Template talk:Institution/Archive of Meta information museum template

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Evolution proposal[edit]

Hi there,
In order to standardize meta-data, it could be interesting to try to redesign this template so that it goes within the {{Information}} template.
For example, it may be something like:

{{Information
  |Description=
   {{{museum_description}}} <!-- including name, location... -->
   {{{artefact_description}}} <!-- including title, dimensions, material, notes, location/reference n# in the museum -->
  |Date= {{{date}}}
  |Author= {{{artist}}}
  |Source= {{{source}}}
  |other_versions= {{{other_versions}}}
 }}

Best regards,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je pense que c'est plutôt vers une solution inverse qu'il faudrait se diriger : faire rentrer le petit modèle dans le gros et non l'inverse... De plus les objectifs des deux modèles sont a priori très différents : {{Information}} est un modèle très pauvre au niveau descriptif (sur 5 champs, 1 seul est dédié à la description) ; les modèles de musée sont au contraire très riches au niveau descriptif (7 champs sur 8...). Et une nouvelle fois, le champ Author de {{Information}} ne concerne pas l'artiste de l'œuvre ni le champ Date la date d'exécution : ces champs sont en rapport avec le photographe et la date de photographie. Au moins les modèles de musée aboutissent à une situation plus claire où les informations légales sont ramenées sur un seul champ, comme elles auraient toujours dû l'être. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, mais non :)
Plus sérieusement, merci pour ta réponse.
Tu as raison sur le champ Author, celui de {{Information}} n'indique pas la même chose que l'autre, j'ai été un peu vite sur ce coup-là.
Mais pour l'intégration d'un modèle dans l'autre, je pense qu'il faudrait faire entrer tout le modèle museum dans le modèle information (dans le champ description).
L'objectif est d'harmoniser au maximum la présentation des métadata dans les pages de description des images.
Comme les champs source et other_versions sont présents, on a déjà une bonne partie du modèle information de remplie. le champ date n'est pas primordial, mais pourrait être automatiquement ajouté par la suite par un robot lisant les données EXIF.
Bien cordialement,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne suis pas a priori hostile à une harmonisation générale des modèles d'information, au contraire. Seulement ça ne me semble pas aller dans le bon sens de privilégier un modèle archaïque et inutilement verbeux tel que {{Information}} sur des modèles plus complets comme ceux-ci ou comme {{Painting}}. Je maintiens qu'un et un seul champ source est utile pour n'importe quel modèle d'information, où l'importateur aura soin de donner les informations de source nécessaire ; le reste ne fait que de susciter des contre-sens permanents de la part de tout le monde.
S'il fallait envisager une refonte des modèles, je pencherais la création d'un méta-modèle de base à huit paramètres :
{{Meta information
|header text= libellé du bandeau de titre du sous-modèle
|{header/body} color {fg/bg}= couleurs du sous-modèle
|description= zone extensible par un tableau encapsulant d'autres paramètres
|source= origine de l'image (qui-quand-comment)
|other versions= 
}}
On pourrait sans doute calquer tous les modèles actuellement existants sur une telle trame, en en profitant au passage pour toiletter le modèle {{Information}} de ses champs superflus (en clair, on garde description, source et ov). Mais vu la popularité du modèle {{Information}}, ce n'est pas exactement une partie de pêche à la mouche... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis d'accord avec Bibi : {{Information}} n'a pour seul et unique avantage qu'il est actuellement proposé par défaut lors de l'upload. Mais il a quand même deux champs 100% redondants, permission et source. Quand on voit que permission est rempli automatiquement par « see below », ça laisse rêveur. Je suis moi aussi pour l'harmonisation, mais il faut refondre {{Information}} pour que ce soit un modèle standard digne de ce nom : en l'état, ce serait une régression terrible, sachant que les photos décrites par l'intermédiaire du méta-template sont parmi les mieux décrites de Commons. Est-il possible d'ajouter à {{Information}} des champs facultatifs comme le sont actuellement dimensions ou credit line ? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ça ne pose pas de problème majeur. Tu penses à quoi en particulier ? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
En fait je pensais à ça. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello à tous, la page Commons:The ultimate information vient d'être créée sur le même sujet. peut-être pourrions-nous continuer cette discussion là-bas pour centraliser nos efforts de réflexion ?
Bien cordialement,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 10:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should check[edit]

Seems there is a few to clean up in this template. It uses rather odd way to include documentation and it's included for every one single translation – should be only here? Parameters come from /layout, so why are they repeated here? In translations – only translatable parameters should be included? 195.50.201.39 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very possible that improvements may be done in this template structure. But it becomes so complex now with autotranslation that it's hard to see what to change. Feel free to clean up the code, but remember it is widely used on Commons, so careful... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, however, please remember that being used like 6,000 times is not heavily used. Commons has 6,687,791 pages, so the 6,000 pages only make like 0,08 % of all Commons pages. Thus, I've unprotected, since it has not been affected by vandalism yet. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Painting}} with {{Museum}} infoboxes[edit]

As some of you might have noticed lately {{Painting}} template had several changes made to it, including:

I would like to propose to redirect Category:Information museum templates which have equivalent infoboxes in Category:Museum templates to use {{Painting}} with {{Museum}} infobox. The changes would be equivalent to this change. See File:ACMA 684 Kore 1.JPG for example of file descriptions using changed {{Information ACMA}}. --Jarekt (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds interesting for me. I am rather pro, but I would like to be sure that the change will be consistent, and also that we avoid any loss of information/translation.
First of all, I have to make 3 criticisms against {{Painting}}:
  1. The name is VERY BAD, since it is not intended to be used only for paintings but for any kind of artifact. We can't consider doing a major change without renaming this template into a more appropriate name.
  2. The *** “Permission” field which nobody understands is reappearing again. What is the use of a field which automatically displays "See below"? Can't we consider to definitly hiding it when it is blank?
  3. {{Painting}} seems to be undertranslated compared to {{Meta information museum}} (see Commons:Template i18n/Infobox templates). Before any switch we'll have to fill the gap. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all 3 points:
  1. The name is bad. I proposed to change it to {{Artwork}} or {{Art information}} but in the same past I talked about 20 other things and nobody responded to that point. I will try again.
  2. Permission field was styled after {{Information}} field. Some people prefer to put license info there. I do not like it but was trying to provide common look to commons templates. I will ask if there is a major opposition to changing default behavior.
  3. Other translations based on {{Meta information museum}} translations are on my to do list. I will not switch any more until that is done.
--Jarekt (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think the best name should be something like {{Information artwork}} (as we could imagine a collection of subtemplates to {{Information}}), even if “artwork” is not very accurate (a lot of archaeological artifacts are not artworks e.g.).
OK for other answers. Thanks. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done with your #3 --Jarekt (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 10:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

transition to "artwork"[edit]

The transformation of "louvre information" and a few others to make them works as "artwork" templates seems to work fine. "Information Louvre" does not take any title parameter. Does it mean that the files using it should be checked one by one and be given a mainstream artwork template in the process ? (this would sound reasonable, given that in most cases, several other templates should also be added)--Zolo (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By hand clean-up would be the best. I was planning to do the conversion by bot at some point, but manual approach would be much better. Especially tricky is when those templates were used in addition to {{Information}} or {{tl|Painting} to provide museum details. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do some of them. By the way, could you edit {{Artwork}} so that the accession number parameter can be called... "accession number". What I mean is that files with information louvre template have "accession number=ding dong" but nothing displays becaause "accession number" is not recognized by tl artwork.--Zolo (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{{accession number|}}} as a valid alternative name to {{{ID|}}} --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date field displayed?[edit]

All seems OK except that the "date" field is always dispayed, even when blank: see for instance File:Louvre Love DSC00896.jpg. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check on it --Jarekt (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes date is always shown. Is it a problem seems to me that Some information about time is always known and should be provided. --Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes... Actually the “Date” field is very recent in Template:Meta information museum, and quite not used (the date was indicated in the “Description” field before). So it's strange to display a blank field, furthermore when this field is optionnal. Where's the problem with it? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 07:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Many files using meta information museum provide an indication of about the period (like "23d Egyptian dynasty") rather than a numbered date. I am not sure about where to put that. It seems logical to have it in the date field but maybe it is more convenient if the date field only uses ISOdate and "other date" formats. I have put them in the date but tried to use {{Period}} or other templates so that they should be easy to move.--Zolo (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template is no longer used[edit]

This template is no longer used, after all instances were replaced with Museum+Artwork templates. I am planning on deleting this template and all the subpages in a day or two. This talk page can be archived in the as subpage of template talk:Artwork. --Jarekt (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me, as long as discussions are archived. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more: Template:Information北京石刻艺术博物馆 which was linking directly to the Chinese subpage. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Institution/Archive_of_Meta_information_museum_template&oldid=348788581"