Template talk:Map/Proposal

Thoughts

Previously raised issues (so as not to lose these):

• second source URL for the file homepage/URI
  • Would this not be linked from either source or accession number? /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• defining a set and the role of a single sheet in the set
• geolocating

Own thoughts:

This template should be built so that it can deal with both scanned old maps and new digital maps. The geotemporal section works well for this (see comment below) but the bibiliographic section is to heavily geared towards reproductions from books, even individual/loose map sheets in an archive might be difficult to describe in this context. The Archival section is probably ok since it would simply be omitted for "non-GLAM" maps.

Specific observations:

1. Wikidata: Whilst the connection is valuable the question is what we are linking. Would this be the wikidata item for the historically important map? For the particular reproduction/edition of the map? For the collection/book of maps out of which this is one of the sheets?
   1. Wikidata goes with the title of the printed source in Bibliographic section. If the map come from a book the book might have wikidata entry, or map itself like d:Q1128599--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Map sheet: It's currently unclear how this is used and how it differed from the various fields in the Bibliographical data.
   • agreed. Not designed, but the need is the following: There is a set of map sheet. or an atlas. One would want to link between them. An existing Commons convention could be selected? --Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Authority control: How does this differ from Accession number?
   1. Accession number points to a specific copy of a book or map held in some library or archive, Authority control numbers will point to a single publishing which likely have many copies. Authority control parameters are: ISBN, LCCN, OCLC, or BNF, while Accession number could be anything--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
4. It is unclear how Institution / Accession number / Source work together. Is source only for the reproduction? If so it should use {{int:wm-license-artwork-source}}.
   1. Artwork uses {{int:wm-license-artwork-source}} mostly because source of some artwork files might be photographs by the uploader (even if item might have institution and Accession number). Than we put photographers name in that field, which is especially important when photographer's work might have its own copyright (like with sculptures). Maps will mostly be scanned or created by the uploader, and for those I think {{int:wm-license-information-source}} would be just fine. --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Some of the Bibliographic data can probably be combined (display-wise, parameters should still be separate). E.g. Edition+Publisher+printer, series title+volume.
   1. True, but current layout is closer to {{Book}} template, for better or worse). --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Author is suitable for a scanned book but less so for the map. Creator is probably clearer or a variety of cartographer, illustrator, etc. parameters which would each be presented in the creator field (with a suitable comment?). It should also be clear from the documentation that this is the original creator (not that of the copy/digital reproduction etc. as is often a misstake in the old template e.g. here), see Source above.
   1. we could have several fields, like: author, artist, creator, or cartographer and let people pick which one or combination of works the best. --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. I think Creator sounds a reasonable abstraction for all the roles. I think the specific role would be an extra parameter or option, and the user could add the suitable anount of creators. --Susannaanas (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
7. If this is to be used as a replacement for {{Information}} then it needs to:
   1. support "Other_versions" and possibly some other fields;
      1.  Support--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      2.  Support --Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
         1.  Done (for other_versions)/ André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
   2. contain a Date field for creation date (currently we only have depicted date) instead of a Year of publication;
      •  Support--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 1.  Done / André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The use cases are: What date is depicted? When was it printed? In the case of a hand drawn map or a digital map the date would be the creation date instead of the date of publication. Do we need all of them. Which ones should be merged? --Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
   3. use auto-magic identification of missing values (i.e. author missing, description missing, source missing etc.).
      1.  Support for missing source, missing author only if no artist/creator/cartographer is provided, missing description only if title is missing.--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
8. If this is to be used as a replacement for {{Artwork}} then it should implement the auto-magic "implicit institution/creator".
   1. We do have auto-magic "implicit institution" for {{Artwork}} (institution template added automatically if the string matches existing institution template), and we do have "implicit institution/creator" with the {{tl|Book} template, but as with other auto-magic things they are confusing to users and can easily have disambiguation issues. I think we should try to avoid them, especially for creators. --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
9. Heading and Legend (used in the first template) were removed. Are these still desirable (considering that the map template should/could be usable by any map (not only historical).
   1. I would add those back. --Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I would like to understand how Legend is supposed to be used. Is it a textual description of the content of the legend image, or is it a caption of the image, annotated or somehow highlighted? If it's an image, there are other captions that could be highlighted as the compass rose, the scale, the title etc. If it's textual, how are the pictorial elements in the legend included and referenced: Green for fields, thick line for highways etc.? Cheers, Susannaanas (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I Have imagined that these would be used to explain symbols, colours used in the map. Preferably the different elements would be using the {{Legend}} template to make it easy to resues the information in image captions etc. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
10. Description: I'd probably move this further up (just after or before author) as per the other templates.

/André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Most of the unclarities seem to stem from the context in which the field/parameter fits. I'm working on a restructuring of the template with this in mind to make the distinctions clearer and to also cater for the cases when one or more of the sections are not needed. This is happening at User:André Costa (WMSE)/Template:Map but I'll ping back here when it has come a bit further. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about the Map template with GLAMmers

I presented Wikidata and the idea of the Map template to a group of map GLAMmmers in Amsterdam this weekend. In general, there were no complaints about the metadata template that caters for

• printed maps as publications = bibliographic data
• geographic data about the location, that complies with standards
• archival data that describes the map object

All in all, our proposal was accepted.

The question remains, whether much effort should be wasted on the template, while it will be replaced by the Wikibase. But the timescale cannot be predicted: It is good that we can start mass uploading maps while preserving the metadata. The world will be a whole different place in 1–2–3 years.

.Susannaanas (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that as long as the metadata we put into the template can be easily converted back into a WikiBase setup then we shouldn't be to bad off and as a bonus we can get started straight away. The problem is that we are currently to far away from a WikiBase implementation for people to actually planning for it (see e.g. GLAMwiki-toolset, MediaViewer etc.) but to close for people to want to fix problems with the current setup (see Non-Information template in UploadWizard). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Update

I've now updated this based on the fork at User:André Costa (WMSE)/Template:Map. Examples can be seen at Template:Map/Proposal/Examples. I'll try to fix proper documentation tomorrow. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Documentation has now been updated. This version should include most of the points raised in "thoughts" above and in other places. The current design with the sections clearly separated breaks from the usual layout of Commons templates and might need to be revised. This is only superficial though and is easily removed if so desired. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Some new observations

I'd like to point out the first of a couple of needs I came up with, trying to map the metadata of a file to the template:

• There may be several institutions that need to be credited. One institution is the archive hosting the original. Another one is the institution maintaining the digital copy. To cater for this I would like to see a possibility of adding more than one institutions, and further definitions for them (archive, file administrator etc)

(I'll add more as I come across them, and ask question regarding the current proposal. --Susannaanas (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be possible to add several of these to the Institution field. Due to a bug though this currently displays strangely (see example). I've highlighted this but don't know how fix this. As for so many other things doing this properly would however require us to wait until Commons gets structured data.

I would however highlight that the value to Commons (and others) of storing all of that information her might be limited. Since we should ideally be linking back to the metadata post of the digital image (in accession nr.) a lot of that information can be kept at the GLAM without a local copy here. Apart from this information not necessarily being useful for our target audience we also take on some sort of responsibility for making sure the information is up to date. Better then that the interested party can find it in the original audited metadata post. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

When moved to Template:Map

When the template (and its subpages) is moved to Template:Map the files using the current map template would have to be updated to use the new parameters. parameters with different names are:

• maplocation->location
• mapdate ->map_date
• reproduction->? Currently not supported
• show kml->? Currently not supported
• unwarped->? Currently not supported

/André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently space reserved in the template for adding something that hooks back into the Mapwarper. At this point that could simply be a link back to the mapwarper and later on it could be expanded to use the warped image as part of some overlay.I'm guessing "warper" might be an ok parameter but what would the suitable value be? /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Or simply "unwarped"/"warped" being non empty/set and then have the template construct the link. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm ready to hand edit the existing templates, as I am not a bot maker. The number is reasonable. As for the Warper link, we can make it "warper". The value is arbitrary, any value is currently ok, as the reasoning whether or not the file is warped is done in the Warper. We could prepare for different states, such as undefined (default, no data), added (click recorded), data (something returned from warper). We can use the default value for everything currently.

Also, my hope is to get this out and get real-life feedback. So let's launch this and see what happens? --Susannaanas (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. 1) I'll add the hook for "unwarped", 2) copy over the latest update to beta. 3) Run it there together with some of the images I'm testing for GWToolset. That should give us a larger sample size to look at to make sure nothing is really broken (I'll also post a link here). 4) After this I'll add all of the current images using the map template to a maintenance category (e.g. Category:Map maintenance categories) so that we know which ones have to be manually updated. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Added the warped parameter and updated the documentation. If it is present AND has a value (any value) then it creates a link to the map in MapWarper. If missing or no value then it is hidden (for now). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2) Done. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

3) This has hit a stumbling block since betacommons is having issues recognising the templatedata being trasncluded from subpages (this is not related to our template). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chippyy: Can we synchronize updating the linking parameter with updating the template? --12:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose to still create the big blue botton and place this on the first line of the metadata section, even though it breaks with the sections logic. This has been requested in several occasions, here for example (bullet 1). I have a layout, can you help realize it? --Susannaanas (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding images using the old template to Category:Map template needs updating and doing the replacements mentioned above as well as:

• unwarped=yes -> warped=
• unwarped=no -> warped=yes

/37.2.61.111 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Map type

Map type does not seem to belong in the geotemporal section. It is not a geotemporal property of the map, it is a classification, either bibliographic (where I think it is a non-standard property), or then best suited for the archival section. --Susannaanas (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've move it to the bibliographic section (for now at least). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Subsection style

I reverted the style change of the subsection title so as to keep the template more in line with others used on Commons. Subsection are unusual enough that we probably want to tread carefully to get them accepted. If there is a general revamp of the templates on the other hand then of course this one should also change. I did keep the larger font though and indented the text a bit. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that :) --Susannaanas (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any more feedback

I notice that the map template has been tried, but not used with uploads. Would you know of feedback that has not been recorded here? --Susannaanas (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be the current version of the map template. What it does highlight, I guess, is that kml data was still requested. This proposal has no support for kml, on the other hand I don't believe it is a showstopper and something simple can always be added later (something advanced would have to wait for some sort of overlay, which the warped parameter could also use). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Georeferencing box

Added the draft image (Susannaanas (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)):

HTML exercise. The outer box is the fileinfo template, where the box is to be placed:

View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper <button class="mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">Georeferencing</button>

Susannaanas (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

viewing it on mobile, scrambled. But perhaps only the containing table, let's see. Susannaanas (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The georeferencing box should be placed as the first row of the metadata element. But I cannot make the css work properly. Help is needed to apply Agora styled buttons and icons here.

First we need to get the button to display (excuse my ignorance about how it should be done) and then see if the styles are right.

The Wikiglyph is not yet included.

The button action is still missing. The texts can be worked on later.

 <tr valign="top">
  <td style="border:1px solid #CCC; background-color: 
  white; height: 60px; position: relative;" colspan="2">
   <div style="position: absolute; top: 50%; transform: translate(0, -50%);left: 30px;font-size: larger;">
   [//warper.wmflabs.org/wikimaps/new?path=<includeonly>{{filepath:{{to-be-changed}}}}</includeonly> {{ucfirst:{{I18n/map|view_warp}}}}]</div>
  <div style="position: absolute; top: 50%; transform: translate(0, -50%);right: 30px;"><button class="mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">{{ucfirst:{{I18n/map|warped}}}}</button></div>
 </td>
</tr>

The map icon should be placed in the beginning of the line:

<a class="mw-ui-progressive">
   <span class="wikiglyph wikiglyph-map" aria-hidden="true" 
   style="font-size:40px; display:block; float:left; padding-right:20px"></span></a>

I have edited the above code to show my latest proposal. --Susannaanas (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing better already. Here we see the strange blue hover and a jump: (Susannaanas (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper [[|Georeferencing]]

Trying a new approach

View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper Georeferencing

A quick first attempt, reusing existing stuff,

 View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper

 View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper

The problem is that I can either get a blue button or an Agora style button (sure both is possible somehow). The second problem is that we can only access jquery icons. Not the wikiglyphs =( /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well we don't live in a perfect world. This is a big blue button and I think it could do for the time being. It's great! Where does the caret come from? Is it the map glyph?:) --Susannaanas (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A slightly better version (but without an icon) is viewable at en:User:André_Costa_(WMSE)/button. That would require updating some templates on commons though.

The caret comes from jquery icons and, I believe, is the default when it can't deal with the icon you actually want to use (in this case the wikiglyph). I have an updated version below which uses a bizarre combo of classes to get the blue colour back. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

View the georeferenced map in the Wikimaps Warper

André yes I think your problem is {{tl:Clickable button}} adding extraneous conflicting classes. Use mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive and no other styles (not ui-button-blue, or any jquery stuff). Someone should fix/duplicate the template to only output class mw-ui-button, maybe default to adding mw-ui-progressive for blueness only if the caller doesn't supply other mw-ui- classes. See http://tools.wmflabs.org/styleguide/desktop/section-2.html -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@SPage (WMF): . The problem seems to be that {{Clickable button}} on commons is halfway between en:Template:Clickable button and en:Template:Clickable button 2 (and {{Clickable button 2}} is different again). Is there any way of expanding the templates, using Lua or otherwise, so that they can include the wikiglyphs? If so it would definitely be worth setting up a new (3rd?) template that respects the classes/icons/glyphs it is given. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Susannaanas: : I've added the blue button for viewing the rectified map. If we want to add a button to say "please rectify map" then we would also need some way to turn that of for maps where georeferencing is not suitable. Such a request might also, as you mentioned, be better before the table of information. For now that isn't pressent but {{help_warp}} would be the text we would want to use in that case. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)