Template talk:Infobox artwork/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox styling

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Painting, up to the dividing line. Ham 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) )

I'd started a sandbox to begin moving this template's styling in the direction of most modern {{infobox}} templates. Comparison between the old and new styling can be seen at the test cases page. Comments appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that the font has been reduced to the size of normal picture captions; that works really well. Of course Template:Infobox Sculpture and Template:Infobox Artwork are now lagging behind. Ideally I'd like to see the three merged into a single template with 'museum' (or 'collection', as suggested above) as an optional parameter and a choice, when stating dimensions, between height × width (for quadrilateral 2D works), height only (for sculptures) or diameter (for circular paintings). Ham 22:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The other two are, so far as I can tell, already redundant to the new version. Feel free to try it out by swapping the name that the templates are called by in articles with "infobox Painting/sandbox". If there are no objections, I'll deploy the new code at {{infobox artwork}} and redirect the other two templates. I'll be on hand to correct any errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm being bold and going ahead with this. It seems to work in most cases. The new template is at {{infobox artwork}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi Chris. Now that you've made the change I'm starting to see what you meant by bringing the design in line with other infobox templates; sorry I didn't understand you earlier. The changes of 7 April were only an intermediate stage between changing the box to its current appearance; it was that design I preferred, not the current one. It looked like a more complex version of the normal thumbnail insets, which I think suits artworks better than the standard infobox design. It gave the image precedence, rather than subjugating it to a big title and tables. A lot of editors are annoyed at the addition of ill-fitting infoboxes to everything; while I personally am not anti-infobox, I think they need to be tailored to the information they provide first, and to a notion of how a standard template should look second. Is anything gained by adding the words "type", "dimensions", "displayed" etc. in boldface?

New versus old

The Last Supper Artist Leonardo da Vinci Year April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519 Type tempera on gesso, pitch and mastic Location Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan

The Last Supper Artist Leonardo da Vinci Year April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519 Type tempera on gesso, pitch and mastic Location Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan

Sorry if this comes across as hand-wringing! And thanks for doing the merger, which means that any future design changes will be made across the board for all artwork pages. Ham 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One of my main reasons for preferring standardised infobox designs wherever possible is that they are much easier to keep accessible. Readers who use text-to-speech programs or the like must not be excluded from accessing our informational tables; in general, this means using table elements which have meaning (such as using table headers for labels, and table data cells for values) and ensuring that information is not presented without context (for instance, by omitting the word "artist" next to the artist value). While I can appreciate that the simple "enhanced thumbnail" layout has the advantage of being more image-centric, it is less useful to readers who may not be reading about artwork for the sake of how it looks, so to speak. That said, if there's consensus that we can re-style the template using CSS while keeping the basic semantic design (such as by de-bolding the table cells or such) then that's fine. It's easy to do, and does not unduly affect accessibility. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the old design. It was more compact and, in my opinion, looked better. --Zserghei (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the argument about text-to-speech programs – something beyond my level of technical expertise to be honest. Aesthetics are an important consideration on this of all templates, but if the previous design discriminated against those who require reading programs, fair enough. I'm not sure 're-styl[ing] the template using CSS while keeping the basic semantic design' would accomplish anything as it was the basic semantic design I (and Zserghei above) didn't like; however it sounds as if this is necessary for some users. Ham 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion broken - reverted to 17 April

The conditional conversion was broken today. I have added a testcase to Template:Infobox_artwork/testcases and have reverted to the working version by Thumperward (17:10, 14 April 2009) which was pre "grand merger". Test cases appear oK now. Enki H. (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken again?

Some instances of this template appear to be broken. On Template:Infobox_artwork/testcases the The Rhinoceros example now displays: "Dimensions 21.4 cm × 29.8 cm ({{rnd/bExpression error: Unexpected < operator|Expression error: Unexpected < operator|(Expression error: Unexpected < operator)|Expression error: Unexpected < operator}} in × {{rnd/bExpression error: Unexpected < operator|Expression error: Unexpected < operator|(Expression error: Unexpected < operator)|Expression error: Unexpected < operator}} in)" for both cases. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; see this previously working version of Bal du moulin de la Galette. It seems that this template produces these errors whenever the parameters |height_inch= and |width_inch= are not provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look into this later. Sorry for any fallout, folks; not sure what happened to break this, as I'm sure it was working recently and there haven't been any changes to the dimensions code since. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I found this discussion using Google. See Template talk:Convert for more on the {{rnd/b}} problem. I looked at your test cases page and it looks good now. Can you share what was done to avoid the error message. –droll [chat]

It hasn't been fixed yet. The problematic implementation is this one, which is still broken AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Metric, British units

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

How can we accommodate both metric (cm) and British (ft., inches) units? --Jcarroll 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Skarioffszky 13:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Galleries

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

This template makes it really difficult to include several sculptures on a single page... how can it be improved to accomodate galleries? ~MDD4696 05:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image size

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

I've added an image_size parameter, because the default 300px is too large for some images. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it's probably best to follow the examples of other templates, and just leave all of the image code up to individual articles. Phasing out image_file and image_size in favor of image ~ Booya ^Bazooka 07:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Autolinking

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Following the example of Template:Painting, I've edited this template so that it will do no more autolinking. I think it is better this way because now it's possible to add info like After Polykleitos or [[Syracuse, Sicily|Syracuse]] or location unknown to the box. This loses some links in the articles where the template is in use, but I'll fix those today. Skarioffszky 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sculpture

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Template:Sculpture has been nominated for deletion renaming/moving. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Caption

(Pasted from Template talk:Infobox Sculpture Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Is there a way to add a WP:CAPTION parameter that is consistent with WP:MOS. Man Enters the Cosmos is currently at WP:GAC and is on hold for the next seven days. One of the outstanding issues is the captioning and I am not sure what convention the sculptures should be using.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

H x W x L

Is it possible to just add a new measurement field? Put length just under height and width? So it reads

height

width

length

diameter

height_inch

width_inch

length_inch

diameter_inch

It would make measuring artworks much more accurate, and be closer to museum standards.

For a good comparison of museums measuring 3-D artworks, here's a Picasso at the Metand aa Picasso at MoMA. Both use the H x W x L. Not to be a bother (and I'd make the edits myself if I weren't so scared of editing that template), but it would be great if by "Dimensions" it said "H x W x L". Reading something like this:

Dimensions (H x W x L)

I'd be happy to try and edit the infobox myself, but the math stuff looks pretty complicated.

Please help!

Many thanks for looking into all of this. --Richard McCoy (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into the logic, and I think I'm going to rewrite the entire H × W × L section. There are too many ugly assumptions in the code, ones which won't usually lead to issues in practice, but could end up in broken code. This isn't really much of a comment, but I figured I should provide an update. I've written a prototype that will get me around most of the nasty branching complexity (3 parameters times 2 units makes for 2⁶ = 64 possibilities for which ones are defined), so this will also make the code prettier for future editors. Procrastinating again, tired and busy but little projects like this keep me sane. Yay. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The diameter parameter is still diameter_cm for the centimetres version; I did not change it to diameter because that might break existing uses of the template. But length has been implemented, and my rewrite allows for reasonably graceful failure and obvious error messages when applicable (if one unit's parameter can't be converted and the other's isn't defined, you get "" instead of the second unit's amount). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to adding an optional coordinates field that would appear below the location field? Although it wouldn't be used on all articles, many of these items physical locations are known and adding a coord field could move that from elsewhere in the article to a spot in the infobox where it is standard for that to be displayed. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support this; provided that there is clear guidance as to when and show it should (or should not) be used. For instance, for paintings in a gallery, the general coordinates of the gallery should not be used. On the other hand, for example, outdoor statues should definitely have coordinates given. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will see about adding the field and adding instructions. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates field has been added and instructions on usage have been added to the documentation page. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks.--Richard McCoy (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the example images currently being used on the template page is of "the potato eaters" (which is in a museum) it is an example of when the coordinates field should NOT be used given that the usage summary says "Only use for the exact coordinates of the artwork itself (and only where known) and not for the coordinates of the museum..." Should we change the example picture to one that would use the coordinates field correctly? I agree the coordinates field is good for art that has a specific location but find a coordinate such as used in the example of "the potoato eaters" to be useless. I don't want people to delete the useful coordinate field because of a poor use-case example. Witty Lama 11:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been updating the template for Mega-Gem as a trial article. You could use that? --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, I was thinking the same thing, but didn't have the time to track down an example where every field would be filed. Also, on a look point, do we want it to say "Coordinates" to the left of the actual coordinates, or have no label? No label would look a little like how the university infobox handles it, see Corban College for example. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the way the university infobox has it. It makes the Coordinates field look like an extention of the "location" field - which in reality it is. So yes, I'd say remove the word "coordinates" from the display. Witty Lama 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The label has been removed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

Hello! I'm currently working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art and we are using the Artwork Infobox in our template for creating new articles on public art. We would like to include Ownership of the artwork as this is an important bit of information. Is it OK for me to update the base template to reflect this? Or can someone else, if it's deemed appropriate to do so? If not, we'll begin working on our own Infobox, however, we really like this Infobox (with the one exception of Owner not being included). Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if Andy took care of this request in March. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion from Template: Infobox

Why was the template reverted earlier today? On what article (or in what circumstance) was it allegedly broken? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge this with Template:Infobox artifact/doc?

This template could be merged with information in Template:Infobox artifact/doc. This template was clearly developed out of one used for paintings. Clearly, it would be a huge benefit to have a template that could be used for all works of art and artifacts, rather than two or more separate templates.

See below for changes (I don't know how to make my suggestions visible on this talk page, but they are in the edit screen).  :

{{Infobox artwork
| image_file         = 
| painting_alignment = Change to "image_alignment
| image_size         = 
| title              = 
| alt                = 
| other_language_1   = 
| other_title_1      = 
| other_language_2   = 
| other_title_2      = 
| artist             = Change to: "Artist(s)"
| year               = Change to: "Creation date:" 
'''Add''' | discovered     = The date, location, and (re)discoverer of the artifact, if known.
| type               = Change to: "Medium"
| height_metric      = 
| width_metric       = 
| length_metric      = 
| height_imperial    = 
| width_imperial     = 
| length_imperial    = 
| diameter_metric    = 
| diameter_imperial  = 
| dimensions         = 
| metric_unit        = 
| imperial_unit      = 
| city               = 
| museum             = "Change to: "Location" 
| coordinates        = 
| owner              = 
'''Add''' | | id    = Identification code (numbers or letters) for the artifact, if known.
}}

Thanks --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(I've changed your edit slightly so that the suggestion's visible on the talk page too.) Possibly. Why not suggest that it's merged at WP:TFD? Mhiji (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose a merge as the class of artefacts might include any object such as undecorated neolithic spear heads or industrial factory-made machines. If the two are merged one could end up having to cater for an infobox for any type of object in any type of collection whereas there is probably a better argument for splitting both infoboxes into further types to cater for more meaningful parameters. For example medium, artist, width and depth does not work well when describing Tutenkhamun's mummy and the proposed template would fail to cater for original year, year of discovery, find place or year of acquisition for the collection (squeezing this into one parameter, "discovered", seems unhelpful). I also fail to understand why metric and imperial are included as separate parameters when {{convert}} is widely used in infoboxes. Fæ (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Weight

 Done For statues, I would like a weight field. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Now done; see King Kong statue for an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

New parameters

Per the above, I have added |weight=, and recently |material= and |caption=. An example of each is on King Kong statue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

{{infobox}} at last, hurrah!

For whetever reason, it seems that {{convert}} now plays nicely enough with {{infobox}} that even the extremely hairy conversion code in this template works properly. See the test cases page. I've made some updates to the sandbox code which bring it in line with the advances in the main template over the last year (map, weight, some classes) and also made the image handling code more bulletproof (if an image size is omitted the template will now display images at the user thumbnail size rather than upscaling to 300px, which can stretch small images). Please check to see if anything is still broken: if not, I'll get this pushed live in a few days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now pushed the new code again. Woohoo. Please let me know if you see any problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Italicization

Should articles on paintings have their titles italicized automatically, much like the titles of articles on other works, books, films and so on? Varlaam (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that artworks should have their titles italicised, and I suggest that as for books this should be done through this infobox template (see WP:ITALICTITLES). I don't know what the procedure is for (a) agreeing this, and (b) finding a suitable template geek to implement the change! PamD (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

N I think this is a bad idea as it hides the formatting within a template, making it hard for an editor to over-ride. I would much rather see editors specifically choose to add {{Italic title}} rather than over-automate the formatting. It is not clear that all articles for which Infobox artwork might be applied are appropriate for italic titles, for example many artwork titles have the artist's name in brackets after the work (e.g. The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)) where the artist should not be in italics or may be a parent article for which this infobox is being used in a sub-section (e.g. 1798 in art). Fæ (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The template is actually clever enough to not italicise a bracketed disambiguation (that took me by surprise, too!). I've just looked at the list of "What transcludes": the template seems to be used in 2022 articles, and only a tiny minority have titles which are not artworks - and I wonder whether it's appropriate for the infobox to be being used in those articles, or whether the image which is illlustrating the article should just have a straightforward caption - see Malta, Bohemianism and 1876 in art. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) seems to make it clear that an infobox should be for the topic of the article. The infoboxes for various other forms of artistic creation (book, film, album) already include title italicisation. I see from the template history that someone had a go at adding it in November, then reverted 2 days later, but that looks as if it was a technical problem - he's blocked (perhaps for disruptive overenthusiastic editing such as modifying complex templates unskillfully), so I can't ask! PamD (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(I have no recollection of starting this discussion in October. That is what happens when you have a brain haemorrhage. I don't recommend it.)

The consensus would appear to be to build this functionality into the infobox.

I just happened to be looking at The Raft of the Medusa, American Gothic, and the Oath of the Horatii.

It's silly. The titles are italicized within the bodies of those articles.

So, who will be making this edit?

I don't want to get blocked again. One of the times I got blocked was for italicizing book titles before that officially became policy.

Varlaam (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this template is used in many articles which are not about a work of art and their titles must not be italicised. It's possible to construct a template which allows parameters to control whether they italicise or not, but making this template italicise article titles by default will require many articles to be visited to disable that; on the other hand, coding the template to not italicise by default, only when requested by a parameter, requires all articles on the works to be visited to insert that parameter; this is no different to inserting {{Italic title}} into those articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if the italic title function isn't on by default in this infobox, I think there should still be a parameter built into the infobox to perform this function as an option. Having to use the separate italic title template clutters up the code. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Location, location, location

Hi everyone. I was showing a friend of mine, new user Nicoletbn some editing tricks about an article about a sculpture by artist Tony Smith (sculptor), called Throwback (sculpture). She brought up the fact that the piece is now on display at SFMOMA. The photos I have of the work depict it at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, but does mention the piece is located in different spots. She brought up the idea of how do we handle coordinates when a sculpture is located in multiple places? A good example is Rodin's Gates of Hell. You'll see a section for the multiple locations. It'd be great to either figure out a way to list each location in the template (i.e. SFMOMA: (coords)
Hirshhorn (coords), or figure out a best practice for listing it in the article. Thoughts? SarahStierch (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't usually give coordinates for artworks in galleries (because we can't be sufficiently precise), only outdoor sculptures and the like. In those cases use {{Coord}} with |display=inline (in the infobox, a table, list or prose) for each instance, and |display=inline,title for the single most notable or the original example. In the infobox, use {{Unbulleted list}} for multiple entries. Where more than one set of coordinates are given in an article, also use {{KML}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a good question! I think it's very important to have accurate geo locations on outdoor artworks and having a history of their locations is very meaningful. I wonder if there's anyway to have this information easily stored within the article? Or does some kind of code work have to be written? Thanks!--Richard McCoy (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

[Late reply, sorry] See King Kong statue#Locations for an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Italic title

Per Wikipedia:ITALICTITLE#Italics and other formatting, italics should be used in the titles of articles on artworks. Would there be any objection to adding automatic italic-title logic to this template (which can be disabled on an individual basis using a parameter)?

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{italic title|¬}}}}}
 |¬|no       = <!-- no italic title -->
 ||force|yes = {{italic title|force={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{italic title|}}}}}|force|true}}}}
}}

— This, that, and the other (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No objection; I have been bold and added this code. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the infobox title also be non-italic if the article title is non-italic? (See Crazy Horse Memorial). —Kusma (t·c) 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, that one should use {{Infobox monument}} anyway. Still, something to think about. —Kusma (t·c) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you turn off the title parameter?

Is there any way to turn off the title parameter? IMO it looks rather silly when the title of the article is above and to the left in large bold text, immediately followed by the bolded title of the work in the first sentence of the article, followed by the title (again!) in bold on the right side of the page in the infobox. I tried to simply remove the title parameter, but then it defaults to the page name. Additionally, I strongly dislike the bolded terms Artist, Title, etc. on the left side of the box.

Would it be possible to put in an alternate format similar to the infobox used on the German Wikipedia? Or perhaps just make an alternate template? See Das Eismeer for an example of what I mean. It looks much cleaner and more dignified. Thanks, Lithoderm 20:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The title is common to all our infoboxes (likewise the parameter labels); it also needs to be there to label the emitted metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Subject parameter

I recently added a |subject= parameter, for cases where an artwork depicts, say a person, place or event which is not mentioned in the artwork's name. For example, the statue "A Birmingham Man" depicts Thomas Atwood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Language?

I'd like to see the language of this template be adjusted to not be so paintings centered and more truly about artworks in general. Is that easy to do? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of the template's language do you think need adjusting? Did you notice that Template:Infobox Sculpture and Template:Infobox Statue redirect here? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's just the word "painting" --RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I think the notion of "museum" isn't clear. Cultural institution or similar seems more appropriate. Many artworks are not owned by museums.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing the language of the template's parameters with its output; neither 'painting' nor 'museum' appears in the latter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, so why have them in the template? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We have these parameters in the template to provide the appropriate values that the template produces when used in an article; the names of the parameters are arbitrary, but they are conventionally named somewhat related to the content they are meant to convey. As this template is used for paintings and sculptures (and possibly other forms), the choice of name is obviously a compromise – we wouldn't want to call them |x=, |y=, |z=, … Back to addressing your original question: Which parts of the template's language do you think need adjusting? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Website

Some artworks have their own website. Can we add that to the template?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done; as |url= Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try it on The Drop (sculpture).--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Condition of pieces

I believe there should be a "Condition" category to describe the condition of pieces, especially those pieces that are in publically-accessible locations. One example to note is the Columbus Fountain in front of Union_Station_(Washington,_D.C.) whose condition is that it is in static display and in an inoperable condition. --KJRehberg (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, as |condition=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!! I will update the article. --KJRehberg (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

URL

Being forced to use that {{URL}} template is frustrating. Some URLs have = (equal signs) in them, and {{=}} doesn't help matters any because it breaks the link. Could this template go back to basics and just let us use bracketed URLs, like everywhere else on the site? I would attempt to sandbox my ideas, but coding is probably the last thing people want me to do :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm apparently I'm wrong and this URL template is used on other infoboxes. Any ideas how I could get around the equals sign issue, short of archiving the website? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

use {{{URL|1=http://...}}, as indicated in the documentation for {{URL}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you. I guess I didn't understand that part. You made the required change at Aurora Borealis (painting), so thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

More new parameters

I have added parameters for catalogue references and accession numbers to {{Infobox artwork}}; you can see them in use on Sorrow (Van Gogh). Please make use of them in other articles, as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, I noticed the template was sorely missing an accession parameter a short while back. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Range?

Is there a way to have the infobox display a range for measurements? I am working on Weather Machine (sculpture). Different sources indicate different heights, so I have included (in the prose) a range of 25 to 33 feet, with references for both heights. I added 30 feet to the infobox (I wish it could say "approximately"), but I suppose others could argue 25 or 33 are also correct. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

use |dimensions= with {{convert|25|to|33|ft}}? Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That works. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Italic title broken

Fine idea, but you must include an option to kill the italics. Martinengo Altarpiece, for example, should not be italicized but there's no way in the current format to turn the damned thing off. — LlywelynII 02:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

|italic title=no should work now. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Imperial units before metric units?

Is there a way to have the infobox display imperial units before metric units? (Please see this discussion for context.) For American subjects, it makes more sense to have imperial units displayed in prose before metric units. This creates inconsistency between prose (or sometimes use of the "convert" template) and the infobox display. Perhaps there is already a solution, but unknown to me. Any feedback or assistance is appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

just use the |dimensions= parameter with the values passed to convert. I updated the article for you. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to have a switch for this. |dimensions= lacks data granularity and is less readily machine-parsable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when I wrote the dimensional code I compromised on being able to display imperial units first because it would've required so much more work to implement (either double the code, or hackish sub-templatingq). I'm thinking of separating the dimensions code into its own template (as Template:Dimensions, which would possibly be useful elsewhere) using the new Lua modules to streamline the code. Trouble is, I'll have to teach myself some Lua first, and I'm crossing my fingers that I can output template code that'll be rendered—because the alternative is presumably re-implementing chunks of {{convert}}. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility of this template

I recently changed the use of {{{title}}} to {{{above}}}, which makes the infobox's HTML table more accessible. At the same time, I moved the "other titles" into a separate {{{subheader}}}, to improve data granularity. This was reverted with claim that "It looks really really ugly - the image is the most important thing and is disturbed with this change". I don't believe this is the case, and my edit should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Map parameter?

Should this template include the option to display a map? It might help with public art, such as sculptures, in particular. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Another Believer, it does, it's just not in the documentation. you can use simliar |pushpin_map= syntax used in {{infobox settlement}}. I added a start of some documentation to the doc page. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll look into it now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dimensions for a triptych?

I'm just starting an article about a triptych (by William Hogarth) and I'm wondering how to put in the dimensions in this infobox? The centre piece is 22 feet (6.7 m) by 19 feet (5.8 m) and each of the side panels 13 feet 10 inches (4.22 m) by 12 feet (3.7 m).— Rod ^talk 20:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

| dimensions = {{Plainlist|
* {{convert|22|ft}} by {{convert|19|ft}} (centre)
* {{convert|13|ft|10|in}} by {{convert|12|ft}} (sides)
}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks - now visible at User:Rodw/sandbox. I will probably move it into article space tomorrow.— Rod ^talk 22:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Artist: inappropriate autolinking

The auto-linking for |artist= if such an article exists is inappropriate and should be removed. It leads to unwanted linking if a disambiguation page exists for the artist's name but not for the artist herself. I came across this issue at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Fischer) where I had to use a hack to get around this issue. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

agreed, and added a tracking category to see how frequently this feature is used. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything, e.g in mw:Extension:Disambiguator or mw:Manual:page props table, that would allow the template code to exclude disambiguation pages? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

no idea, but Category:Pages using infobox artwork with autolinked artist field shows this is in being used in about 25% of the articles. given that the artist's name will be linked in the article as well, I think we can disable the feature and have a bot clean up the articles in the tracking category. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the artist's name should not be auto-linked, but for a different reason: when the artist fails WP:SINGLEEVENT; i.e. is notable for absolutely nothing else besides a single (notable) piece of art. Apparently the template has not been changed; the infobox in Fallen Astronaut autolinks to Paul Van Hoeydonck, which redirects to Fallen Astronaut. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to go through all the articles in Category:Pages using infobox artwork with autolinked artist field and wikilink legitimate links before this function can be safely removed. Alakzi (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I checked 20 random articles in that category, and every one of those had the artist linked in the body of the article. Thus, removing auto-linking will not only remove erroneous and misleading links, it will make the articles more compliant with WP:REPEATLINK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It would defeat half the purpose of the infobox. Have you read the last paragraph? We wikilink values in the infobox regardless. Alakzi (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To which paragraph are you referring? I don't see how not automatically linking defeats half the purpose. The template doc does not even mention that the artist is automatically linked; indeed it implies the opposite, as the double brackets are shown in the examples. This is not standard infobox behavior; it is better to give the user the freedom (and responsibility) to wikilink (or not) info fields as he chooses; he can also handle disambiguation if necessary. I see no good reason to treat the artist's name differently from other info, and it's presumptuous to assume an artist is necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia page on the basis of a single artwork (WP:SINGLEEVENT -- I guess artists are special people?). JustinTime55 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

Yes, I agree that this is bad, but it appears to have been widely (mis)used; it's less of an issue to sometimes link to a dab page than to not link to anywhere at all—all of the time. Not having a link would defeat "half" the purpose. Alakzi (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple locations

How about a way to show artwork that is displayed prominently in multiple location? I'm specifically trying to figure out how to make this infobox work with Partners (statue), with its five different locations. Elisfkc (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

adding 2 images

Hi

I'm not great with templates so maybe I'm misunderstanding something, I want to use 2 photos in the infobox as it is 3D, I cannot see 2 image fields in the template or when I use it in VE, however if I edit the page I can see that there are fields called image2. Can someone tell me how I add 2 images? I want to do something like this.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: A common solution is to make a composite image, and use that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Italictitle broken

The title at Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) is not being properly italicised by the Infobox. I don’t know if there are other pages like this, with brackets that are part of the name which is clearly the problem. Not sure how to fix it, in particular if a fix is needed in the template.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense for pages like David (Michelangelo) where the brackets are not part of the title, and it is accomplished by using only the BASENAME of the title. If we fixed this for Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War), we'd break it for all the pages where the name of the artist is is brackets. Mduvekot (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now it‘s deliberate, and makes sense for most pages, and can see how it’s happening (I was not familiar with using BASENAME like that). I’ve therefore fixed it by disabling the template and using {{italic title}} outside it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Italic title having effect outside the template

In the article Meriden, Connecticut, the article title is inappropriately italicised. This seems to be originating from the {{infobox artwork}} that's used within the article. I've tried commenting out the template, and then the article's title format returns to normal. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If the template's change of the article title to italics is not wanted, it can be turned off by including the parameter |italic title=no; this is documented overleaf in the box at the top that starts with . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the title of the artwork (within the article) should be italicised, but the title of the article should not. There seems to be no option to make this possible. |italic title=no just switches off italics for both. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I fixed it now at the Meriden article with |italic title=no and explicitly putting the name of the work in italics. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Designation

I've added |designation=, for example for artworks such as statues or murals which are listed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing "Type" to "Medium"

For works of art, it seems that the use of "medium" would more appropriate and less ambiguous than "type" when referring to the materials used to create the work, as the word "medium" comes from "media". Does anyone have any comments about this? WClarke (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• @WClarke: There's separately a material parameter that more closely matches what you're looking for, but that's underused and the type parameter is used inconsistently, whether for medium ("oil on canvas", e.g. La Bella), genre ("Pop Art", e.g. Torpedo...Los!), or broad category of work ("equestrian statue", e.g. Richard Coeur de Lion (statue)). I think that we should a) deprecate "type" as ambiguous, b) agree on a set of parameters that should be used in place of the current usage of type, and c) migrate all those instances to the new or less ambiguous parameters. I have a slight preference to use the existing material parameter over a new medium one, simply because it's less work, but I'm broadly open to suggestions. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: After looking at those other possible errors with type, I would ideally suggest we change / add the following parameters:

• medium - new parameter to succeed material; "medium" is an improvement over "material" because some art sometimes use elements that wouldn't typically be considered "materials". Examples of this: the human body (tattoos), digital / electrical elements (computers), food (in some works), and possibly in extreme cases non-physical "mediums" in forms of conceptual art.
• material - would become depreciated; might need to become backwards compatible for existing pages that use this parameter
• movement or art movement - new parameter to add the art movement, or movements, the work is associated with. Will put comment in documentation that reminds editors to only add cited and sourced movements for works of art. This parameter will address the problem of editors using type for the art movement and also I think will prove to be useful.
• type - would probably become depreciated, as it proves to be too ambiguous ; would also need to become backwards compatible, though might be more complex to replace because so many pages use it.

I'm willing to do the work necessary to complete this improvement, as I have noticed these problems several times before; if it needs to be fixed I might as well fix it the right way. I think poor documentation on the type parameter is the past was one of the main causes of it being used for varied purposes, so I will be sure to update the documentation accordingly as needed to prevent problems like this in the future. I haven’t worked extensively with templates on Wikipedia, but I have a solid background in programming and web development, so none of this is completely foreign to me, but I still might have a few questions. The biggest problem I foresee right now with making these changes is handling old instances of type because it used multiple purposes. I will read more about this and at least start working on these changes tonight. Do you have any other comments or suggestions? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: material has now been replaced with medium; all cases of material currently used on pages will be displayed as medium, and medium is now official in the documentation, so all new uses of the template will use medium. I'm going to work more tomorrow on figuring out a feasible solution for depreciating type, though it will be more complicated. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Broadly the changes look good, so I've gone ahead and converted most of the obvious uses of type (the large majority being variants on "oil on canvas" or similar) to medium. It looks like there aren't any uses of material left, so I'll remove that parameter from the infobox code shortly. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: I've noticed on several pages the use of material still. With your search with regular expressions, it appears that material isn't used anymore, though when I searched without the equal sign, I found cases of material still being used. (I don't know why your search didn't catch these cases; it looked right to me) I'm going to continue trying to get rid of these, and for now I'll add back the exception for the use of material until everything is fixed. Soon I'm also going to go ahead and add the new movement parameter and add it to documentation when I'm ready. I'm also continuing to look at type on many different pages to determine where it is being used for anything other than medium. Eventually I assume we'll depreciate type, add an exception so type gets displayed as medium, and then fix all incorrect cases, moving the values to movement or elsewhere as necessary. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@WClarke: OK, I learned something; it looks like the search engine doesn't like \s in regex to represent all whitespace characters; using "\s*" doesn't work consistently, but using " *" does. The revised search shows plenty of work to do. I'll start in on it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@WClarke: An update: I've done a sweep with AWB to convert uses of type to medium where the content of type matched most variants of "oil on canvas" or "oil on panel", a bit over 1700 edits. I'll probably want to do another sweep for cases using variants on "tempera", but it's tiring, even at >20 edits/min. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there are about 350 instances of |material= still in use. See the articles listed under "M" in the unsupported parameters category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters

I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters to this template. See Category:Pages using infobox artwork with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported. This check allows editors to find and fix problems this this one.

I have added this error-checking to a number of heavily used infoboxes, and it usually goes smoothly, highlighting errors that improve the articles that end up in the category. Every once in a while, parameters are missed or something goes wrong. If that happens, don't panic, just post here and I will be happy to fix it. Revert the change if you feel that you must.

If I have made any mistakes in coding, or if template changes are desired, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have removed |material= from the list of valid parameters in the unknown parameter check (at the bottom of the template code). That will make it so that articles using that parameter appear in the tracking category, eliminating the reliance on insource searches (which don't always work right). If you would like to remove |type= as well, let me know.

These two parameters will continue to function in the template; the only effect of this removal is to tag the article with a hidden maintenance category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: thats not the only effect. Its also show a notice when previewing an article ("Page using Template:Infobox artwork with unknown parameter "material""), and thats really confusing when the label works just fine (and the reason I came by here - I used some time to figure out what the problem was, and there was no problem). IMHO, either we should convert all uses of material to medium, or we should remove the warning. Christian75 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is confusing and not in line with the way that this module is normally used. Should I remove |material= from the template code? It looks like it is still used in about 350 articles. See the discussion above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved the tracking to Category:Pages using infobox artwork with the material parameter to avoid confusion. you can replace it with |medium=, but it's not critical to replace it. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox artwork with unknown parameters is now empty, but Category:Pages using infobox artwork with the backcolor parameter still has over 250 entries, and Category:Pages using infobox artwork with the material parameter has over 800 entries. I just tweaked the tracking to start tracking the old coordinates syntax, so we may see some new entries in Category:Pages using infobox artwork with unknown parameters, but these should be easy to fix. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Embedded parameter

Resolved

Like {{Infobox building}}, I believe this infobox should have a parameter that allows for embedding of other infobox templates (e.g. the NRHP infobox). There are sculptures that are on the National Register of Historic Places (and other national-level, state-level and city-level equivalents) and the information would be useful. SounderBruce 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No objections, so done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata icon position

I'd suggest that rather than putting the Wikidata icon on a new line under the title, we put it in-line right after the title. This will save space, encourage the broader use of this parameter, and make the connection more obvious.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-automatic artwork articles

Great! Now anyone can write a stub article on an artwork in two minutes. Find a painting, note its QID, slap in the artwork infobox, and turn the information in the infobox into a sentence:

"[Title] is a [date] [medium] by [artist]. It measures [dimensions] and is held in [collection]."

I suppose a reference, plus a category or two, might be a good idea, but this is going to make it much easier to create new articles. I am assuming that we can trust the Wikidata information, of course, but this method avoids the need for all that time-consuming and tedious research.

Here is a first attempt: Bust of a Man Wearing a Gorget and Plumed Beret

Much simpler. Theramin (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

URL and article title in citation causing error

See The Vegetable Market in Amsterdam. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that this is now fixed at {{Cite Q}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)