Template talk:NASA Photojournal

Modification request

PhilipTerryGraham, please modify the template so that files do not appear in Category:Media with erroneous locations when lat, lon is not set. Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham!!! --Arnd (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aschroet: Haioo! This talk page message didn't appear in my notifications until your send attempt at pinging me. I'd recommend using {{reply to}} net time; i find it's been much more reliable in delivering messages into my inbox. In reply to your request, what I've put into the template is the absolute best of my knowledge as to how geocoding works and how to make it work within the design of the template. In the past, I've tried studying further upon how it works, but I failed to get any further than I have done now. Obviously somebody more knowledgeable in coding and stuff would be more appropriate in fixing this problem. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem only affecting Earth geocoded images

Upon further inspection, I've noticed that the Photojournal images that show up in Category:Media with erroneous locations are only geocoded images of Earth. All images by HiRISE, THEMIS and similar Mars instruments that are tagged to the Mars globe works completely fine and don't show up as errors. Hopefully that helps in diagnosing the problem. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aschroet and Jarekt: So, I've finally figured it out! The coordinates template that {{NASA Photojournal}} uses, {{Globe location}}, has a fit when you put "Earth" in its globe parameter. According to its documentation, "Earth" is meant to be the default for the parameter, and manually putting in "Earth" strangely makes it go haywire and doesn't punch in the coordinates, resulting in its placement in Media with erroneous locations. Can {{Globe location}} be fixed, or is this already a known issue with people familiar with the template, with no solution? Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, we still have the files in Category:Media with erroneous locations. --Arnd (talk)

@Aschroet: this doesn't answer my question. Is there a workaround to making {{Globe location}} work with "Earth" in the globe parameter? The coordinates will not show up otherwise, if the globe parameter is left blank or removed completely. It's either we have the coordinates there, but the files are tagged in the category, or we don't and it won't have coordinates at all. I'd like there to be a third option where I can have the coordinates on there and not have the files marked as erroneous. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of default information template and NASA Photojournal template

Jarekt, could you please help fixing this problem? --Arnd (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just use {{Photograph}} or {{Information}}, with some extra fields and with {{Globe location}}. The design of this template is very different than what users of Commons are used to. For example the internationalizatiion of the fields is not working. Also what is the point of 2 descriptions and 2 location templates with some info in one table and some in the other. I can bring it up to standard if there if we we all agree that that is what is needed. --Jarekt (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I kept them separate, since there didn't seem to be a way to make the technical mumbo jumbo work without sacrificing the aesthetic design of the template. If you can make the infobox coding and geocoding work without changing any of the design or paramaters, that'd be much appreciated! :) Philip Terry Graham (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Philip Terry Graham aesthetic design of commons infobox templates was settled about a decade ago. Since then the consensus was that familiarity of common look and feel is vastly preferable to the earlier wild west approach where many pages were quite different and users had hard time finding stuff on the page. I just do not think it is worth anybodys time to reinvent the infobox templates. All infoboxes are also expected to have fields in users native language and invisible HTML tags so the page is readable to algorithms. Also all infoboxes are expected to have some of the same fields prominently displayed, like author, source and permission fields. If I have to go expanding collapsed templates to find those that is confusing. I think we should scrap the brown box, then grab {{Photograph}} template and add fields to it through {{Information field}} if needed. I can do it or others can, but current setup is not working for me. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This template doesn't bring up any of the issues you cited. All the information is there. Author and source is there, for example, adpated to their Photojournal name counterparts. The only thing missing is the creation date, not present in the original Photojournal entries, instead left to the standard description box. It was requested by a user for it to be there, even though the creation date is usually already specified by NASA in the caption, and the publishing date is more important for the sake of chronology in this case. Otherwise, there's nothing missing that standard description templates provide. Licensing is stated in a separate "Licensing" section instead of placed in the description box, as it's usually done these days, and other versions are presented as a gallery on top of the description, as presented on the NASA Photojournal page. The original idea of the Template:NASA Photojournal description box was to be as faithful to the Photojournal as can be. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I see so the template was trying to recreate look and feel of Photojournal page and that is where 2 competing looks come from. My preference would be to still just stick to look Commons users are familiar with, but I would want others to decide what is preferable ( it is hard to have consensus with 2 people ). I can create a {{NASA Photojournal with coordinates/sandbox}} where we could test 2 looks. We could also ask at commons:Village pump for others to weight in on the discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I think I can strike a compromise between the both of us. I propose that we can revert back to using {{Information}}, though, I'd like to see the color of the fields changed from the default #ccccff to the shade of blue used on the Photojournal website (#213452). Because this is a dark colour, the text has to be turned white to address potential accessibility issues, of course. How does that sound? :) Philip Terry Graham (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to sound unreasonable but Commons infoboxes do not have parameter to change color, which is controlled by some centrally controlled style file ( do not remember the details). --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Philip Terry Graham, I created {{NASA Photojournal with coordinates/sandbox}} the output can be seen in a single test image File:PIA21262 - Mars Rover's Mastcam View of Possible Mud Cracks.jpg. Would that be OK? Or should we tweak something? --Jarekt (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should "tweak" a whole lot. There are numerous issues I have with this rather cluttered use of {{Photograph}}. The assumed authorship of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, it's use of external templates internally, the unnecessary segregation of content that can easily be in a single row, ect. I mainly preferred the use of {{Information}} because a) its familiarity with Commons users, and b) its simplicity - the original aim when I designed the more original NASA Photojorunal template, that {{Information}} can offer, but {{Photograph}} can't due to its complexity. I've made my own test template at {{NASA Photojournal with coordinates/sandbox}}, tuned to the design philosophy I wanted for the template that not only retains the basic parameter design, but is also tuned to adapt to the numerous types of images and files, such as videos and animations, that the NASA Photojournal publishes. One new feature I've added in, in order to retain the original emphasis on missions, was a display featuring a credit to the mission and to the instrument team that created the content. I made many sub-templates to employ this, so that the cost of adding this design feature to the template would only be one extra parameter, "instrument", instead of many more. These are {{NASA Photojournal/attribution}}, {{NASA Photojournal/attribution/class}}, {{NASA Photojournal/attribution/name}}, and {{NASA Photojournal/attribution/credit}}. My test cases for this template showcase the adaptability a template like this needs for a category as diverse in file types and formats as Category:NASA Photojournal. They include a) an image with coordinates, and an editors' note, b) a video/animation with no coordinates, c) an entry with a gallery of figures, and d) a non-photographic artwork. An extra paramater for "gallery" is also added to invoke the "Other versions" row for the gallery. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This new template is much better. In my proposal I was trying to recreate a bit the fields of http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA21262 I think it would be nice to have a field for globe, mission and instrument, as I do not want to scan the text to figure it out. Also I am not a big fan of series of box templates outside of infobox there you have to read the whole thing to figure out if this is something you wan t to know about. Those should be in the fields of the template so I can check the name of the field to see if I care about that information or not. Also what is your take on other users modifying the image descriptions? On many other projects we clearly delineated description by the institution where the images come from and the wikipedia user descriptions (if someone wants to add one). Often Original descriptions come with request not to change them unless the information is changes on the source website.--Jarekt (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

All the information that you really need to know should all be in caption, dates and credits. The external mission box is purely there as a visual decoration, housing useful additional credits for those wanting more technical crediting details and a clear link to the Wikipedia page of the mission. As for the preservation of the captions, for as long as I'm the uploader of the images, which I have been for nearly three months now, the captions will stay as they were on the original Photojournal entries. In the case of others beating me to it, they should really do the same as well. It's not their or my image, after all. NASA captions their entries in a way that puts an emphasis on the details they know are true about a photograph, and there are many cases I've seen on Commons where people have made their own captions that often exaggerate a detail, make false statements, or simply forget to write such details. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Philip Terry Graham you misunderstood me about the captions. Think about the images you are uploading as a wikipedia article: you do the initial edit and at the same time provide a framework for other editors to come latter and add their own information about the image or translations to their language. You should not expect that your edits are the last. With archival material we usually try to delineate which description come from the archive and which was added latter, see for example this image or see translations at this one. What we want to prevent is well willing editors to "correct" archival descriptions, so we set up one field for original description and a separate field for descriptions or translations added by wikipedians. As for external boxes they are distracting, for example technical crediting details usually are in a field called "Credit line", like in this image (which is also easy to locate even if you do not speak English, see here). --Jarekt (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Hence the reason that the "note" parameter exists, for editors to use to alert people of any inaccuracies, changes, ect. That's if you haven't noticed it, already. Otherwise, I haven't got a single clue of what you're talking about. You first mention the mission image, then go on about caption translations... which has nothing to do with the mission image? Also, when did I imply that translations can't be added in? I don't mean to be rude, but It's a bit hard to follow your train of thought. :/ Philip Terry Graham (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)