Template talk:WLA

Some points to improve this template

Would be nice to make better use of the information template

• Description : Would be nice to have an option to add manual text later on
• Source : "Contributed by teamname"
• Author : "Wikipedia Loves Art participant teamname"
• License : The actual license

This is probably easy to do with a temp template which you can subst on upload, see User:Multichill/Starr for an example.

Don't forget to include a {{Flickrreview}} template as the flickr link will trigger a bot. How are you going to add categories? Any ideas yet? 5000 is quite a lot to do manually. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the temp template looks like a good idea; I wasn't sure how to do that. We want to be able to add stuff to the description in general, but we really want to keep the museum captions intact, because they represent the institutional view. As for categories, technically there is metadata for this, but I'm afraid it might be difficult to import it all; anyway having the images in the museum categories should be a start. And thanks for the {{Flickrreview}} tip!--Pharos (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We might want to move the original caption further up. BTW, the usual template for these would be {{Original caption}}. -- User:Docu at 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

incorect rendering

File:WLA brooklynmuseum Circle of Diego Quispe Tito.jpg has an incorrect rendering of this template which I am not sure how to fix. --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Docu  at 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are 931 more files [6=1&templates_yes=Painting&ext_image_data=1] which use both WLA and Painting templates which might potentially have the same problem, like [[1]] this file. I was trying to figure out what is special about those 2 templates that they do not play nicely together. --Jarekt (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Slomox's changes on {{Painting/layout}} have solved the problem.

By the way, since the template provides useful information but in a far-from-optimal format, I suppose it would be possible to devise a bot that would provide a standard painting template. It would make the files easier to handle afterwards but I am not sure it is worth the toil. For images in category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, I think the following procedure would provide correct ID and credit line, and, in most cases, would decently fill the artist and description field. A few more steps would be required to fill the date, size and technique fields but it seems doable too.

• Count the <br /> inside {{WLA}} to select files with adequate template

• If there are not exactly four <br />, put the file in Category:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, template painting possible
• else:

• Add a painting template at the beginning of the page.
• add {{:museum:LACMA}} in the museum field
• copy the content of {{WLA}} ID parameter in {{Painting}}'s ID field
• In the source field of {{Painting}}, write: " Wikipedia Loves Art participant [http://www.flickr.com/photos/"WLA userid parameter" "WLA username parameter"], "date template containted in the description field of template description", ([http://www.flickr.com/photos/WLA userid parameter/"WLA flickr parameter"])
• in the artist field: add content of WLA com field up to the first <br />
• in the description field: add the content of WLA com field from the first <br /> to the third
• in the credit line field: add the content of the com field from the third <br /> up to the first encountered bracket.
• move the WLA Template just below the painting template
• remove {{Information}}

Design of this template

The template obstructs quick information by adding color and "WLA" PR to image descriptions. It should be redesigned to give the actual description of the item first and most visibly, and adding all the meta crap in smaller print and after the actual description of the item depicted. --FA2010 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that files using this template generally do not follow standard artwork description layout using {{Artwork}} template, and often provides misleading information. For example File:WLA brooklynmuseum 1855 Pennsylvania Station Excavation.jpg lists as author "Wikipedia Loves Art participant "egotechnique"" instead of "George Wesley Bellows". I do not think redesign of {{WLA}} would help much since to fix the problem one would have to move all the image metadata from WLM parameter "com" to proper parameters of {{Artwork}}. Hopefully at some point some bot will be able to fix that. However in the mean time the steps you mentioned would help people locate object description among WLA PR text.--Jarekt (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the template. It's not perfect, but at least it doesn't hide the information anymore. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The content of the "com" parameter should go to various fields of {{Artwork}}. Apart from that, I think that the template can work well as a source template. @Jarekt: converting everything by bot sounds a bit complicated, but would it be feasible for yout bot to

• add artwork template, with the content of the com parameter and the rest of the WLA template in source
• add the content of "id" in accession number.
• use the content of "org" to add institution template. ?

-Zolo (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)