Template talk:Artwork/Archiv/2012

conservation and exhibition history fields

I would like to propose adding 2 new fields for conservation and exhibition history of the artwork. See also Template_talk:Walters_Art_Museum_Artwork. This kind of information is stored by various museums and we should be able to capture it whenever possible. See current {{Artwork/sandbox}}. --Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Support - I think this is a great idea. I've been running into this issue before, not knowing to which field to add the info. For example this Dacian bracelet was photographed in one museum during a temporary exhibit but has a permanent home in another.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support "exhibition history". Not sure about "conservation history". Both exhibition and conservation history are clearly subsets of object history and the current "object history" is overwhelmingly used for discovery / conservation history. Having both an "object history" and a "conservation history" field would thus look rather confusing. I would suggest either rename the current "object history" to "conservation history" (actually the French version is already called "conservation history") or deprecate "object history" and progressively replace it with "conservation history". --Zolo (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Support exhibition history,  Oppose conservation history. I agree with Zolo, assuming that "conservation history", "object history" and "provenance" are the same thing. By the way, I feel a template {{Exhibition}} coming on. ;) Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Comment current description of the "object history" field says that it is for "Provenance (history of artwork ownership)". If it is currently also used for "conservation history" than we should document it. May be we should also change it to "Provenance" which was the original proposed name, see here. My proposal started because Walters_Art_Museum is planning to donate large volume of their images (20k+) and in their database they keep separately conservation history and exhibition history and Provenance. I was planning to create specialized Template:Walters_Art_Museum_Artwork template with those 3 separate fields, but thought that they might be generic enough to be added to {{Artwork}} instead.--Jarekt (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you provide examples of conservation history ? I thought it was mostly synonymous with provenance. --Zolo (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have real examples with me at the moment and http://art.thewalters.org/detail does not seem to display them, but conservation history stored by Walters_Art_Museum database stores information about conservation, restoration and reconstruction activities like repair history with descriptions of what how and when was repaired. Provenance on the other hand is related to changes in ownership activities, well captured by {{ProvenanceEvent}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case it could make sense. Maybe rename "object history" into "ownership history" that is more widely understandable that provenance and would have some coherence with "exhibition history" and "conservation history" ? --Zolo (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think it would be fine to rename "object history" into "ownership history" and add "exhibition history" and "conservation history" fields. If we need to inspect files currently using "object history" to see if the content should not be moved to "conservation history" - I can add a temporary category for it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are still some events that may not fit into either conservation or ownership history: discovery of an artefact (that could fit in "conservation history") and commission of an artwork (I really do not see where it should go). --Zolo (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I object the renaming of 'object history' into 'ownership history'. Several of us use 'credit line' to store information about ownership history before the object came into the institution's collections. There should be a clarification here. Conversely, we use 'object history' to describe how the object came to be, for instance a commission, but also an excavation campaign, or random discovery, and so on. If you renamed 'object history' into 'ownership history', there would be no field to describe adequately archaeological objects. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, lets keep "object history" as is. I will add "exhibition history" - that does not seem to be controversial. But I am still confused about consensus on "conservation history". Shall we add it or skip it? --Jarekt (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything considered, I would skip it for now. But it would be nice to keep restoration info somewhere - it is sometimes really important. I dont know if it would be feasible for the Herbert Art Museum, but a {{ProvenanceEvent|type=restoration}} inside object history wound sound all-right to me. It should make it relatively staightforward to move it to a "conservation history" field in case we add it.--Zolo (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I would welcome new fields as well as 'object history'. For one thing it would clarify the difference between ownership history (private collectors) and 'credit line' (how the object came to enter an institution's collections). Also I think we need more documentation to ensure consistent practices. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added "exhibition history" parameter. I will keep "conservation history" field at {{Walters Art Museum Artwork}} since that is the collection that will need it. As for "more documentation to ensure consistent practices" - I am all for it, feel free to expand current documentation. --Jarekt (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, but I support adding "exhibition history" and oppose adding "conservation history" (as I think it should be included under the existing "object history"). Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with Mass upload from Walters Art Museum

See Commons_talk:Walters_Art_Museum#Current_Upload --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Author field

For some artworks "Author" is a better field than "Artist". See for example Template:NARA-image-full where we use "Author" instead of "Artist". Same with files in Category:Bestiary by Zakariya al-Qazwini (Walters MS 659). I would like to propose adding a new Author field which can be used as an alternative to 'Artist. In most cases I assume only one of the two will be used. --Jarekt (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The risk here is a confusion with the 'Author' field as in {{Information}}, ie the author of the picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I did not think about that. We probably do not want photographer names in the Author field and having both fields might invite that. We could rig it so only one or the other is shown at the same time, but that might be counter-intuitive. --Jarekt (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Photograph

I created a new template Template:Photograph meant for detail descriptions of historical photographs from archives or other institutions. {{Artwork}} was often a bad fit in those cases. Please join Template talk:Photograph to discuss potential shape of that template before it is being used. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, alignment issues

{{Edit request}} Please replace the code with this one, fixed an issue for RTL languages. --Z 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The current code is the same as the one used in the {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Book}}, {{Photograph}}, etc. Do all of them have this same issue? Actually I noticed that there was a bug in this template affecting RTL languages. See Template:Artwork/testcases for current look with RTL and LTR languages. --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"type" field ?

Would it be worth creating a "type" or "object type" field ? I think it would be especially useful for archaeological artefacts.--Zolo (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How would you use it? We could replace {{Photograph}} with {{Artwork|...|type=photograph}} and customize some fields for other types, but it might be making it too complicated. --Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am rather thinking of using something similar to {{City}} to provide internationalization/links for more uncommon objects like skyphoi or situlas. For instance File:Chalice-crater Louvre CA491.jpg:

Object type InfoField	calyx-krater
Description InfoField	English: A satyr, a griffin and an Arimaspus. From Eretria. Français : Satyre, griffon et Arismaspe. Provenance : Érétrie.

I am not so sure, for cases when it would make things look redundant like File:Greek - Corinthian Skyphos - Walters 482738.jpg:

Title InfoField	Corinthian Skyphos
Object type InfoField	Skyphos
Description InfoField	English: This miniature skyphos, or cup, bears a simple linear decoration in black-glaze. This vessel reflects a trend in Corinthian pottery production of miniature vessels that seem to have been created as votives. Their small size precludes any practical function. Numerous examples of two-handled skyphoi and other vessel shapes have been found in a variety of sanctuaries; they have played a role in the ritual activity at these sites.

Still, it would make localization easier. --Zolo (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful, and "Corinthian Skyphos" as title isn't a redundancy, but a mistake. --Naamar (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The title field is somewhat problematic. Most artwork databases use something akin to a title field, but it does not show the work title. The Corithian skyphos looks good on the Walters website [1], but does not look quite right on Commons. I cannot think of any good solution. --Zolo (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As on Commons we use {{en|Untitled, known as ...}}, the logical consequence is the use of the "title" field only for "proper title" or traditionally attributed titles. --Naamar (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

'Object type' would be useful, notably because it's easier this way to provide truly international object descriptions. The only problem is that information gets more fragmented: it's harder for Wikipedias to re-use the content by simply copy-pasting the description field.

As for 'title', I agree with Naamar.

On a related basis, should we advertise on the village pump that we need more translaters? {{Technique}} for instance is rather correctly translated into French or Russian, less so into Spanish or Italian, and support is frankly lacking in Japanese and Chinese, to name only a few languages. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• title: For mass-uploads like the Walters, it is not necessary possible to know beforehand whether this is a "proper" title or not. Moreover, usage seems to be somewhat domain-dependent. I mean it seems more usual to add a made-up title to a 16th century painting than to a Roman sculpture.
• object type: Would it be okay to add the it between "title" and "description" ? It could call a simplified version of Translation:Objects. By the same occasion we could probably get rid of most of {{Category definition: Object/header}} (I was sort of proud of it, but I may have been over the top in terms of template complexity :).
• fragmentation: it is already very fragmented, would adding a new field make things much worse ? A javascript tool might be able to knit together a copy-paste, perhaps "artist" + "title" + "type" + "date" + "Museum" + "accession number", with some refinements. It may be nice but I for one have no idea on how to do it...
• translations: it seems that Commons translators are much less active than they used to be. It cannot hurt to advertise translations but I am not sure {{Technique}} is a top priority. The most commonly used words seem to be well translated and the complete list is really long and rather daunting. It may be intersting to update Template:Technique/statistics so that we have a better idea. --Zolo (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I added "object type" field to the template. We will still need to create some internationalization mechanism. May be {{Object type}} based on simplified Translation:Objects?
• As for translating {{Technique}} I agree that it is getting harder as terms are getting more obscure, I am really behind on translating to Polish, but as terms are getting more obscure it takes longer and longer to find translations. I worked at some point on Template:Technique/statistics (see discussion). Yes we should update it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

About 'title', this is fr:User:Calame's opinion–she's a curator in Islamic art. She doesn't feel comfortable with writing in English, so I'm translating: I personally prefer artworks to be given a short title, even if descriptive only and open to variation (eg 'lion perfume-burner' or 'perfume-burner in the shape of a lion'). Museum websites and books always give a title to artworks; a caption will always feature one. The 'description' field is used to give additional information, for instance the mention of the book a painted manuscript comes from, an explanation about the work (if a technical term is used in the title for instance), or comments about iconographic themes. I think of the 'description' field as a comment area, where you can put information doesn't fit elsewhere. As supporting evidence I offer this page by the Met, How to Read a Caption. Even though I support Naamar's position, I think these are solid arguments. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Splitting 'object history'?

While we're creating new fields, I'd like to suggest a split of 'object history'. As is, it can encompass both the place/civilisation where the artwork was made, and the place where it was found; both can actually be very different. There has already been a discussion at Commons_talk:Walters_Art_Museum#Geography; apparently some kind of difference between the place of discovery and the place of origin has been introduced, though it hasn't made its way to {{Artwork}}. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see, why it is necessary to differentiate. We have {{ProvenanceEvent}}. It already supports a "discovery" attribute for the place where the object was found. It should be fairly easy to add an additional "create" attribute to provide information about the origin. That way we have both informations in a machine-readable format. --Slomox (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have templates for both informations: {{Place made}} and {{ProvenanceEvent}} indeed. My point is there can be absolutely no relationship whatsoever between the two informations, so there is no real reason to put them in the same field. It can even be confusing: for instance, both Greek and Etruscan pottery have been found in Vulci. The two styles can be rather close, but it's important to differentiate them. The Walters Art Museum has asked for a 'geography' field for this very reason. As a comparison, the Met as a specific field ('geography' or 'culture') for the place of origin. The V&A uses 'place of origin' for both informations, and adds the distinction in round brackets (eg 'Attica, Greece (made)' and 'Italy (found)'). The British Museum uses 'production place' and 'place (findspot)'. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Support Jastrow's request. Where an artefact is made and where it is discovered are two different things and need two different and obvious fields. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 11:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

no relationship whatsoever? It's both part of the object's history, it seems very related to me. --Slomox (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that the place where an object is made can have no relationship with the place where it's found. A statue can be made in a Greek city of Asia Minor, sold to a city of mainland Greece, taken by Romans to Rome, and be excavated in the Roman suburbs some centuries later. A vase can be made in Egypt, be pillaged during the Crusades and taken to France, be seized during the French Revolution, and then end up in a museum in Washington. {{Place made}} gives information about the object itself: it can explain the style, the choice of technique and materials, and so on. {{Provenance}} gives information about the history of the object: how it travelled, who owned it, and so on—it's a different set of information. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Support I agree with Jastrow that place of origin is not necessarily part of the object history. You could get around this problem by putting the place of origin in tl {{Anonymous}} in the artist field, for example, {{Anonymous|Egypt}}, but this is not possible when you use tl creator. So a separate place of origin field would in my opinion be more clear. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 Support For {{Artwork}}, generally, I prefer to have more fields, but the label should be very clear. The fragmentation IMHO is not a problem. --Naamar (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Although I tend to agree with Slomox that {{ProvenanceEvent}} inside "object history" field is fine for recording places of origin, place of find, etc. There seem to be a general support for splitting those, so that "object history" field field would become mostly history of the ownership and may be restoration. So what should we call the new parameter and how should we display it? {{Walters Art Museum artwork}} following Walters website has both "place of discovery" and "place of origin" fields. We displayed them in separate rows, but Walters website groups them in "geographies" field and adds the "place of discovery" and "place of origin" distinctions in round brackets . Both solutions are possible. --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

About "Provenance": ICOM. Code of Ethics (Glossary). Retrieved on 9 July 2012. "Provenance: the full history and ownership of an item from the time of its discovery or creation to the present day, from which authenticity and ownership is determined."--Naamar (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

preview

Hi, when I klick on the preview button, I usually receive the preview of the site and preview (thumb) of the picture. Recently I only received a red-link "< a href ...> text like this: . Is it intented to be like this? Or is it a prob of my browser? Greetz! Bukk (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a known error and fixed in code repository already but not live yet. Will take 1-2 weeks. Raymond 07:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Location" of painting: location of the "camera" position and the current position of painting

Repeated from the village pump [2]: I recently geotagged two photos of paintings ([3] and [4]). The two paintings show each an image of an easily identifiable real-world location. The "location" field of the Artwork template seems to be for the current location (in a museum), rather than the location of the depiction. So it seems that I have used the template the wrong way. Is there a way to markup an artwork regarding the depicted location? — Fnielsen (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I presume that there might be several locations for a photo of a painting:

1. Where it is hanging
2. Where the photo was taken (EXIF data?)
3. Where it was painted (perhaps in the artist's house rather than the viewpoint)
4. Where the viewpoint of the painting was (corresponding to "camera location") - if it depicts a real-world location
5. Where the object of the depicted was (corresponding to "object location") - if it depicts a real-world location

— Fnielsen (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Location}} and {{Object Location}} templates should be added below {{Artwork}} template. You are right there are many "locations" associated with an artwork. Your #1 should go into "location" field (bad name kept for historical reasons). Your #2 and #4 seems the same to me and should go below {{Artwork}} , so does #5. Your #3 should probably go into description or object history. Some collections also provide place of origin, place of discovery and depicted place. See for example {{Walters Art Museum artwork}}. --Jarekt (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant #2 and #4 to be different. #2 would be the photo taken at the museum, and I guess it would not be that interesting. Only it should be reasonably easy to extract if it is in EXIF. I suppose #4 or #5 are probably the most relevant. #5 could be "Depicted place". — Fnielsen

Yes, I think some people already {{Camera location}} with {{Artwork}}. I do not think it is very interesting, and, done consistently, it would badly clutter our photo map layer, but it sounds logically consistent as it is often included in the EXIF, it sounds like the simplest solution for maintenance. I think #4 and #5 could be stored at the same place, and we can use {{Depicted place}} inside the "description" parameter. We could add some keywords to {{RelativeLocation}} to get things like {{Depicted place|{{RelativeLocation| {{Mont Blanc|seen from|Chamonix}} }}--Zolo (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Camera location}} may be ambiguous (is it #2 or #4?) I have presently changed the geotagging to {{Depicted place}}, but this is not entirely satisfactory. What about a new {{Viewpoint location}}? — Fnielsen (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduce Template:Artwork for newbie uploaders (not only Template:Information)

I have received a note recently that newbies do not get any information about this template during the upload process. Could someone take care about it? Although, it should not get too complicated for new users. Just an idea ... --09:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Localization of Template:Artwork for it

Please translate the label "Exhibition history" into italian "Esposizioni" and "Object history" into "Provenienza". Thanks Raoli ✉ (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done for "Exhibition history". "Object history" was already done on translatewiki. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)