Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

colors

Wouldn't it look cleaner and smoother if the background of the museum box was transparent or the same color as the background of template painting ? Or does really the museum template need to be made so conspicuous within the infobox ?--Zolo (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made it the same as {{Creator}} template, which should be also present for majority of the artworks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that. But since the creator template appears at the beginning of the infobox, it doesn't have the same visual effect. Also, creator is arguably more important than museum, so it may be normal that it is made more conspicuous. Personnally I think a transparent museum museum would look better (I wouldn't mind a transparent creator template either, but it doesn't strike me as much)--Zolo (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to lay such emphasis on smewhat trivial point, but to me, this


A Court Lady Viewing Cherry Blossoms
Title
A Court Lady Viewing Cherry Blossoms
Date between 1810 and 1865
date QS:P571,+1850-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1810-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1865-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Medium Woodblock color print
Dimensions 21.3 × 18.4 cm (8.3 × 7.2 ″)
en
Accession number
29.1476
Notes

Bequest of Marion Reilly.

Signature: Gakutei Sadaoka fude
Source/Photographer Online Collection of Brooklyn Museum; Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 29.1476_IMLS_SL2.jpg
Permission
(Reusing this file)
  This image was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum as a content partnership, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum.

Note: While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes.


would look much better than this:

A Court Lady Viewing Cherry Blossoms
Artist
creator QS:P170,Q11475750
Title
A Court Lady Viewing Cherry Blossoms
Date between 1810 and 1865
date QS:P571,+1850-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1810-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1865-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Medium Woodblock color print
Dimensions 21.3 × 18.4 cm (8.3 × 7.2 ″)
institution QS:P195,Q632682
Accession number
29.1476
Notes

Bequest of Marion Reilly.

Signature: Gakutei Sadaoka fude
Source/Photographer Online Collection of Brooklyn Museum; Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 29.1476_IMLS_SL2.jpg
Permission
(Reusing this file)
  This image was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum as a content partnership, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum.

Note: While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes.

(even if I didn't manage to get the exact same color as the background)--Zolo (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do prefer the original version, but I might be just used to it. I do not like how the proposed version kind of disappears and it is hard to tell the layout of the table. However check other people opinions (may be on talk page of {{Creator}}), if other frequent users agree that other color scheme is better I will go with the majority. --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll ask on tl creator talk page--Zolo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Original name

When the original name of the museum is not in a language using Roman alphabet, should it be transliterated or should the original writing system be used or both ? e.g. for Tretyakov gallery : "Государственная Третьяковская Галерея", "Gossudarstwennaia Tretjakowskaia Galereia" or both ? I suppose there should be one single convention for all languages.

For Chinese, I think that the most common usage is to give the pinyin form rather than Chinese characters (Now that Chinese characters are supported by most computers, I'm not sure there is still much point in doing it that way however)--Zolo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would vote to use, in case of languages using non-Roman alphabets, name in original alphabet and transliteration or translation in parenthesis afterward. Alternatively we can use LangSwitch. The main purpose, the way I see it, is that I know several museums in Poland which have names which translate rather badly and it would be hard to identify it based on translated name. I assume similar might be true for US or English museums, where even for people not speaking English it might be more useful to refer to it by English name than by translated or transliterated name. --Jarekt (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Location

For what I can see, most art historians and artbook give the name of the city along with the name of the museum (most often in the form: City, Museum). Since the name of the city can be considered essential information, shouldn't it be given, even when the template is collapsed ? This means city would be displayed twice when the template is uncollasped, but that's the same for birth and death dates in tl creator, so I think it is not a problem.--Zolo (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to use names in the form used in Wikipedias, without city, unless city is needed to distinguish it from some other museum. For example "Glyptothek" can be found in Munich and in Copenhagen that is why I used name "Glyptothek, Munich" same with "National Gallery" - many nations have National Galleries so I call it "National Gallery, London". On the other hand many names are unique and do not need cities to uniquely identify them. For example "Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn", "Acropolis Museum, Acropolis" sound rather silly to me. Even "Louvre, Paris" seem to be an overkill since no other city has "Louvre". --Jarekt (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be Acropolis Museum, Athens and Brooklyn Museum, New York City. It is quite customary to have it this way (or more commonly, Athens, Acropolis Museum [1], but to me it looks a bit strange here) For famous museums, it may look a bit ridiculous, but since it is not easy to draw a line, it seems simpler to always add the city. There can't be much confusion for Leonardo da Vinci either, but it's quite natural to add "(1452-1519)".--Zolo (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not have strong preference one way or the other, but I think we need more opinions here. We could wait until more users start creation those templates and than ask for opinions. we could ask at {{Painting}} which seems to be watched by more users, or we can see how people use the template. Either way I do not think a change to {{Museum}} is needed, just to the infoboxes using it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way. See Commons:WikiProject Museums/Museums naming. --Jarekt (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I am not sure that the same guideline shoud go for information displayed within infobox and for category or file names, however. Just as I am not sure we should adopt the full "Musée du Louvre, Paris, France" that was used in metainformation museum.--Zolo (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hum... I am not knowledgeable at all on this, but probably artbooks give the name of the city along the name of the museum because if some folk does not know that Louvre is in Paris, he has no way to know it? Here, the location is given two rows below, and the name is even hyperlinked to Wikipedia (in whatever language), so I do not see any "essential information" lost here.
(Of course, disambiguation is a different matter, and it may require the location for this purpose.)
I don't know, I understand the desire to emulate the best practices used in the "real world", but sometimes I fear it gets a bit silly (like here, for example). But well, it does not cost us much to follow this guideline, so if there is a tiny gain in doing so, let's do so. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is just two lines below but it is in a collapsible template, so I am not sure everyone with think of uncollapsing it. (true, it is not a major point).--Zolo (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Namespace

Would there be an advantage in converting these from a pseudo-namespace in namespace:0 to a real namespace? Similar to Creator namespace.  Docu  at 08:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed that once there is enough of those we will create a new Museum: namespace. It is possible we already reached the point when that should happen. That way we could drop the confusing : in front of Museum in {{:Museum:name}}. This template was always mirroring Creator templates which have its own namespace. Does anybody know where we should ask for approval for a new namespace - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard? --Jarekt (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to create one, we could request it in Bugzilla. Care should be taken that the namespace also goes into the most important dumps.  Docu  at 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would intuitively support a "museum" artspace, be it only to avoid the semi-colon before "museum:XX" in files. But in this particular case, it seems to me it would not make any major difference to have a real namespace (correct me if I am wrong)--Zolo (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You are correct - it does not make much difference. It helps with semi-colon before "museum:XX", which would be less confusing for users used to creator: namespace. Another advantage is that I can use {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|Museum|...}} statement in my wiki code and have different behavior of {{Museum}} in that namespace. Also Category:museum templates are at present in Gallery namespace, which does not seem right. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, pages-articles.xml.bz2 (see e.g. http://dumps.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/20100923/ ) should include this namespace.  Docu  at 04:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on VP is now archived at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Oct#New_proposed_namespace_Museum:

Shall we move ahead with the suggested "Institution:" name for the namespace? --  Docu  at 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If we settle on the name "Institution", which to me have a lot of other connotations (Institution of marriage, mental institution, etc.) than we should also rename the {{Museum}} to {{Institution}}. I guess we would have to do a lot of renaming or redirects to fix existing templates, but it should be done earlier than latter, before we have much more of them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We could add an explanatory note about the purpose of the namespace to the editnotice.
BTW, if we defined an alias for the namespace, e.g. "Museum:", we could still use that in links.  Docu  at 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If it is possible to have namespace as the "official" name and keep "museum" as a synonym in both the namespace and the template, I guess it would be a good solution. Is there any other type of institution that may need a namespace on Commons ? Otherwise, If not, I don't think it matters too much that the word has so many meanings.--Zolo (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, let's go ahead.--Pharos (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, "Institution:" namespace with "Museum:" as alias - sounds good to me. Anybody knows what is the next step. Bugzilla request, or some edit in Commons environment files? --Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have filed Bug 25779. Now we have to wait for a server administrator :-) Raymond 07:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. BTW, should we add the a separate request for search (similar to bugzilla:22404) or include it there?
To change "pages-articles.xml.bz2" (e.g. on future versions of http://download.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/20101101/) should we add that there too?  Docu  at 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  Support (I think I expressed my support for this somewhere else ; but restating it in case the Bugzilla folks would find the consensus too small :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as there probably different people dealing with the requests, I filed bugzilla:25836 and bugzilla:25837.  Docu  at 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Update: The new namespace Institution with Museum as alias was created a few hour ago and is included in the default search results. 1 error occured:

... 11727768 (0,"Museum:musei_Vaticani") -> (106,"Musei_Vaticani")
[[Institution:Musei Vaticani]]
...  *** cannot resolve automatically; page exists with ID 11727785 ***
...  *** old title musei_Vaticani
...  *** new title musei_Vaticani--DUP
...  *** using suffixed form [[Institution:Musei Vaticani--DUP]] ***
... resolving on page... ok.

Raymond 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot, btw what went wrong with Musei Vaticani ?--Zolo (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It might have existed as Museum:Musei_Vaticani and Museum:musei_Vaticani or Institution:Musei_Vaticani. It's there at least once now. - User:Docu
That was quick. Thanks a lot. Looks good, search will probably update later this morning. -- User:Docu
We might need to edit (or refresh) the pages in Institution namespace to get picked up by the search engine. Currently, e.g. Special:Search/prefix:Institution: only gives 10 results, one of which I edited yesterday. We could combine this with some clean-up (e.g. removing the linkback field, changing the template name). 08:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New Museum: templates

A lot of new Category:museum templates are being created in last week or two. I would appreciate some help with creating museum templates for museums in Category:Information museum templates, which I am steadily replacing with {{Artwork}} & {{Museum}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just done one small, you can delete {{Information Crypta Balbi}}. (I have also tried to manually adapt some files to the new template (date, medium etc.)--Zolo (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the easiest way to switch them is not manual, I usually:
  1. Create new Museum template
  2. Change "Template:Information ... Museum" to use {{Artwork}} and {{Museum}}, see {{Information MAR Palermo}} and this change
  3. In all files using the template replace "{{Information MAR Palermo" with "{{subst:Information MAR Palermo and let the server do the work, see example.
I can easily do steps 2 and 3, but #1 takes the most time.
Okay. But it is still necessary to move dates and mediums to their right place afterwards.--Zolo (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean, but I do not think so. Check Special:Contributions/JarektBot to see what I am doing and let me know if I am missing anything. --Jarekt (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Information museum templates seldom use a "date" parameter, and never use "medium". Here, for instance, 150-200 AD should go into the date field. But I don't think a bot can do that--Zolo (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. My main concern with switching from file description based on Information museum templates to descriptions using Artwork and Museum templates is to ensure that information is not lost. But I agree that "Information museum templates" often did not have many fields filled and those need manual fixes. That can not be done easily by a bot, and I will leave it for others to do, but I am helping with this task by providing empty fields to fill. --Jarekt (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrow missed

In File:Hoerle Zeitgenossen.jpg I miss the little arrow to open the museum box. Maybe I made an error in Museum:Kölnisches Stadtmuseum ? Or is it an error in {{Museum}}? Raymond 08:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is apparently a problem with all files using {{Museum}}. I will as at Village pump. Thanks for finding this. --Jarekt (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkback

If linkback doesn't point back to the template for a specific museum, somehow pages don't get categorized at all. That can happen when one fixes the name of a museum by moving a template.  Docu  at 04:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

location withing the museum and museum name

  • Would it be more or less convenient to include the location within the museum within the template. gallery={{institution:British Museum|floor=1|Room=12}} rather than gallery={{institution:British Museum}} |location={{museum location|floor=1|Room=12}}
  • Currently, when we need to write a langSwitchable version of a museum name (in {{ProvenanceEvent}} for example) we can use a template like {{Met}}. What it good is that it is quick, but I wonder if it would make maintenance easier to have rename it to {{Met/name}} or something like that. --Zolo (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Personally, I think {{Met}} should be replaced by {{Met}} (or whatever its name will be).
There are cases where you can't use {{Met}} For example if you want to write "bought from the Metropolitan Museum" you have to write {{provenanceEvent|type=purchase|oldowner={{Met}}}} but it would look weird to have a full museum template here.--Zolo (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(marginally related) The current use of "location=" in Template_talk:Artwork isn't easy (it's either city or location within the museum). At least for Creator:Berthe Morisot/works, the result isn't ideal.
We could consolidate it with "gallery=" and/or modify {{Museum}} to output the museum's name and location in separate columns when used on pages such as Creator:Berthe Morisot/works. --  Docu  at 11:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Many topics here:
  • I agree that "Location" is confusing with its dual meaning, but there is not much we can do about it. It was unclear in the original template and different people used that field differently. It would be hard/impossible to fix it by bot.
  • About combining Museum templates with {{Museum location}} it can be easily done but it would look the same as current approach and I do not see much benefit. The downsize is that Museum templates would become more complicated and not as intuitive.
  • About move from {{Met}} to museum:Met/name like templates: I do not see the benefit of that. --Jarekt (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I just thought it may be good to have a centralized place for things about the museum, but you are right, there may not beany convincing reason for that. I see some benefits, but they are not very substantial:
  • Put the location within the museum in the gallery field would allow to do without a location field for new files.
  • move {{Met}} to museum:Met/name has no real benefit but the museum field is much more successful than langSwitchable museums name templates, so we would probably get more templates. But it can be done the other way round: try to systematically use a multinlingual template:X museum in the name field of Museum:X museum.--Zolo (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename template to {{Institution}}?

Shall we rename this template to {{Institution}}, so it matches the namespace? --Jarekt (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds ok.  Docu  at 07:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree, sounds logical. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody look at the many broken institution redirects in Special:BrokenRedirects. I try to keep that relatively tidy. --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding a new field 'Alternative names'

I would like to suggest that a new field 'Alternative names' similar to the {{Creator}} template should be added to the template. A number of institutions are referred to several names even within the same language in particular religious instituions. Thanks. --Mattis (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  Support, seems a logical harmonization of templates--Zolo (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Return to "Institution/2010" page.