simply have to replace "{{information" by "{{artwork information|fields specific to artwork information template".

I think that what we ought to do is roughly:

• Run a bot to switch files from metainformation to artwork information (it would add the location/gallery fields, but probably nothing else).
• Create a category:files using artwork information template without a title, that would be added by default when the title field is empty: this way we can easily spot files that have to be adapted to the new template
• Try to see what a bot can further do for us
• Manually change things when bots can't do it.--Zolo (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not like User:Zolo idea of conditional fields. it is too confusing and complicated. The way I see it we need prominent Description field for sculptures, and paintings where we are more interested in content of the painting than its artistic value. For example File:Flossenbürg by A. Kryszczak - Przed blokiem XXIII (crop).jpg is a hand drawing in my possession where description is more important than title. We also need it for compatibility with {{Meta information museum}} and {{Information}}. That's why I would like to keep it under "Title" as the field #3. But I understand User:Vincent Steenberg concerns about moving content of current "Notes" field to much elevated "Description" in all the files using {{Painting}}. I think the other option we have is to keep "Description" and "Notes" as separate fields using: artist, title, description, date, technique, dimensions, location, museum, accession number, notes, .... order. All current files using {{Painting}} (and future images of paintings) do not have "Description" field so the order will remain as we currently have. And for sculptures/etc. one will likely use Description instead of Title. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed that as a way to ease the transition, by no means as a permanent solution. I think that for sculptures, as well as for paintings, and for any other object, it is way more convenient to have a short line to say what the object is and an optional longer description afterwards. Personnally, I would be in favour of not showing the field name for the "artist" and "title" parameters, and to write the title (short description) line bigger than the rest. That what most museums do, and it avoid the vocabulary problem. The only problem is that it would not look to good in the template.--Zolo (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I split Notice and Description fields. --Jarekt (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To me it's fine if it's designed as a temporary way to deal with the merger. However, I really don't think it should be used for new uploads. "Title", "description" and "notes" clearly overlap, and it's not obvious at first sight what should go where. It might not be very precise to have title: "Fragment of an equestrian statue of Nero" or "Medallion: Ferdinand I, Emperor of Germany (1503–64)" but I don't think it's awful either. And that's what the Louvre does [7]. Anyhow, "bronze" and "oil on canvas" are not exactly "techniques" either (should we do that too ? it's probably more correct)

About your private document you mentionned, I'm not sure about what you mean: there is nothing in the file that would go to description (author, title and date are quite telling by themselves)--Zolo (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Else is there a technologically not too demanding way to optionnally change a field name (e.g. "technique" would appear as "material")? This would solve many terminological problems.--Zolo (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure about the extension of the template to sculptures. To some extent {{Painting}} is linked to WMF view on copyright of 2D reproductions. Besides, we might want to give more thought about some of the suggested conversions, especially Notes to Description.  Docu  at 05:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • From a user's point of view, an harmonized template for all artworks would be convenient, moreover the relevant infos for a sculpture and for a sculpture are more or less the same (though in somes cases there is the "title" question mentionned above. Beside, in the current situation, what we should do of paintings in museums that have a metainformation template is not clear, which makes maintenance unnecessarily complex.
  • There is no necessary relation between template painting and "PD-art".
  • However, it is true that one specificity a tl:painting is that when no source is provided, there is no "no source" message as in tl:information, or not even a blank space as in tl meta information museum: the field simply doesn't show. So we have to think about what to do with the source parameter--Zolo (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Zolo that new version of {{Painting}} is applicable to sculptures with the only difference that in many cases "Description" replaces the "Title". It is much better fit than {{Information}} and if we merge this template with the {{Meta information museum}} than it will be used with a lot of sculptures. One think we might need to do is to rename the template to {{Art-information}} or {{Artwork}}
    • I am a little lost trying to figure out the comment about "Source". It will be changed to "Source/Photographer" and it will be required by all the files using {{Painting}} (as is "Author"). Some exceptions might have to be made after merger with {{Meta information museum}} which is often used in addition to {{Painting}} to add information about the museum. But that can be discussed in the future when/if we do such merger. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
      • What I meant was that when we don't provide any source in template information, it displays "this file doesn't have any source", when we don't provide source in metainformation it displays a blank field and when we don't provide sources in a template information, it shows nothing at all, and it no big deal because if the painting is in the painting domain we don't need to know the photographer. But if the template extends to 3D artwork, should we have a message "no source"?
        • I think it should be required as in the {{Information}} template even for PD-art paintings they were either scanned from a book (which one?), found on the web (Where?) or photographed by the user (who?). It is not a vital information for all paintings but useful. However I do not strong opinions on this subject and making this field optional would be fine with me too. --Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Is there a way to know how many files in template painting currently lack source info? If there are many, we should probably keep the field optional, otherwise I personnally think it would better be required.
          • For a similar reason, I don't think it is a good idea to make the author field required, especially if the template expands to any kind of museum item. I've seen quite a few files from Brooklyn Museum without anything in the field. We could put "unknown" or "anynonymous" by default (but that would be misleading if it's just that the uploader didn't know the artist's name. Things would get much worse if we merge with metainformation museum. For instance, randomly sampling ten files with {{Information Cabinet des médailles Paris}}, I only found three having something in the author field (including two with "unknown").--Zolo (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Jarekt. I think that it would be better to have a title for the box that differentiates it. Not the current "painting information" in white on black, but a more generic "artwork information" in colors more integrated with the box. --V.Riullop (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If some kind of header is need, "artwork information" is certainly better than "file description" as the box is more about the artwork itself than about the file. However, "artwork" may be a bit to restrictive. There is the "object information" possibility but it may sound derogatory. Else, it may be far-fetched, but maybe we can have a variable (as items using meta information museum include things like coins and archaelogical artefacts) header linked to technique, so that it would be by default on "object information", would move to "painting information" when we have {{technique|oil|canvas}} and so on. Else what about simply "information"--Zolo (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the template without the header which makes it more similar with the look of {{Information}} template to which everybody is used to by now. There was a talk about removing those headers for a while. --Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No header. (== {{int:filedesc}} == should go too :)). Rocket000 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Question Shouldn't we have 2 date fields? One for "date of creation" and one for "date of photograph"? Otherwise people are going to get confused since "Date" usually means date of photograph. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the position of "date" in the box, I think it will be clear for readers that it is the date of the work. For uploaders, maybe we can simply add <!-- of the artwork --> on the copy-paste version of the template ?

 Comment I saw the proposed changes have been implemented. Look great! Thanks very much. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

more fancy fields

• Given that many museums have quite good databases. Those who want to have more comprehensive or authoritative infos or simply uptodate infos about to know if they can see it at the museum). I had put them next to the accession number, but as Vincent Steenberg pointed out, there is no clear logic with that. Should we add somewhere a "links" field ?

I added "link" field to the {{Museum}} template than each Museum page (very similar to a Creator page) can have such link. For example

Louvre Museum     (Inventory)
	Native name	Louvre Museum
	Location	1st arrondissement of Paris , France
	Coordinates	48° 51′ 40″ N, 2° 20′ 09″ E
	Established	10 August 1793
	Website	www.louvre.fr
	Authority file	: Q19675 VIAF: 257711507 ISNI: 000000012260177X ULAN: 500125189 LCCN: n80020283 NLA: 35912436 WorldCat

institution QS:P195,Q19675

added by {{:Museum:Louvre}} (not {{Museum:Louvre}}) already have such link. Such Museum templates should be used in the "Gallery" field--Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I think it is more useful to be linked directly to the artwork rather than to the museum website, maybe add an option in the museum templates, to have the direct link rather than to the general museum website ?

Direct link to the artwork goes into the "accession number" field. which shows the number but the link connects you directly with the museum database, if possible. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Personnaly it suits me, but user:Vincent Steenberg didn't see any logic in that (and I'm afraid that in a sense he is right)--Zolo (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is a {{Depicted person}}. As the name of the person is depicted people are often given in the template, it is not often useful, but in some cases it really is here for instance, and it would look a lot better if "depicted people" was located in the field section, can we add this (and maybe a "depicted place" as well, but that may be less important ? I don't know if we can keep the nice syntax that Rocket000 gave to this template though.--Zolo (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For me {{Depicted person}} should be used in the Description/Notes field just like in {{Information}} and {{Meta information museum}} fields. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In general I am afraid that adding too many fields will make this template more confusing and less useful. IMO most fields should be applicable to most artworks that is why I did not included "Reference" field very rarely used in {{Meta information museum}} and prefer to combine Description and Notes instead of heaving both.--Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that description and notes should be merged (and put below accession number, or below location). However, since unused fields dont't show, I don't see why it would be a problem to have them.

For depicted people, we can do without and I agree that the name of the person is part of the description, (it's just that it is easier to write only the name of the people rathen than a full-blown description and it looks a bit silly if we only have: "description:depicted people: Mr X and his wife", but this is not a big problem. However for references, I really think there should be something (even if it's not proposed by default on the template doc. One problem is with catalogue numbers, that are very useful but can't be put anywhere in the template. I also don't know if you're planning to add inscription and provenance, but in my opinion, it's important to have them, like most major museums (at least American museums): some commons contributors use them quite a lot, and they would seem out of place in a "description" field--Zolo (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As a comparison, most objects in the French Joconde database have only a few fields, yet their "template" has at least [27] fields (not counting external links) (and I don't think it's confusing, althogh in this case, the reference and exhibition history sections may appear a bit lengthy).--Zolo (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We do have "other fields" option just like {{Information}} which can be used to add at the end any desired field. See User:Jarekt/a#New_Painting Attribution field. --Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. It's interesting, but I think they should at least have the option two add two such fields, and probably it should be placed just below the notes, because that's where provenance and inscriptions belong.--Zolo (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On the second thought there is a lot of fields which could be useful, like:

• Credit line - many painting are gifts of private individuals to the museums which are obligated to show such credit. (Used by {{Meta information museum}})
• Provenance - history of the painting ownership
• References - Books and websites with information about the painting, or artwork. I usually put such information in the "Source" field. (Used by {{Meta information museum}})
• Inscriptions - writings on the painting (hopefully also highlighted by annotations).

We have 3 options here:

1. Create fields for them
2. Stuff them in the "Notes" field
3. use "other fields" option - this one is actually problematic since any future changes of the template formatting would also need to the reflected there. Also "other fields" from {{Information}} have different structure than in the {{Painting/test}}

Now I m leaning towards option #1. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New version released

As user:Vincent Steenberg already pointed out new version of the template was released. I also updated language pages Template:Painting/lang partially based on Template:Meta information museum/lang. Please check languages you know, please notice that some fields use translatewiki translations and will show some fields in your default language. So Template:Painting/pl might be wrong but Template:Painting/pl?uselang=pl will show all the fields in correct language. Many issues which were discussed were not finalized yet so more changes might be coming if we reach consensus on any of them. --Jarekt (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Painting

<moved from User talk:Docu>

Docu, my sub headers in the Template_talk:Painting discussion were added to improve clarity since it seems to have split into several smaller parallel discussions and I was trying to separate them. If you feel that it is not improving matters I can remove them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that my comment was made under a general header on two aspects .. the second one not being covered by the header that you inserted. --  Docu  at 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do remove it.  Docu  at 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's getting confusing either way. Now I'm not sure where to add "sculptures might need a photographer in addition to the artist and aren't rarely covered by a single reproduction".  Docu  at 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Photographer info goes into Source/Photographer field while Sculptor goes into Author. --Jarekt (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's with {{Information}}. {{Painting}} only has a source field with isn't necessarily used. Docu  at 04:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Source" field in the {{Painting}} is now called "Source/Photographer" (as it is in {{Meta information museum}}) and I would like to make it a required field. --Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why duplicate that other template if we had one that worked fine for 2D artwork?  Docu  at 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those 2 templates are almost identical in content so it would be easier for maintenance and consistency to merge them. Also I see {{Paintings}} used for sculptures since we do not have a good template for non-painting artworks other than dozens of museum specific templates derived from {{Meta information museum}}. -- Jarekt

The main advantage of having several templates is that they can be easier to fill in. One might as well replace all by one just create an input/edit mask that varies by type of image. Not sure if adding photographers by default for 2d artwork is of much use.  Docu  at 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

</moved from user talk:Docu>

choosing the words

Summary of questions about the words that should be used. I put a list of questions and possible anwswers (from what I could see here and there or from my personal opinions). I don't know how it should be decided, maybe every one should put its vote in each section ?

Template name (and 1 or 2 templates?)

user:Docu suggest to have a different template for 2D and 3D artworks. However, the more general opinion seems to be: one template for all artworks. In this case, as user:Jarekt and others have pointed out, the name of the template should be changed. So:

• artwork ? (pretty simple)
• artwork information ? (that could set a trend for infobox names)
• art information ? (not as precise inmho)
• artifact information ? (more relevant for archeological objects, but sounds a bit pedantic)

• "information artifact" proposed by User:Bibi Saint-Pol below--Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bibi Saint-Pol that word "artifact" covers most of the uses of the template: paintings, sculptures and archeological objects. However I do not like this word much since it has a lot of other meanings like w:Compression artifacts, etc. I prefer "artwork" which covers paintings, sculptures and many archeological works. I would vote for "artwork" which is short and precise, or "artwork information" which is a bit long and has 2 words (I prefer single-word template names over multi-word ones) but I like that it makes the name similar to {{Information}}. I do not like "information artifact" or "information artwork" because the first is a phrase used to describe features associated with information, see for example here and second sounds like artwork made from information (whatever that might be). --Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Artwork. Definitely. Rocket000 (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment See also Template_talk:Painting/Archiv/2010#Painting_or_artwork.3F discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One or two templates ? (moved from below credit line)

Where can I read more on the arguments why the template should be split in a 2D and a 3D version? --Slomox (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any detailed discussion on the subject, but Docu supported the idea on this page arguing that: "The main advantage of having several templates is that they can be easier to fill in. One might as well replace all by one just create an input/edit mask that varies by type of image. Not sure if adding photographers by default for 2d artwork is of much use."--Zolo (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see how "photographer" is useful for 3D, but to a lesser degree for 2D. but if that is all, that's IMHO a weak reason for a split. Are there more important differences? --Slomox (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WMF position on copyright on 2D is not the same as 3D. This has nothing to do with the provenance/credit line though.  Docu  at 04:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To me there would be some minor advantages in having separate templates (the source field could be made optional for 2D but not 3D artworks and the technique field could be called differently for paintings and sculptures). However I don't think that the license question is directly relevant here, as the license has to be checked for all files anyway (make sure it is a faithful reproduction, that the painting is in the public domain etc.) On balance, I think that a single template is better because:

• It already takes quite long to develop and maintain one template, it would probably be worse with many (even if it could make the choice of parameters easier).
• It will probably not be easy to make one template widely known and used contributors, and it will certainly be worse if there are serveral templates.--Zolo (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Technique

What we put in the "technique" field is not really technique, it is rather the material used. Should we keep the word technique anyway or use:

• material ?
• technique/material ? (quite cautious)
• medium ? (used, among others, by the Metropolitan Museum and the Brooklyn museum)

I'd go with "medium".--Slomox (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would vote to either leave it as is ("watercolor over graphite on paper" sounds like a technique to me) or call it "medium". There is high price for any changes since we already have 58 translations which should be changed too. --Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think technique is okay for "watercolor on paper" but not really for "bronze" or "Hymettus marble".--Zolo (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Technique/medium" or "technique/material" works for "watercolor on paper", "bronze" or "wood carving with tempera". A specific material may require some specific techniques. --V.Riullop (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can't really separate material and technique (I think it is quite clear in the "wood carving with tempera" case). I'd go for technique/material (but for "medium" that seems to be somewhere in between if we have to use only one word)--Zolo (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Credit line

It is not only a question of words. But should provenance and credit line be merged in one field ? To me it would be much simpler. Many museums have two fields, but "credit line" has probably for them some legal implications that are not directly relevant to Commons. Furthermore, it seems that the word does not lend itself well to translation: the word on the German template is "Objektgeschichte" (object history), which seems to be much more encompassing. If the scope of the credit line field is extended, should it be renamed to

• provenance ?
• credit line/provenance ?
• object history ? (this one would make things simpler, and clearer to people not too familiar with museum's technical terms. I am not sure that it is widely used by art historians and professional curators however)

--Zolo (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "credit line" should be kept separate from the provenance. If we want to make the provenance a parameter of its own, I'd suggest to name the parameter "object history". That should be easy to understand for everybody. In the rendered template we can use e.g. "Provenance/Object history", so both pros and laymen will get it. --Slomox (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This 2D/3D splitting is absolutly not relevant for me. The fields are the same for 2D as for 3D works.

1. I am rather pro “Information artifact”: the name “information” should be used in every specialised information template, and “artifact” is the only name which covers both art and archaeological works. But we should create redirections of course!
2. “Material/medium” (both) would be the most explicit.
3. “Object history”: it is the only one that is clear for everybody. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like idea of merging Provenance aka object history and Credit line. They seem to be very similar with Credit line recording the last change of ownership. I also like to call it "object history" better than "provenance" which is not widely known even by many native English speakers. Is there any reason to keep object history and Credit line separate?--Jarekt (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason. Adquisition credit is just the last line of the provenance history. They can be merged avoiding confusion with licence credit requirements. --V.Riullop (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, "credit line" is an obligation of the museum requested by the entity who gave the object to the museum. (It's the museum's obligation, not ours, but I don't see any reason to not support it.) It usually is closely connected to the last change in the provenance, but there's no guarantee that it's the same. A donor could donate an image to a museum and say "Please display the sentence "donated to the X museum in loving memory of YZ" next to the image". --Slomox (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's comparable to Wikipedia. The version history shows your user name, but in the "attribution" parameter of license templates you can specify a different attribution text if you want to. --Slomox (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

“Provenance” and “Credit line” are separated in museum notices. “Provenance” is used for the place where the object was found, and “Credit line” for the “conservation history” of the object (collections, purchases, adquisitions, gifts...). IMO, “Provenance” should be merged with “Description”, and “Credit line” should be renamed “Object history”. See File:Eos Memnon Louvre G115.jpg for an example. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It may depend on countries and languages. But in English, the more common usage seems to be: "provenance" for the whole ownership history and "credit line" for how the work came into the museum ("The work's credit line indicates how the work came into the permanent collection or how it came to be on view at the Metropolitan Museum"/ "Provenance" is the history of ownership of the work before it came to the Metropolitan Museum." [8])

I think that if the provenance parameter is properly filled, il will necessarily capture the gist of the credit line, since the credit line has always something to do with the acquisition of the work. If we just put "given by Mr Smith" in the last part of provenance, it may miss something, as Mr Smith may wish to see "gift of Mr Smith in memory of his dog". But I don't see what should prevent us writing "1998, given to the museum of Dogville by Mr Smith in memory of his dog", this way, we wouldn'thave the whole credit line.--Zolo (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Slomox objection is right in that the usual credit line to say "purchased in 1978 with the money of Mr FiFi is simply "Fifi Fund, 1978". For now the only files we have that have things like that images from the Brooklyn Museum. Their text can probably be bot-changed to make them a better fit in an "object history" field.

I also share Vriullop's concern about possible confusions between credit line and license.--Zolo (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Summary

The way I read it the consensus is leaning towards following changes:

1. Rename {{Painting}} to {{Artwork}}
2. Rename field "technique" to "technique/material" "medium" (changed by Jarekt (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC))
3. Add new field "object history"

Unless there is strong opposition and if nobody beats me to it, I perform those changes this weekend. --Jarekt (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection on 1 and 3, but I don't see a big consensus for "technique/material". With two words ans a slash it's rather longish. "medium" would be shorter and from a consensus point of view there's just as much consensus for "medium" as for "technique/material". --Slomox (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection (even if I would prefer to rename credit line rather than create a new field) I'm probably not the best judge on the other two points since I supported 2 and had no opinion on 1.--Zolo (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I must add: I have just realized that the reason why museums don't use the words "object history" may be: logically, the date of creation and things like that are also part of the object history--Zolo (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection. Perhaps "medium" makes sense in English (I dunno), but as it is a common Latin word it results too much ambiguous in romance languages and translations will be more related to "technique and/or material or support". As Zolo I would prefer to rename credit line to object history rather than a new field. --V.Riullop (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see "Credit Line" as being used much. But is used by {{Meta information museum}} and museums uploading images might need a place to stick credit lines like "Donation in loving memory of my dog Rex", etc. --Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep the credit lines - because it is convenient for museums to use it - but not put it in the copy-paste version of the template because the notion is not clear to everyone and we might end up with more than a few "this work is in the public domain, no credit line" or the like.--Zolo (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done As promised the template was renamed, "Technique" was renamed to "Medium" (in English only) and "Object history" was added. --Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I change French version to "technique/matériaux" as I don't think "medium" would be used in French here.--Zolo (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Inscriptions

I'm adding it here because the template's revamp is hopefully nearing completion, and after that there probably won't be any major change for some time. Do you support the creation of an "inscriptions" field ? It is quite customary for museums to mention the inscriptions that appear on an artwork, and it is also gainging ground on Commons as can be seen from the usage of {{Inscriptions}} {{Signed}} and {{Painting-markings}}. For now inscriptions are put in the "notes" field, which is a bit of a catch-all (though much less so since the creation of credit line and description, side note: splitting "description" and "notes" is much more useful than I had realized). --Zolo (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with adding this field. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So, if nobody is against it, could you add it now ? User:Vincent Steenberg also supported the idea on template talk:inscriptions. I am not sure it will be very easy to bot-move all inscriptions from the note field, so we should probably not wait too long. Also, if the labels are getting translated, it could be simpler to add "inscriptions" at the same time.--Zolo (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please help with translations. --Jarekt (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a translations that were available at {{Inscriptions/plural}}.--Zolo (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PDF&Books

see w:Help:Books/Feedback#Attribution.  Docu  at 14:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename Painting->Artwork in all the files?

I could easily rename Painting->Artwork in all the files. Should we do it or should we be doing it in the future if doing other changes to the template? --Jarekt (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is probably better to do it fairly quickly as some users are (understandably) confused by the use of the word "painting". But see my update below--Zolo (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

+1. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As soon as possible IMHO. And thanks for the renaming of the template (finally!) – it was overdue! --Mylius (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the template for fossiles etc.

user:Archaeodontosaurus is planning to add numerous photos taken at the muséum de Toulouse. Many of them are fossiles and things like that. He is wondering if the template could be so extended as to be used in such cases. To me there is no problem with that. To have an idea of what it could look like, see [[::File:Coelodonta antiquitatis Crane.jpg]]. Of course, this would make the word "artwork" even less relevant I don't see much alternative, perhaps museum item, but I don't think it is any better.--Zolo (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I do not really have an opinion on that (except that your example does look good ;-).

I thing this template is fine to use for fossils. --Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One day after the template was renamed from Painting to Artwork you come up with an example case that's neither a painting nor an artwork ;-)

Yes I know. Now that I find the template remplate attractive, I advertise it, and discover cases I hadn't thought of. :)

langSwitch

(demerged from Use of the template for fossiles etc.) I noticed you (user Zolo) used {{LangSwitch}} for the File:Coelodonta antiquitatis Crane.jpg. I have seen that many times recently from other users. I believe we shouldn't use {{LangSwitch}} for that purpose. If, for example, a Spanish-speaking user commes to see the previous picture, he will be forced upon English, and would not have any chance to see the description in French, and even to know that it exists. One can imagine worse : he may believe that the Description is meant to be in English and period, and would not know that we do support him to translate it in his language.

For these reasons, I believe {{Mld}} is a far better choice for this purpose.

What are your thoughts on that ?

Jean-Fred (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's only one language, there's no reason for any translation templates. If there's, say 3 or more, then use {{Mld}}. However, if the file description is viewed from another project or if the user follows the Commons link, it will be in the language of the project they are on or came from if {{LangSwitch}} is used. Rocket000 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, it doesn't make much sense to use langSwitch here. --Zolo (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Datawiki", information pooling

(demerged from Use of the template for fossiles etc.) Actually I was wondering if it could be useful to have a template similar to creator or museum for animals. I am not sure this is the right place to mention the idea however. --Zolo (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering if it could be useful to have a template similar to creator or museum for animals: We are heavily heading towards Datawiki at the moment, I guess. Peter Potrowl recently finished his Google Summer of Code project about interwiki transclusion. It's about making it possible to transclude templates (or generally pages) from one wiki to another. This can be used to store interwiki links in a single place instead of redundantly on every single Wikipedia version or to store infobox-like data structures that can be included on Wikipedia pages without storing the data redundantly and possibly inconsistent. If we want to have animal templates we should keep in mind this future development and not create too much redundancy with future Datawiki or Wikispecies. --Slomox (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, we are a bit inconsistent. We have creator templates in a separate namespace because creators can be the creator of several objects. But we can also have several depictions of the same artwork. So it would be logical to put artwork templates in an artwork namespace and transclude them to the file description pages of files depicting the artwork. Most of the parameters refer to the artwork, only 'source' and 'permission' refer to the file. --Slomox (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We have for example several depictions of the Mona Lisa. But each picture stores the information about the painting separately. Some say the painting is 'cottonwood', some call it 'poplar', one just says 'wood panel'. It would be meaningful to have just one template:Mona Lisa and have the single files transclude that information. --Slomox (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely support the creation of an artwork namespace, provided that the description can still be adapated to each particular image. I had experimented something like that at Template:Self-portrait with Felt Hat (1888).

There is one related thing that I think would be very convenient, albeit technically more demanding : that one and only one image of each artwork show up by default in each relevant category. Currently no image of Van Gogh's Self-portrait with Felt Hat appears in category category:Self-portrait paintings by Vincent van Gogh, because there are so many photos of it that a special category had to be created. At the same time some paintings appear two or three times in the same category so that at first sight we have no clear idea of what the category really contains. If we could avoid categories that just contain several photos of the same artwork, and had not twice the same artwork showing in the same category, it would make things look clearer, especially, I suppose, to inexpererienced readers.--Zolo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One concern I have about artwork infobox namespace is that we do not need many versions of the same painting. I understand we might need 2 or 3, but with exception of image details what would be a purpose of more images? I am not sure if we need a whole family of artwork templates with 2-3 transclusions each. But if we decide to have them we probably do not need a designated namespace right away Category:Museum templates store Creator-like templates occupying Museum pseudo-namespace. The difference is that one has to use {{:Museum:Name}} notation instead of {{Museum:Name}}. I assume that if we have enough of those we will create namespace for them in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In many cases (like category:Self-portrait with Felt Hat (1888)), many images are obviously unneeded and things would be simpler if we did not have them. But I am afraid that deletion requests will be a bit complicated. More importantly, while it is probably not useful to have too many pictures of the same paintings, things are different for sculptures, where different points of view give truly different images.--Zolo (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

capital letters

Would there be any major drawback in capitalizing be default the first letter inside each field, or at least inside date and technique. As of now, {{other date|between|1000|2000}} displays as "between 1000 and 2000.", so that to have the first letter of the date capitalised we have to write {{ucfirst: {{other date|between|1000|2000}} }}, which is a bit heavy. Ib the same time, the first letter of {{Technique}} is capitalized by default, which is not very consistent (and not always convenient, because outside templates one may wish to write something like a multinlingual "Portrait of Mr Gogo, oil on canvas" without having a capital letter at "Oil".
Another solution could be : decide that the first letters of technique and dates don't need any capital letter so that capital letters can be removed in {{Technique}}--Zolo (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

arg, at least one problem with that is that it seems that ucfirst don't work when there are interwiki ({{ucfirst: [[:en:hello|hello]] }}) doesn't capitalize hello.--Zolo (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lowercase seems best, then it can be used inline, while after a colon it does not matter much. Starting a full sentence with "oil on canvas" etc. does not seem needed. Alternatively, a parameter could determine upper/lower case.--Patrick (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed default upper case, I think it's okay this way.--Zolo (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

References

I think the way references are given should be standardized. Following the example of {{Joconde}}, there was a tendency to use big templates and to put them outside the infobox. Now that we have a "references" field, I think it make things a bit unclear to have references outside the infobox as well. Also, I am not sure that big templates inside the references field would be a good idea, all the more as there cannot be a template for each reference. So, I would rather see something like this:

Artist	Leonardo da Vinci  (1452–1519)       Alternative names Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, Leonardo Description Italian painter, engineer, astronomer, philosopher, anatomist and mathematician Date of birth/death 15 April 1452  2 May 1519  Location of birth/death Anchiano Clos Lucé Work period from 1466 until 1519 date QS:P,+1500-00-00T00:00:00Z/6,P580,+1466-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P582,+1519-00-00T00:00:00Z/9 Work location Florence (1466–1482), Milan (1483–1499), Mantua (1499), Venice (1500), Florence (1500–1506), Milan (1506–1513), Florence (1507–1508), Rome (1513–1516), Amboise (1513–1518) Authority file : Q762 VIAF: 24604287 ISNI: 000000012124423X ORCID: 0000-0002-3013-9914 ULAN: 500010879 LCCN: n79034525 NAID: 88694584 NLA: 35964654 MusicBrainz: dc0640db-f5db-4fde-a5ca-ab1331f94a43 MGP: 131700 WGA: l/leonardo Open Library: OL54736A DBNL: vinc007 GND: 118640445 SELIBR: 207435 SUDOC: 085975915 BNF: 11912491s NDL: 00447394 BIBSYS: 90075047 HDS: 048803 NCL: 010419652 NKC: jn19990005005 SBN: CFIV016816 RSL: 000084536 BNE: XX971832 CALIS: n2004535444 CiNii: DA0036810X NLP: a0000001180523 KulturNav: ba0098eb-25b5-4c6a-8af7-2d7d884bf1fc RKD: 49450 J9U: 987007264293605171 BNR: 000127264 Koninklijke: 068519451 Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural: pessoa26053/leonardo-da-vinci NLK: KAC199616385 WorldCat artist QS:P170,Q762
Title	English: The Mona Lisa (or La Joconde, La Gioconda). Français : La Joconde. Català: La Mona Lisa. Lëtzebuergesch: D'Mona Lisa vum Leonardo da Vinci. Română: „Gioconda” de Leonardo da Vinci Türkçe: Leonardo da Vinci tarafından yapılan Mona Lisa tablosu
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)
Collection	Louvre Museum     (Inventory) Native name Louvre Museum  Location 1st arrondissement of Paris , France Coordinates 48° 51′ 40″ N, 2° 20′ 09″ E   Established 10 August 1793  Website www.louvre.fr Authority file : Q19675 VIAF: 257711507 ISNI: 000000012260177X ULAN: 500125189 LCCN: n80020283 NLA: 35912436 WorldCat institution QS:P195,Q19675
Current location	Salle des États
References	Online databases: Louvre database, number 14135 Joconde database, number 000PE025604 Catalogue raisonné: JT23: Jim Titi, Works of Leonardo, Oxford, OUP, 2012, n°23 Other references: Leonarda da Vinci, Why my husband painted that girl, 1515, unpublished Wikipedia ?
Source/Photographer	my computer

--Zolo (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree I always preferred link templates small and in text-only version, like in my Template:Ushmm-link or Template:Forum-link. --Jarekt (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Templates can be fancy but unobtrusive. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 10:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe also suggest the use of {{Cite book}} here?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

artwork namespace: proposal

initial proposal; some technical issues

As mentioned by user:Slomox, there are cases where it could be convenient to have an "artwork" namespace. I have tried to create a template for such cases. The main ideas are: In files using the template, the output is similar to that of "artwork", except that description is split into "object description" and "image description". Infos about the artwork are centralized, in the "artwork" page, so that when one wants to change something in the artwork description, it only needs to be done at one place. There is a "default image" that appears in the same categories as the template. For example, if "artwork: XX" templates were used for all paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, there would be one and only one photograph of each painting in category:paintings by Leonardo da Vinci. At first sight, the template may seem a bit complex, but actually it is not much more complicated to use than {{Artwork}} and it could make many things easier to manage. For an implementation, see: Category:Royal Gold Cup, British Museum (main template) File:British Museum Royal Gold Cup.jpg (default image) File:British Museum Royal Gold Cup Detail.jpg (another image) One thing that may be a bit annoying is that one has to add "homecat=(artwork name)|Image description={{{image description|}}}||permission={{{permission|}}}|source={{{source|}}}" in each artwork template. Apparently there is no way to avoid that. I have made some conditional formatting so that a file does not appear in the "other versions" of itself. It seems to have created parsers problems so that it is not possible to display any image caption in "other versions". It can probably be corrected this but I did not manage to do it. It would be very helpful to have a linkback to the artwork description template but I don't know how to do it. I have tested the template using a category, but it would be much more convenient to have an "artwork" namespace, because "artwork:foo" should not contain the same things as "category:foo". To me Category:foo should only be used when we have, say, preparatory sketches for foo, while "artwork:foo" should only contain images of foo itself itself. In such cases, "artwork:foo" would be included in "category:foo". In cases like the Royal Gold Cup, I think "category" could advantageouly be replaced by "artwork". Can I try to request the creation of an "artwork" namespace ?--Zolo (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC) +1 for the creation of "Artwork:" namespace. I find the split between work information and file information very useful, but I wonder if it is not possible to implement it in an easier way you've done. For instance, why not considering using to templates: Keep {{Artwork}} for artwork informations and only that (so we should remove source/permission of it). Use {{Information}} for file informations and only that (description of the file subject/detail + author/date/source/permission for the file). In this way, {{Artwork}} would be embeded in the "Artwork:" namespace and then used in each file in association with {{Information}} (there could be 2 sections to properly divide the page: “Artwork information” and “File information”). That would be simple and request no esoteric parameters to be pass in. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 10:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC) See File:Rhesos krater Antikensammlung Berlin 1984.39.jpg for a crude example. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I have mixed feelings about dividing the page into 2 sections. It seems logical because the artwork and the image are two different things. But I am not quite sure that it would be extremely readable. In cases like File:Adolf Friedrich Erdmann von Menzel 006.jpg, you have to mention that only a detail of the painting is shown. If "detail" is only mentionned in a "file information" template below a long artwork template, it may be overlooked by users, who may thus mistake a detail for the full painting. I am not sure about what you mean by "esoteric parameters". The template itself (user:Zolo/test/layout) is a bit longer than the current template, but the way it needs to be filled is very similar. With a few simple edits, my template could replace the current {{Artwork}} and nothing would appear to have changed in files currently using artwork. If the template is created withing the "artwork" namespace, some additional things need to be done, but they are actually quite simple: Write categories inside the template rather than outside, and use "category1= category2=". This is done to have "default images" in the categories. Slomox suggested this solution, I do it this way and I do not see any other way to do it. Obviously, we could also do without default images, but I think it would be very interesting to have it. Other versions is given in a form, "image1= caption1= image2=, image3=" form. This is to avoid that an image appears in the "other versions" of itself. You have to add "homecat=(artwork name)|Image description={{{image description|}}}||permission={{{permission|}}}|source={{{source|}}}" in the template. This is annoying but purely mechanical. The rest of what appears in Category:Royal Gold Cup, British Museum would be written in the same way if {{Artwork}} was used. --Zolo (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I do not think we need another template to accomplish the task. I think {{Artwork}} is just fine for that. Just like we have 120 [[:Category:Infobox templates: based on Information template|templates based on {{Information}} template]] over thousand [[:Category:Book templates|templates based on {{Book}} template]] we can create some templates based on {{Artwork}} template. Parameters for source, permission & other versions might need to be provided as parameters. --Jarekt (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I agree that it would probably be simpler to keep only one artwork template. However, if an artwork namespace is created, it would make sense to use it for many works. In this case, and whether we adopt a soution akin to my proposal or to Bibi Saint-Pol's one, small changes in the template would be useful. For instance "source" should be turned off in the artwork namespace because "This file is lacking source information." would not make sense there. I would tend to think that if the namespace is created, it would make sense to use it for as many files as possible: it would yield something more akin to a database, which could allow convenient automatic categories. For instance, I think it could be interesting that {{technique|pearls}} categorize artworks in something like "artwork using pearls". It would be simple to do if the automatic categorization worked only in the "artwork" namespace, but if it worked in the "file" namespace as well, you would end up with 29 images of the Royal Gold Cup. My suggestion of a "default image" may have been misguided. The way I implemented it for the Royal Gold Cup may not be all clear. A much more efficient alternative would be that "artworks" directly appear with an image in categories (just like files)--Zolo (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I did not mention it in my previous note but I do not have issues with Artwork: namespace if we have enough templates to populate it, and we can use pseudo-namespace until we have enough. Also is some required fields of {{Artwork}} cause issues then they can be disabled by "strict=" parameter as in {{Artwork|title=My Artwork|description=my description|strict=}} giving My Artwork Title My Artwork Description my description instead of usual My Artwork Title My Artwork --Jarekt (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) An "Artwork:" namespace would be very useful, since any artwork described with {{Artwork}} are concerned. If it is created, its use should be recommanded for any new artwork (soon or late we'll have multiple photos of each work). IMO the need is huge. The usage of {{Artwork}} with a strict parameter sounds interesting to me. Now I just wonder how to include infos which are specific for each file. {{Information}} ? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC) One way to do that would be as in the example Artwork:Mona Lisa: {{:Artwork:Mona Lisa|source=[[user:Donald Duck|Donald Duck]] ({{own}})|description=my description}} which gives Artwork:Mona Lisa --Jarekt (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, that could be sufficiant if only source matters. But how to do when there is a need to add an extra file description (detail or part of an artwork) with a separate license? Ontologically speaking, there are 2 distinct information families: artwork and file. The templating solution to solve that point should make them clear. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I just added description to the example above. I do not like splitting templates into artwork and file description, but if that is the direction we want to take than use {{:Artwork:Mona Lisa}} with no parameters in addition to {{Information}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) There must be 2 descriptions: one for the artwork (general description, shared between all files) and one specific for the file (if the detail/part needs description). That's why my opinion is to have separate templates; but it could be fixed by adding an additional parameter to {{Artwork}} too (file description?). Consider File:Sophilos me grafsen.jpg as a better example than Mona Lisa here: the artwork description should deal with the BF-dinos, and the file description with the signature. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC) About the license, I think it would be more cautious to add the license separately in each file. About the description of a particular file, I think there could be a simple solution, but it can only be done if we are not obliged to display the full, lengthy license tags in each file: we could simply add a caption just below the photo. For File:Rhesos krater Antikensammlung Berlin 1984.39.jpg, we would have something like: Caption: Side A: Odysseus and Diomedes stealing the horses of Rhesus. Photograph: User:Bibi Saint-Pol, 2008. License: Public Domain (explanation). The artwork template would appear just below and nothing more would be needed.--Zolo (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Using a license tag template is considered as a good pratice and is strongly encouraged. I mean, it's already difficult to understand what to do with a file on Commons, so hiding the only clear an common information is a suicide... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) For readers, I think that having the name of the photographer and the name of the license clearly stated just below the image would be rather clearer than having a long license tag below the file description. In the present situtation, it is not always clear whether the license applies to the text or to the image, and who should be credited when the image is reused. But you are right, for uploaders, it may not be as clear, and having harmonized Commons conventions make things simpler.--Zolo (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Templates have to be used because they are machine-readable: the Wikipedia PDF tool, search engines such as Google and other applications can with this recognise the licence and properly attribute it. Of course, templates could be made more compact if needed.Jean-Fred (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the idea of a namespace

Seems that the discussion moved from creating and Artwork namespace ; but I wanted to state my opinion on this. I believe having a dedicated artwork template for say, the Mona Lisa, because we have several of those, completely duplicates what we already have, Category:Mona Lisa (which fits perfectly with the rest of Commons, which for better or for worse works with categories). I believe all the common information should be included in the category, rather that in some template. See for example Category:The Flagellation of Christ by Caravaggio. This also what we do for historical monuments in France, see for example Category:Basilique Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Vézelay

The next step would be to find a way to include semi-automagically the content of the category in the different files. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, artwork namespace should work like a category in that photographs of the artwork should appear on the artwork page. However, artwork:Mona Lisa and category:Mona Lisa would be different in that the category should include File:Leonardo design attributed.jpg and this, but the artwork should not. If I understand you correctly you want to (temporarily) remove all infos about Mona Lisa from all Mona Lisa files, which would mean that someone clicking on a photo of Mona Lisa on Wikipedia would get author=user XX date=2008 and nothing about the painting itself. I really don't think it would be convenient. --Zolo (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hum, ok, now I see better what you want to do with this artwork NS, but I am not sure it would be possible.

I realise I may not have been very clear: You are of course right, and infos about paintings should be moved when and only when it works, so that no info is "lost" for the reader. However, for historical monuments, we already tag only the category of the building, not every file it may contain. So that, for the moment, a reader viewing a File displaying a MH would not "know" that it is a MH if they do not go to the category. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be technically possible, but it would require a willing system administrator (or whoever is in chager of that).

Monuments and artworks may have somewhat different requirements. It would not make sense to add detailed information about Westminster Abbey on a photograph of a tomb in Westminster Abbey, while the description of every photograph of the Venus of Arles should have most tings in common. Thus infobox templates for a particular artwork could be much more useful than infobox templates for a particular monument. For instance, I have changed the description of all files in Category:Coffret 13075, to adapt them to the new artwork template. I realised afterwards that I should have written "elephant invory" rather than simply "ivory". I did not bother to correct every file. If there had been a template:Coffret 13075, I could have corrected it directly, which would have been much quicker.--Zolo (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

En résumé : we apparently all agree on the fact that an "Artwork:" namespace should be created; a page of this namespace would typically contain an {{Artwork}} template, with the strict parameter (no source/permission field displayed). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, no we do not, actually. :-| Please be careful when summarising discussions. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Page layout : artwork info and file info

Now the question is how to display additional informations for each file? How to display the author of the file, the date of the file, the source of the file and its license/permission? How to display the supplementary caption for a detail/part?—As all these fields already exist in {{Information}}, I find it's the simplest way to do it. In fact, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to remove file informations like source and permission from the {{Artwork}} template. That way, things will be definitly clear. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing file infos from artwork:It will be the logical solution if we agree to separate artwork description and file description and if we a bot can do it for each file. But I think we still have a long way to go before we can do that.

Place for file infos: To me the clearest solution would be to have a caption below the image, with the same infos as tl:information, but in a much more compact form. It does not seem feasible, but I fear that having two full infoboxes will look a bit unwieldy, so my personal preference would go to my initial proposal: add an "image description" field below the description of the object and keep license and source where they currently are.--Zolo (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)clarified:--Zolo (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to remove the source and permission parameters from {{Artwork}}. They are used by a lot of files at this time, and as you noticed it would be hard to change them with a bot. But by using a strict presentation, these fields are hidden. So we can have a pragmatic approach, which allow people to choose: if they want to include source and permission in {{Artwork}}, they can; if not, they can too.

We can be pragmatic for "additional infos" too. I mean: if some want to use {{Information}} for that, we can't forbid it in any way. After all, this template is meant for that and it does not requires any change... On the other side, if some want to create a new template just for an additional caption, that could be a solution too; IMO that is a non-KISS way to do it, but the result would be the same for the reader. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

True, it would be non-KISS for tbe file uploader. Butt would not be awfully complex, since we could easily create a "caption" template with almost the same parameters as "information". For the reader however, the result would probably be a bit different. To me a caption should look somewhat like this. It would not appear very "Commons", but I personnally like it better, simply because it is much shorter without any loss of info.--Zolo (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I even think this one would be as good.--Zolo (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do prefer File:Rhesos krater Antikensammlung Berlin 1984.39 n3.jpg, since it is more in the Commons look and feel. However I'm not sure that having 2 separate description fields is really clear for a reader... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the presence of two description fields may be a problem (same thing, more or less, if we use artwork + information). Perhaps we can find a better field name ? I first thought of "part shown" but it is probably overrestrictive. Paybe we could have both "part shown" and "comment", so that we can choose the more relevant word.--Zolo (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have more opinions from Commons users on that chapter ("Artwork:" namespace and how to manage it)? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, feel free to do it. I don't know if the best place for that is the Village Pump or Commons:WikiProject Arts (that I have only recently noticed).--Zolo (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message at the Village Pump.--Zolo (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a bit lazzy about it. I answered there. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

alternative names for parameters

Could the following alternative names be added ?

• "size" for dimensions
• "museum" for gallery--Zolo (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Zolo (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Country field

Recently I noticed that [[:Category:Artwork templates with country parameter 14k files using {{Artwork}} specifies a "Country" parameter which is currently not displayed. I think it is nationality of the author and we do not need it if author uses {{Creator}} template. So I am inclined to just ignore it. Opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I suppose it was created before the existence or creator templates. If it is technically feasibly, I think it could be deleted, because it is no longer used and may create ambiguity.--Zolo (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong attribution with the "Use this file" link

I think it is a brand new functionnality, but the "Use this file" link wich appears on the right of all images from now does not seem to work properly with {{Artwork}}. Look for an example this file, click on the link "Use this file (on a website)", and check the "Attribution"/"HTML" field: it displays the content of the "Artist" field, whereas it should display the content of the "Source" field... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to work best in this case, when the page is split between {{Artwork}} and {{Information}}... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is an error in the functionality, it will have to be corrected because we can't add an information template in all files right now, but I do not know where it should be reported. --Zolo (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's there MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js, I'll report the problem. But is it necessary to add {{own}} in the line ? It seems pretty obvious that it is "own work" since the field is called "photographer". Probably having things like "own" or the date in the source field will make things a bit complicated for the tool. I must say it would be one more reason to move file information out of the artwork template. --Zolo (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if this template accepts the "|other_fields=attribution..." like {{Information}}. I added it in File:Bundesverwaltungsamt - Zentrale Köln - Skulptur von Erwin Heerich (7534-36).jpg w/o any effect :-( Raymond 12:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Translatewiki messages

First is the current label (from {{Artwork/en}}), second name of message, third is contents (also from {{Artwork/en}}, not changed)

• Artist label - wm-license-artwork-artist - Artist
• Title label - wm-license-artwork-title - Title
• Technique label - wm-license-artwork-medium - Medium
• Dimensions label - wm-license-artwork-dimensions - Dimensions
• Current location label - wm-license-artwork-current-location - Current location
• Object history label - wm-license-artwork-object-history - Object history
• Credit line label - wm-license-artwork-credit-line - Credit line
• References label - wm-license-artwork-references - References
• Notes label - wm-license-artwork-notes - Notes
• ID label - wm-license-artwork-id - Accession number
• Source label - wm-license-artwork-source - Source/Photographer

What do you guys think? Multichill (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I already mentioned wm-license-artwork-title and wm-license-book-title are redundant - we need only one. Also wm-license-artwork-id may be should be changed to wm-license-artwork-accession-number and wm-license-artwork-source to wm-license-artwork-source-photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the transaltewiki set to replace the current labels on Commons ? If so I am not sure that we need to have "artwork" in them. the description field would not have it and as mentioned by Jarekt, the title field could be shared with {{Book}}. Other fields like dimensions and notes could probably also be used in other templates. --Zolo (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Multichill, Per discussion above (and some earlier ones) we added "Inscriptions" field. So we will also need :

• Inscriptions label - wm-license-artwork-inscriptions - Inscriptions

We are not planning on adding any other fields, that I know. --Jarekt (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also you probably noticed that already but lines using {{Please Translate}} should not be copied to Wranswiki. --Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stable now? ;-)

I just did {{Book}} and {{Creator}}. If nothing strange happens I'll do this one too. Not anytime soon though. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the messages and imported existing messages. The template can be changed when Commons is updated. Multichill (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

lists of works

Please see Template_talk:Creator#.2Fworks_subpage_in_Creator_namespace.3F.  Docu  at 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

other_fields

I use the other_fields the same way as in {{Information}} but is not shown, see File:Neuer Eiserner Mann - Kleve - Stephan Balkenhol (7787-89).jpg for a file uploaded yesterday. Raymond 09:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done {{Information}} uses wiki-tables syntax for formatting, while most other infoboxes (Book, Artwork, Creator, Museum, ...) use html-tables, so naturally syntax of the other_fields hack will be different. {{Information field}} supports both formats now. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Field for date of photography

In case of sculptures we need a least one more field for information about the photography. In File:Neuer Eiserner Mann - Kleve - Stephan Balkenhol (7787-89).jpg the date field contains the date of inauguration of the sculpture (in 2004). But no field is available for the date of the photography (in 2010). Raymond 09:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the current practive is to have it in the author field but it is certainly not the best way to do it. What about having two boxes one for artwork info and one file info as in this test file File:Reclining girl - Marie-Louise O'Murphy.jpg ?--Zolo (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant may not have been very clear, so I have just added the date in the file. The name of the field "date" so that it is not necessarily clear whether it is upload date or photo date. There is the same problem in {{Information}}.--Zolo (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could use {{Artwork|...|strict=}} for the sculpture with creation date and {{Information}} for the photograph. Each template can be in its own section and has its own license. I did something similar in {{Album du Centenaire}} with {{Artwork}} and {{Book}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Like this edit? Seems to be a good solution. Raymond 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think {{Information}} and {{Artwork}} should be clearly separated, with two different headers, like File:Reclining girl - Marie-Louise O'Murphy.jpg and {{Album du Centenaire}}, otherwise it is not that clear.--Zolo (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

+1. Let's have a clear separation between informations on the file and on the artwork. This should be done with appropriate and explicit sections like Zolo says. But additionnaly, what about using different colors for {{Artwork}}, so that it would be easy-for-eye to make the difference?—The well-known blue color would be for the file informations, and a new yellow/green/whatever color would be for the artwork informations. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For 2D works I think 2 templates are fine but not necessary. I see a real need in photographs of 3D works. I think we will need s standard set of section headers in addition to :Summary, Licensing:. We will probably need Artwork, Photograph and Book section headers. Also I think that can be a recommendation moving forward, but I do not think we will be changing many current pages. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Having two templates is certainly more needed for 3D than 2D artworks, but we have only one template for all artworks and thousand of 3D files currently have only one template. I doubt we can impose new guidelines if they are not followed by existing files. There could be a simple solution: change the layout of Artwork so that info about the file and info about the artwork appear in two different boxes.

About the two-color idea, I think it could be convenient, but they would have to be chosen very carefully. I liked the look of information Louvre but creator templates looked horrible in it.--Zolo (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to {{Artwork}} could be {{Artwork2}}. I think they can peacefully coexist. Section headers would have to be internationalized. --Jarekt (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried something very similar (I don't provide the links directly, because it may not make my point clearer). Beside the fact that it was specifically conceived for an artwork namespace, there are some minor differences:

• A "header" option (see File:Reclining girl - Marie-Louise O'Murphy.jpg). For artworks with a long infobox I think it can be clearer than just ==artwork==.
• Following Bibi Saint-Pol's advice, the second part is not called "photograph" (for cases like engravings of Trajan's column).

Two templates can certainly coexist, but why not change the layout of the current one ? We have juste merged painting and metainformation museum to make things simpler, we should try to keep a single standard.--Zolo (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The new format is not back-compatible with current files. We do not know which license is for photo and which for artwork, same with author, date, description, etc. We also need to split Photographer/source into Photographer and photo source. It can be done only by manual intervention. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, even if in the current template with the current layout, it is pretty clear that author ("artist"), date and description are intended to refer to the work.

Having one license for the artwork and one for the photo seems logical way but I don't know how readers will react when they see two different licenses in two different parts of the page.

For the file, could we use a "strict" version of {{Information}} ? This is because in many cases, the description would boil down to "photo of the sculpture described above", so I am not sure that the field should be made compulsory.--Zolo (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

two different licenses? Should not be happen. 1 license from the photographer is needed only. Sometimes an OTRS ticket from the artwork copyright holder is needed but that is not shown as license. Raymond 08:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree: it would be very confusing and not really helpful to have 2 different licences. File copyright is enough.

OK to use a "strict" version of {{Information}} for the file informations. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Two licenses are frequently needed for derived work. For example a photograph of a sculpture needs license for the sculpture and for the photograph. One can be PD-old and other CC. {{PD-art}} is a 2 in 1 license PD-old for painting and PD-ineligible for the photograph. --Jarekt (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but most of users do not understand how they can reuse a file with one license; two won't help much... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In dutch law, there is a distinction between the photographed object and the photograph; especially the photograph metadata have a copyright independent from the copyright of the pictured item. If there is no license for the metadata, these have to be removed in reusing the picture. Two licenses seem appropriate. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that the Dutch version of {{PD-art}} : "this is a faithful reproduction of a 2D PD artwork. You are free to use it, but don't use the metadate without explicit consent of the uploader." ? --Zolo (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Inserted @Zolo: It does not only concern metadata; a 15-jear dutch e-copyight exists and if someone uploads here with PD, that may conflict with site copyright. tl|PD-art says Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. They advised me to use a double licensing, see HERE. I now use PD-art + Photo Licensing==>PD-own. --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting too complicated. If we keep going in this direction this template will look like the upload form. Multichill (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the file license can't be less restrictive than the license on the artwork. So it should be fine if we only have the file license. Beside, as the license appears on a file, it seems logical to use the license that applies to the file. Of course we have to make sure that it does not not conflict with the artwork license. The only potentially tricky case is that of non-PD photos of non-PD artworks. But even there, I think we could use the license chosen by the photograph, making sure that it does not violate the artwork license. It should be made clear that both the artist and the photograph must be credited, but I think it would be much simpler if it could be done through something like {{CC-by-3.0|artwork=Somebody|sculpture=Someone}} .--Zolo (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no legal requirement to credit PD work, although it might be a good idea as a courtesy thing. And license of the photographer is quite independent from that of the artwork that is why we can not upload any photo we find on the web of PD statue but we can upload photos of paintings we find on the web. --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is: either there are some rights attached to the artwork, and then the file license has to take them into account, or there are none and then we do not need to mention it in a separate license tag. In either case, the file license should be enough. What I meant with {{CC-by-3.0|artwork=Somebody|sculpture=Someone}} is that when we need multiple attributions, it would probably simpler to do it through a single license template than having two different licenses at two different places.--Zolo (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But for instance, a work could use a FAL license and its photograph could be released under CC-BY-SA (and probably PD?). All non-PD artworks do not need to see their reproductions published under the same conditions.

Still, these are very rare cases on Commons as far as I know. Let's stay simple for simple cases, where the reproduction copyright is enough. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Section headers

Should we collect here suggestions for additional section headers? {{int:license}}, {{int:license}} and {{int:license-header}} are part of MediaWiki core mesages.

Maybe this talk should be copied to {{Book}}, there may be more headers need for the description+book or artwork+book combination--Zolo (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can add additional section headers like {{int:artwork}} to WikimediaMessages.i18n.php for translation in Translatewiki. Raymond 08:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• Artwork
  • I'd like to have "artwork" by default and a header option to customize it.--Zolo (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (but that's totally beside the point)--Zolo (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Book: we already have {{int:Coll-collection}} giving "Book" --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Photograph --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Raymond, would you create one for the upload form to be used there instead of {{int:license}}? Currently {{int:license}} rather than {{int:license-header}} is used on file description page and that would be a bit cumbersome to change here (unless someone runs a server side update on all file description pages).  Docu  at 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Map and image maybe (maps and images from books that are not really artworks)--Zolo (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC) edited --Zolo (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW. I created template {{Section header}} which acts as a single place where various headers can be found. It should be useful now but should be expanded. --Jarekt (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. But I disagree with the use of "Photograph" as a section header for artwork file descriptions. The files are not necessarily photographs, they can also be hand-made or digital reproductions. See File:Oidipous sphinx MGEt 16541 reconstitution.svg, File:Britannica Horn Trajan's Column Reliefs.png and File:Trajans-Column-lower-animated.svg. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Object (artwork doesn't alway fit)--Zolo (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

micro usability initiative

Artwork infoboxes often use many templates like creator, other date, technique etc. It is really useful but it can make it intimidating and a bit difficult to use for newbies. A small simplification could be to make the template automatically transform "|gallery=Louvre" into "|gallery={{:museum:Louvre}}". I guess it could easily be done by adding {{#ifexist: museum:{{{gallery|}}} | {{:museum:{{{gallery|}}}}} | {{{gallery|}}} }} somewhere in the template.--Zolo (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems necessary to avoid to much complexity. What fields are concerned? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think museum is the field where it would work best. It could also work for authors/{{Creator}}, provided there is only one author and with medium/{{Technique}} for simple cases like 'marble' or 'lithograph'. But I am afraid the only case where it could work really well would be museum.--Zolo (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I added it to author and museum. Generally I like that and used it in {{Book}} template already, but I am also worried that complicating templates too much and making them "smarter", makes their logic harder to follow and confuses users who thought they knew how things work. --Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to work fine except in a few cases, at least on my computer:

{{Artwork |artist= * {{technique|drawing}}{{int:colon}}{{Creator:Winslow Homer}} * {{technique|engraving}}{{int:colon}}{{Creator:John Karst}} |strict=}} gives something strange:

Artist

drawing: Winslow Homer  (1836–1910)      Alternative names w. homer; homer w.; W.m Homer; Wm. Homer; Wm. (unidentified) Homer; Homer Description American painter, photographer, printmaker and illustrator Date of birth/death 24 February 1836  29 September 1910  Location of birth/death Boston Maine Work period 1859 – Work location Category:New York, Philadelphia, Maine (USA) Authority file : Q344838 VIAF: 15044075 ISNI: 0000000108727050 ULAN: 500019202 LCCN: n79023170 NLA: 35204236 MusicBrainz: fe98d2bb-3b90-4048-91eb-6927cc4ce919 WGA: h/homer Open Library: OL243369A GND: 119193523 SELIBR: 304583 SUDOC: 028728726 BNF: 12050476t BIBSYS: 90520644 NKC: ola2003192320 BNE: XX874605 CiNii: DA07187657 NLP: a0000002354502 RKD: 39386 J9U: 987007276401205171 Koninklijke: 070111030 WorldCat artist QS:P170,Q344838 engraving: John Karst  (1836–1922)     Description German engraver Date of birth/death 1836  1922  Location of birth/death Bingen am Rhein Debruce Authority file : Q22117259 VIAF: 29383341 ISNI: 0000000067052471 ULAN: 500078499 LCCN: nr90014480 WorldCat artist QS:P170,Q22117259

(the code works if I put the same code it in any other field than author or gallery) --Zolo (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not the answer but as I saw it now: why was MediaWiki:Colon created? We have MediaWiki:Colon-separator as MediaWiki core message. I propose to delete MediaWiki:Colon (or create a redirect). Raymond 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It allows to have in internationalized colon (in French there is a space between the colon and the previous word)--Zolo (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. Thats why MediaWiki:Colon-separator/fr exists (better visible in MessagesFr.php). Raymond 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange, if I put {{creator:Winslow Homer}} on a new line, it works...--Zolo (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

location field

Should the location field contain only the location within the museum from a strictly physical point of view ? I think it can also contain things like "department of paintings". In the case things like "American Art Collection" - that do not say anything about the physical loation of the work- appear only in categories. As they may not be that inuitive (paintings from colonial Mexico in "European Art"), they is a risk that they will be removed. A {{Brooklyn Collection|European Art}} would be more robust. Any objection to that ?

I think any info that specify more closely location within the museum is fine. Floor, room, department, wing, building (in case of multi-building museums) are fine. The only think it should not have (for Artworks using Museum template) is city, country. --Jarekt (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Brooklyn Museum: American Art Collection does not say anything about the location, it does not even say whether the work is on view.--Zolo (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Information template: missing description

In File:Kruzifix aus Elfenbein - Kolumba Köln.jpg I added the artwork template today. I moved the image description from the information to the artwork template and now - surprise surprise - I get the warning This file has no description, ... incl. Media lacking a description category.

Any ideas what to write in the description field of the information template? Or can it be hidden with a special parameter? Raymond 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You can hide had a nowiki in the field, it still displays "diescription" but not "this file has no description". In {{Artwork}}, the same kind of problem can be solved by adding "|strict=" at the end of the template. As mentioned previously, I think it would be good to have this option in information too.--Zolo (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

+ 1. Can anyone add a "strict" parameter to {{Information}}?

I think those questions should be asked of a wider audience at Village Pump. Also experience shows that any changes to {{Information}} is usually met with strong opposition, especially options that can be misused as "strict=". --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it may have risks to add the strict option to information, and since the "description" field is probably the only one that ought to be made optional, maybe we could simply copy directly the code of {{Information}} to {{Art Photo}}, just making description optional. The code is not terribly complex, so I think it can be done.--Zolo (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

artwork namespace (anew)

I have tested a rudimentary preview of an artwork namespace at Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Louvre - Room 3. It works all right, but it would be much simpler if category:Model Ship - Louvre E17364 and artwork:Model Ship - Louvre E17364 were one and same thing. To me, the artwork namespace could be categories in everyhting but name. It would make things easier to create, easier to maintain (just one page) and cleaner. Would you agree on that ? If you do, does anyone have any idea on how we could get it, or something equivalent ?

Note: I mentionned earlier a thing like a default image. I think it could be a substantial benefit, for example if it could avoid duplicates in creator:Berthe Morisot/works. But it may not need to involve the namespace syntax.--Zolo (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

« the artwork namespace could be categories in everyhting but name. » ← I'm sorry, but what is the point then? Jean-Fred (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We could also create the artwork template for Model Ship - Louvre E17364 in category:Model Ship - Louvre E17364 and transclude it the way artwork:Model Ship - Louvre E17364 is, but:

• It seems more intuitive and logical to transclude an "artwork" page than a "category" page
• An artwork namespace could useful for, searchs, conditional formatting etc.--Zolo (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually you may be right, it's easier to put it in categories and perhaps the benefits of having it in the separate namespace may not be that great. It seems to me that many kinds of metadata that would be useful for Commons. Putting them in categories could be the simplest solution, since it does not require to create new namespaces nor separate pages for the data. However, it would substantially widen the meaning of "category". Why not ? Perhaps something could be done with {{Category definition}}.

Just a few other remarks about this solution:

• If we use categories rather than a separate namespace, I guess we should somehow add a <onlyinclude> in the template to make transclusioin easier.
• The creator and institution templates are uncollapsed by default in the category namespace. Within an artwork template, it does not look good. But can that be fixed ?
• "other versions" sounds odd on a category page. We could think of many ways to fix that but I don't know which one is good.--Zolo (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing fields of the derivative work

This template is designed to describe the depicted work only but not to describe the derivative file itself. It is intended only for pure reproduction without its own copyright. However, also the reproduction (a photograph, a drawing of the original work) can be a subject of copyright, and indepentently on this, the date, the place or source (a place of exhibiton, a file derived from other reproduction etc.) and the technology (scan, photo, drawing) of reproduction should by stated in many cases.

If this template should be an alternative of {{Information}} template, not only its supplement, it should contain two divisions: about the depicted work and about the derivative work (reproduction file). For pure reproductions without their own copyright, the second division should contain a statement like "This reproduction is believed to not be a special subject of copyright" (instead of license template) and also fields about author, date and technology of reproduction.

The field "date" should be renamed to "Created on", according its description. Also a field "firstly published" should be added. Also some way how to state other dates about derivative works and depicted works which was changed or modified over time (typically in case of architectural works but not only them) should be standardized or recommended. --ŠJů (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In consequence of the newly declared assignment of this template also for photos of threedimensional subject, I propose to separate the current attribute "permission" into two attributes. The first about the depicted work, the second about the photograph (reproduction). Also special variants of {{PD-scan}} can be created if needed. --ŠJů (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree that having two templates also seems a better solution. I think that was why {{Art Photo}} was created (I still think it could replace {{Artwork}} without major backward compatibility problems. The question of two permisson was discussed at #field for date of photography without any consensus (can be convenient, but may be confusing).--Zolo (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some empty fields should be hidden

Some fields should be hidden if they are empty. Not every field is suitable for every type of artwork. --ŠJů (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? --Slomox (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Artwork fields will not be shown if not filled, unless you choose demo=1 option. --Jarekt (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Artwork}} gives

with only 3 fields, but even those can be stripped with "{{Artwork|strict=}}" which gives "

". --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my mistake, I didn't notice that there exists the demo option. --ŠJů (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I added documentation of the demo parameter. It is also used with several other templates: {{Book}}, {{Creator}}, {{Institution}}, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the automatic Template:Source missing needed? The old Painting template had source field hidden if no source (for the digitalization/reproduction) was given. Is it a good idea to request this now and increase the size of Category:Images without source. Imo it was whide consens on Commons that a reproduction of an clearly PD painting does not require a sourcing, although a source should be given for reusers verification if the digitalization/reproduction is free or with copyright claims. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be removed, unless there are any objections. --Jarekt (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, even if the template if not all files using the template are "PD-Art", far from that.--Zolo (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree. For me is it always a good practice to mention source, even if there is no legal obligations. After all, no image come from outer space and an uploader always knows what he uploads. Let's also consider that PD-Art is just a part of the use of this template. Why should we sacrifice other uses?

This template is no longer for PD-Art paintings only! If we change it, should we do the same thing on {{Information}}, since there are cases with "no legal obligations to mention source"?... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is true that when the file is not "PD-art" it does not make much sense to handle them differently from other files, but luckily most art files without sources are "PD-art". Perhaps we could use a separated subcategory for files without sources using template:artwork]] ?--Zolo (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the problem only comes from backward-compatibility with the previous {{Painting}} template (which did not use {{Source missing}}), why don't we use a bot to apply some magic trick on all files which are PD-Art without a source? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you above, giving a source from where you toke a digital version of a painting etc is not only best practice but commonsense, IMO. Yes, the problem is only for compatibility with the old {{Painting}} which did not use the source missing tag. So your suggestion would do it. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Query and result. Multichill (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. It seems that only few files (3529) are concerned; further some of these files do not use {{Artwork}} (like File:Algeriangirl.jpg which uses {{Information}}). So I wonder if it is really necessary to hide the {{Source missing}}. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The number is indeed surprisingly small. I expected >10,000. --Martin H. (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)