Template talk:Infobox artwork/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pages using infobox artwork with unlinked artist field

Category:Pages using infobox artwork with unlinked artist field has spurious entries. We may want to compare lc:artist with lc:PAGENAME rather than raw PAGENAME. Certes (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Or raw link with raw PAGENAME - anything to avoid a mixed-case comparison failure. I'm trying to clean up Category:Pages using infobox artwork with unlinked artist field, and it's full of circular links because of this failed test. They can be cleared using nowiki syntax, but that's a very tacky solution indeed. Narky Blert (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I'll promote this to a formal request. I've not used the sandbox as there's another pending change in there, but I think it's as simple as replacing {{PAGENAME}} by {{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}} in the |data1= parameter. Certes (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked three articles at random in the category, and it looked like the category was being applied there just fine (e.g. Uemura Shōen), but maybe I misunderstand. Can someone please link to an article with the problem and explain how a change to this template would fix the problem? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Never mind, I re-read the code and this discussion and figured it out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The category is now down to one article (John Robinson, a dab; no article on that artist). Certes (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The category is now empty. Narky Blert (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I just came here, because this category has articles in user space, and found this related discussion. Could you restrict it to article space only. Thanks. MB 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. An oversight on my part. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, can you look at Statue of Kate Smith. It appears that this has a unlinked artist but is not categorized. MB 15:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I read the code again, and it is possible that it is confusing me again, but I'm pretty sure that it is looking for Marc Mellon and not finding it, so the category is not applied. That looks correct to me. If not, please explain it to me, since I'm not as clever as I was a year ago, apparently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, OK, you are right, there is no problem here. I didn't realize the category is only applied if the artist was not linked AND an article existed. Makes sense. There is no reason to unconditionally add a redlink to a NN artist. But then, I have added redlinks a few times, such as here because Jonás Gutiérrez exists (but is the wrong person) and the category was applied, so I linked Jonás Gutiérrez (sculptor) adding a redlink in the infobox when there wouldn't have been one but for disambiguation. This isn't ideal. I don't have a simple solution. MB 16:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, we could add a |artist_disamb= to be used only in these kind of rare cases. If present, the template would append that to the artist field before making the check to apply the category. I think that would resolve the issue. MB 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I assume you did get pinged here? This came up again today at Statue of Jackie Robinson. It says it is unlinked because there is an article Susan Wagner, but that's not the artist. MB 22:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I did get pinged, but I didn't love the proposed solution. I think that ultimately, the auto-linking is a hack that we should get rid of. A bot or AWB editor could replace all of the existing auto-links, and then we could remove the auto-linking code. That would be my preference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Editions?

I think it could be really useful to add an additional field and parameters for artworks made in an edition of multiples. Anyone else think that would be of use? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What content would you anticipate placing in such a field? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Edition sizes, e.g. for "Untitled" (Perfect Lovers): "Edition size: 3 + 1 Artist's proof", with "Edition size" being the field title. It would help for works that are in editions of multiple and are located in multiple collections. Honestly, it would also be helpful to have ways to add multiple collections and accession numbers to the infobox in separate fields (as opposed to just combining them under the collection field), but that I imagine would require a lot of work to accomplish. 19h00s (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think unless/until that happens, it makes sense to keep this as a single combined field as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Is it feasible to add a field for edition size? I don't know how to do it technically or I'd just test it out myself. 19h00s (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It is technically possible, but as above, for the moment it should remain bundled in with size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Location"

Can someone remove the "Location" field from the template? Or, is there a reason for inclusion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, see the examples in the documentation - if an artwork is in a museum, or a sculpture in a park or specific city, this would go there. ɱ (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm, seems this actually correlates to "city". Location was added here and will be removed. ɱ (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ɱ Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Another Believer I see the use of a location parameter needed but perhaps more along the line of specifying a building. A building parameter? It seems the template is limited to using coords and city. The museum parameter is too specific here and could be where a building parameter would also benefit. I want to think that's what the location parameter was trying to seek. Just some thoughts. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)