Template talk:Artwork/Archiv/2017

Use for objects

{{Edit request}}

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

 Comment the translation for the new parameter does not exist on translatewiki. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so Andy Mabbett is proposing to add 3 new fields:

• Place of discovery internationalized at {{I18n/location|discovery}}
• maker no i18n yet
• material no i18n yet

I would like to make sure that we have consensus about adding those fields and about precise name and placement. Traditionally we were trying not to add too many fields which would be only rarely used, and usually placed fields required for a single institution in specialized templates, like the ones in Category:Infobox templates: based on Artwork template. To me Place of discovery is the least controversial, I think we can use it for archeological artifacts. As for maker, which would be an alternative to "Author" and "Artist", I would propose to rename to creator. I think I run into that word being used more often in that context. At the moment we list medium, materials, techniques in the field medium. Would we use material in addition to medium or instead of medium? To me both of those field sound kind of the same and I am not convinced if we need both. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If we have, say, a limted editon ceramic plate, the artist may be Andy Warhol, but the maker could be Acme Ceramic Company Limited. Likewise a coin, where the artist is an individual engraver but the maker is Birmnigham Mint. It would be unusual to describe a railway locomotive as being in the "medium" of steel and brass. The alternative to adding these parameters, which was the recommendation at VP, is to fork the template. I would be content with either option, but a prompt decision would be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to use a creator field and add a "role" parameter in {{Creator}} to show what the creator has done. Actually I would support renaming "artist" to "creator" to avoid this sort of naming issues.

Currently, the place of discovery is sometimes provided through a {{Discovery place}}, but I agree that a new field may be convenient.

I think the current "medium" field is fine for materials. It is currently used for both the material and for the technique used, but more often for the material. --Zolo (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the examples - they are always useful. So the "maker" in your examples is more generic term for "manufacturer" that can also work in similar situations as "creator". I guess I am fine with this. Zolo, you suggest of renaming "Artist" to "Creator". I guess that would be the most generic term and would solve the issue of more specific terms not fitting the object well and we would not require separate artist/author/maker, or we would add to existing "artist"/"author" a "maker". I guess I could go both ways. I also feel like "Medium" and "materials" are close enough that they do not meed to be split. How some of those terms playing in other languages? Sometimes we come up with different fields in English, which translate to the same word in other languages. Such fields are really hard to explain. In Polish there are separate words for "maker"/"creator" and for "Medium"/"materials". --Jarekt (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Another case I encounter relatively often is engravings that require two creators: the original designer and the engraver. A creator field + {{Creator|role=}} could also accomodate this sort of cases.

All those words translate fine in French, except "medium" that sounds a bit odd, and is currently rendered as "Technique/material". --Zolo (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Creator|role=}} would not be so easy since all Category:Creator templates would have to be modified (by adding |role={{{role}}}}) to allow passing the role parameter to the actual {{Creator}}. that why I prefer to use {{Occupation}} in front of creator template. However we could formalize it by creation of {{Creator role|creator|role}} which would be something like '''{{Occupation|{{{role|}}}}}''': {{Creator:{{{creator|}}}}}, but optimized to look properly and allowing stacking. Any other opinions about 3 proposed new fields? --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Jarekt: ..? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett and PatHadley, it has been a while and while rereading this discussion, I am not positive of what are we discussing. I am even confused about what I was saying. (I got to spend more time rereading what I write before saving.) as I understand I was not sure about word "maker" and was trying to figure out how useful it is and if it is needed than if it would not be better to call it "manufactured" of "producer", which have a bit narrower and to me more specific meaning. My guess is that PatHadley is arguing for "maker" that "could omnivorously ingest metadata for cultural artefacts from the Palaeolithic to today". --Jarekt (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is now almost two and a half years old. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Add tracker category for accession number

As you might know I'm working on matching images of paintings here on Commons with items on Wikidata, see User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata and linked pages. To make the matches better it would be extremely convenient if the accession number is tracked in the database. I want to propose to add the (hidden) tracker category Category:Artworks with known accession number. This is also how the monument templates work. @Jarekt: . Multichill (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I am traveling at the moment, so unless someone beats me to it, I will do it when I have access to a computer. Ping me again if I forget. --Jarekt (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tested it in the sandbox and enabled it. Let's wait now. Multichill (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jarekt: the category is slowly filling. I updated my bot to use this new data. The suggestions on User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata are much better now. Multichill (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Multichill: There is some problem with File:Diorite-Reims-Damour-Post.jpg as the page shows the "[[Category:Artworks with known accession number| MHNT PRE.2009.0.215.1]]" text. I can not look at this at the moment, but will try latter. --Jarekt (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Blame {{Object photo}} and {{Category definition: Object}}. Keep running into those. I would love to deprecate those. Multichill (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are odd. I think they are result of failed proposal for "Artwork" namespace run in a similar manner as "Creator" and "Institution" namespaces(See here.) Once we rewrite {{Artwork}} to pull most of the data from Wikidata, we might be able to implement {{Object photo}} so it takes just q-code instead of category name. --Jarekt (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Multichill, This change broke infobox for File:Józef Piłsudski - Sprawozdanie z konferencji CKR - 701-001-162-001.pdf and probably all the other files from that institution, since accession number is a table now. I think we need to revert or rewrite. --Jarekt (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Warming up this pending thread pinging Multichill and Jarekt: It's not a problem of a few files like the ones mentioned above, there are at least many hundreds that break categorising into Category:Artworks with known accession number from Category:Muséum de Toulouse: Inventory/Prehistory or from the Louvre (File:David Self Portrait.jpg for example) or from Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (File:SB 1175-De Dam met het Stadhuis in aanbouw-De Dam, naar het westen gezien, met het Stadhuis in aanbouw.jpg for example). This issue could be solved easily if the categorising were done without adding a sortkey, because sortkeys obviously must not contain links, the links break it regularly. In general I think the tracking categories are a good idea providing fast db queries, but the sortkeys lead to more trouble than benefit. The links showing up on the pages' respective ID lines are merely useful, so I suggest categorising without any sortkey. The sortkeys don't show up on the cat page anyway. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Achim55: you're talking about trouble versus benefit, but you don't mention the benefits. The whole point is to have the sortkey available so we can match things. Over 70.000 files have been matched based on this. I agree the messed up output is not good. Let's do it like this

1. If the file doesn't have an accession number -> Don't add a category (like now)
2. If the file doesn't have a Wikidata link, but does have a accession number -> Put in Category:Artworks with known accession number with accession number as sortkey (like now)
3. If the file does have a Wikidata link and have a accession number -> Put in Category:Artworks with known accession number and use inventory number (P217) of the item (if available).

That probably covers most problematic files. Other option is to switch to LUA. That should be done anyway in the long run. Multichill (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Multichill, well, looking at the category I can't of course see whatsoever is done in the background using the sortkey data. Can't we simply remove the [] brackets while assigning the data to the sortkey value making the links appear as simple text there? Or remove the links at all as they are not part of the number? --Achim (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jarek for fixing this. That seems to be a good solution. Multichill (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: do you think it can be raised to say 20? On files like File:Sir Joshua Reynolds - Francis Rawdon-Hastings (1754-1826), Second Earl of Moira and First Marquess of Hastings - Google Art Project.jpg this causes the accession number to be truncated from "RCIN 407508" to "RCIN 40750". Multichill (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. 10 was the longest accession number I could think of while trying to prevent including some very long strings which are more likely to include html markup which was messing up templates. --Jarekt (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Raised it from 10 to 15. I hope that is enough without causing any problems. Multichill (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Mobile version

On a smartphone, the template of the Artist and the Institution are too wide. These tables should be collapse. Is it possible? Pyb (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, not even collapsible templates can be collapsed on mobile web (whereas all tables are collapsed in the Wikipedia apps), and this table should not be collapsible on desktop. However, tables have their own “scrollbars” so that not the whole page becomes wider than the screen. I think it’s not such a serious problem, the result looks fairly good. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)