Template talk:Information
|
|
Publication dates matter
Note that publication date can matter for copyright purposes in some circumstances, eg for "works for hire" and for unpublished works, published after the death of an author. In these cases, publication date is more important to record than the created date. Both may be important however. Could this parameter be added? JimKillock (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I Support adding a seperate parameter for both dates, there should be some distinction between the two. Sebbog13 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sebbog13: Would "publication date" work for you? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes a lot of sense to add a new parameter to {{Information}}. It's specifically intended to be the "simple to use" template. If you have more complex needs you always have the option of choosing from the series of templates based on {{Artwork}}, which incudes {{Photograph}}, {{Book}}, {{Map}} and several others. These all support the "Publication date" parameter. In addition, if you really want to use {{Information}} and don't want to choose one from the {{Artwork}} series of templates, you have several other existing options for adding a publication date to a file using the information template: (1) embrace the simplicity and just mention the publication in the description or permission arguments, or (2) use the "other fields" parameter like "
| Other fields = {{Information field |name=Publication date |value= 2000-01-01}}", or (3) add the "publication date" using the structured data tab. —RP88 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)- I agree with RP88. Please use {{Book}} template for scans of published material. --Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also agreed with RP88. You can put freeform text in the Date field as well, meaning you can put two dates with labels of what they mean, and just use the {{ISOdate}} or {{Date}} or {{Other date}} templates to format the individual dates. There are other reasons for multiple dates at times (for example there is an {{Odate}} template, for the date of an original work and the date of this version, for derivative works such as vectorizations). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes a lot of sense to add a new parameter to {{Information}}. It's specifically intended to be the "simple to use" template. If you have more complex needs you always have the option of choosing from the series of templates based on {{Artwork}}, which incudes {{Photograph}}, {{Book}}, {{Map}} and several others. These all support the "Publication date" parameter. In addition, if you really want to use {{Information}} and don't want to choose one from the {{Artwork}} series of templates, you have several other existing options for adding a publication date to a file using the information template: (1) embrace the simplicity and just mention the publication in the description or permission arguments, or (2) use the "other fields" parameter like "
- @Sebbog13: Would "publication date" work for you? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@JimKillock, Sebbog13, Jeff G., Jarekt, and Clindberg: Generally, parameter name "date" leaves it unclear what date may be meant. Date of creation, last modification, first publication, secondary publication (of the last source used) etc. If someone publishes an edited photo (for example, a cutout), they rarely remember that the original work and the derivative work are two different works that have different authors and different dates of creation, but for the derivative work, it is appropriate to indicate not only the date of creation of the cutout, but also the date when was taken the original photo. I think every date in the date field needs an additional specification of what it means. I consistently use the template {{Taken on}} for photos, to distinguish from possible post-production editing. For other graphic creations (maps, charts, coats of arms, flags), the date of first publication may be more relevant than the date of creation which is a purely private matter of the creator. --ŠJů (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Any of those dates can matter and are of interest. I would put any known dates into the Date field, with labels. Different types of dates could be put in different structured data fields, I'm sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Information}} template is a minimalistic bare-bones template that has mostly the same fields since the day it was created. Every year there are few dozen proposals to add different fields to it, and many of the proposed fields were added to {{Information2}} template. Current set of fields is adequate to great majority of the files on Commons and for the rest we have other infoboxes. I agree that publication date field is important to printed works. That is why we created {{Book}} template. Or one can add it to {{Information}} template using Template:Information field or
|date= XXXX (publication date). --Jarekt (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Information}} template is a minimalistic bare-bones template that has mostly the same fields since the day it was created. Every year there are few dozen proposals to add different fields to it, and many of the proposed fields were added to {{Information2}} template. Current set of fields is adequate to great majority of the files on Commons and for the rest we have other infoboxes. I agree that publication date field is important to printed works. That is why we created {{Book}} template. Or one can add it to {{Information}} template using Template:Information field or
Output SVG text
For SVGs could it also output the text included in the SVG? Possibly some LUA code could extract it.
Samples:
- File:Wiki FAQ green.svg: "FAQ" (see <text id="a" in source)
- File:Finland road sign 711 (1969–2007).svg: none (as there is no text in the source).
If there are several strings, all would be list. This would make the strings searchable. Also, it would be easy to identify which SVG can be localized by editing the strings.
See Commons:Village_pump/Technical#OCR_to_auto-categorize_maps_/_charts_by_year_shown for some discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Author
Distinction with uploader
@Jarekt: You specified in the Author field's description that:
This field should not be used to specify the uploader of the image, who is not the author, but who only found or scanned the image
If so, what should that field contain for scanned images? Chealer (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Chealer, in case of scanned images, the author is the person who created that image. If you are scanning photographs that would be the photographer. If you are scanning text of the book that would be the author of the book. If you are scanning a painting that would be the painter. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: The parameter's description specifically indicates that it should indicate the "Original author of the file". If I scan a photograph taken by Bob in 1919, and Bob died in 1920, surely Bob isn't the author of the file. So if it's neither Bob nor me, then who is that author? Chealer (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Chealer, In such a case Bob is the original author of the content of that file and his heirs are/were the copyright holders. If it is no longer under copyrights, than the license template should indicate why. For example if Bob is from Europe than one could use {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1920}}. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jarekt, but the question is about the Information template's Author field. Who do you think the Author field should mention in a scenario like the one I described? Chealer (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Chealer, I do not understand the confusion. If Bob is the photographer who took the photo in 1919, than he is the "author", and the copyright holder. Scanning, printing, Xerox copying of that photograph does not change that, and does not make people creating the copies the authors. Even photographing other people photographs, if the majority of the photo is the original photograph, does not make the new photographers the co-authors. Same like scanning the print of Mona Lisa does not change the fact that Leonardo da Vinci is the author of the painting and of the file depicting the painting. If I scan and upload Mona Lisa that makes me the uploader, or user who scanned it, but does not make me the author. One way to think about it, is that the author is the person who holds or was holding the copyrights to the objects and now the file, and the license template should reflect status of those copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I don't disagree with that, but I still don't understand what should be indicated in the Author field, which should indicate the "Original author of the file". If I scanned Bob's photograph in 2020, would you say that Bob is the original author of the file, even though he died a century before the file was created? Chealer (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, Yes I would say he is the only author of the content of that file. The word "original" I added to help with this exact confusion, trying to distinguish from a "secondary" or "derivative" authors. I understand that the photograph was digitized in 2020 and the file or its digital form did not exist before the scan, so you are the creator and uploader of the file. However the author field is for the creator of the original content being digitized. It gets more tricky with photographs of sculptures, as both the photographer and the sculptor might hold the copyrights. We use {{Art photo}} template for that. I wonder if the wording can be tweaked to minimize the confusion and still is correct for all the content people use this template for. --Jarekt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: Right, I would agree that Bob may be the author of the content of the file. But as emphasized above, according to the Author field's description, it should contain an author of the file. Yes, I agree that if I show a picture of a sculpture and ask people who is the author, some will say the sculptor, some the photographer, and many will just not be sure. So there is definitely room for ambiguity, but in this case the description does specify that it's referring to an author of the file. For me, it makes no sense to consider Bob as the author of something which didn't exist when he died. If we leave copyright aside for now, if I scanned a photo taken by Bob, who do you think is/are the author(s) of the resulting file? Chealer (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, In case of the scanned documents the author is the creator of the original analog content. If you believe that the documentation does not make it clear, please propose how to change it. Also it does not make sense to set copyrights aside, as one of the main use of the author field is to identify the current or past copyright holders, so the name(s) in that field should match the license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I wouldn't describe the issue as a lack of clarity. For me, it's a matter of coherence. I hope to propose a change, but that would be easier once the problem with the current situation is clearly understood. You must be right that setting copyrights aside makes no sense, but I only asked to do that for now, at this stage.
- So to be clear, if I understand your answer correctly, you consider that if I scan a photograph taken by Bob, the single author of the file I thereby create is Bob? Chealer (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, Yes, Bob is the only author of the photograph and it's digital version - the file. People digitizing the photograph, uploading it, or even owning the photograph are not the authors. --Jarekt (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Most people don't think that the author can differ from the creator, but I'll see what we can do to fix this. --Chealer (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to change the wording to "Original author of the file contents" or "Original author of the creative material"? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Thisisnotatest: I have no idea if that's what Slomox meant to say, but the latter would definitely make sense. Perhaps "For scanned images, the author of the original (physical) image". --Chealer (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to change the wording to "Original author of the file contents" or "Original author of the creative material"? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Most people don't think that the author can differ from the creator, but I'll see what we can do to fix this. --Chealer (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, Yes, Bob is the only author of the photograph and it's digital version - the file. People digitizing the photograph, uploading it, or even owning the photograph are not the authors. --Jarekt (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, In case of the scanned documents the author is the creator of the original analog content. If you believe that the documentation does not make it clear, please propose how to change it. Also it does not make sense to set copyrights aside, as one of the main use of the author field is to identify the current or past copyright holders, so the name(s) in that field should match the license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: Right, I would agree that Bob may be the author of the content of the file. But as emphasized above, according to the Author field's description, it should contain an author of the file. Yes, I agree that if I show a picture of a sculpture and ask people who is the author, some will say the sculptor, some the photographer, and many will just not be sure. So there is definitely room for ambiguity, but in this case the description does specify that it's referring to an author of the file. For me, it makes no sense to consider Bob as the author of something which didn't exist when he died. If we leave copyright aside for now, if I scanned a photo taken by Bob, who do you think is/are the author(s) of the resulting file? Chealer (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer, Yes I would say he is the only author of the content of that file. The word "original" I added to help with this exact confusion, trying to distinguish from a "secondary" or "derivative" authors. I understand that the photograph was digitized in 2020 and the file or its digital form did not exist before the scan, so you are the creator and uploader of the file. However the author field is for the creator of the original content being digitized. It gets more tricky with photographs of sculptures, as both the photographer and the sculptor might hold the copyrights. We use {{Art photo}} template for that. I wonder if the wording can be tweaked to minimize the confusion and still is correct for all the content people use this template for. --Jarekt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I don't disagree with that, but I still don't understand what should be indicated in the Author field, which should indicate the "Original author of the file". If I scanned Bob's photograph in 2020, would you say that Bob is the original author of the file, even though he died a century before the file was created? Chealer (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Chealer, I do not understand the confusion. If Bob is the photographer who took the photo in 1919, than he is the "author", and the copyright holder. Scanning, printing, Xerox copying of that photograph does not change that, and does not make people creating the copies the authors. Even photographing other people photographs, if the majority of the photo is the original photograph, does not make the new photographers the co-authors. Same like scanning the print of Mona Lisa does not change the fact that Leonardo da Vinci is the author of the painting and of the file depicting the painting. If I scan and upload Mona Lisa that makes me the uploader, or user who scanned it, but does not make me the author. One way to think about it, is that the author is the person who holds or was holding the copyrights to the objects and now the file, and the license template should reflect status of those copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jarekt, but the question is about the Information template's Author field. Who do you think the Author field should mention in a scenario like the one I described? Chealer (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Chealer, In such a case Bob is the original author of the content of that file and his heirs are/were the copyright holders. If it is no longer under copyrights, than the license template should indicate why. For example if Bob is from Europe than one could use {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1920}}. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: The parameter's description specifically indicates that it should indicate the "Original author of the file". If I scan a photograph taken by Bob in 1919, and Bob died in 1920, surely Bob isn't the author of the file. So if it's neither Bob nor me, then who is that author? Chealer (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Who are a file's authors?
@Slomox: According to your description of the Author parameter, it should contain the "original author of the file". Can you clarify what you meant by that, or tell us if how this has since been interpreted is coherent with your understanding? Notably, as can be seen in the previous subsection, it has been interpreted that if Alice scans a paper print of something photographed by Bob, her file's author would differ from its creator (Bob vs Alice). Is this consistent with the terminology you are using? --Chealer (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
How to search fields of files' Information template?
See Commons:Village pump/Technical#How to search fields of files' Information template?.
I think enabling using specified fields of the Information template would be very useful for all sorts of applications and purposes. I made a proposal of how this could be implemented as it doesn't seem to be possible yet. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Accessible description field needed
There needs to be a way to enter an accessible text description of all images. I suggest adding an "Accessible description" parameter to the template. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Thisisnotatest: it's not clear to me what the problem is you are trying to solve. Can you elaborate? Multichill (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Multichill: Sorry, I didn't see the ping and never responded to this and it got archived. Responding now. The idea of adding an accessible text description to all images would be that whenever an image from Wikimedia Commons was included on a page in another wiki, say, English Wikipedia, the image would have accessible text for screen readers on that website. I recognize this might not be as simple as I might have originally thought. For example, if an image with English alternative text were included in a German wiki, it would have the wrong language. So there might be a need for alternative text fields for each language. Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Source: what to do with files which disappeared?
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Chealer (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC) To be concrete, File:Nutella logo.svg was created from File:Nutella logo - 1964-1970.svg, which was removed by Missvain since the former superseded it.
What should be done in such cases where Source points to removed files? Since the original page is deleted, we don't have access to the original's Source field. Chealer (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer The source statement is correct this way. However it would be good if an admin looked at the deleted page and retrieved the source of that file, so that this can be logged in addition to the fact that this version was based on File:Nutella logo - 1964-1970.svg —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it might be "correct" in the sense that it's not wrong, but it's not correct to have broken links, nor to fail to specify the (real) source. @Missvain can some admins really look at the deleted page? Chealer (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer and @TheDJ, unfortunately, the deleted file only has "source=Nutella" and "author=Ferrero", pretty much the same as the current file. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Huntster, I corrected the file. I guess the answer to this question would then be to ask admins on the Talk page of files with such broken links to provide that information so it can be "restored"? Chealer (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would probably be difficult to get such a thing codified, given the volumes of material that are processed daily. The best solution for now is to ask the deleting admin to provide the information on a case by case basis, and if they fail to follow up, ask more broadly. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a tip about such cases to the documentation. In case someone knows how to prevent the broken link I added as example from displaying red, please let me know (the box seems too prominent and I didn't find how to make it collapsed). --Chealer (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- It would probably be difficult to get such a thing codified, given the volumes of material that are processed daily. The best solution for now is to ask the deleting admin to provide the information on a case by case basis, and if they fail to follow up, ask more broadly. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Huntster, I corrected the file. I guess the answer to this question would then be to ask admins on the Talk page of files with such broken links to provide that information so it can be "restored"? Chealer (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chealer and @TheDJ, unfortunately, the deleted file only has "source=Nutella" and "author=Ferrero", pretty much the same as the current file. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it might be "correct" in the sense that it's not wrong, but it's not correct to have broken links, nor to fail to specify the (real) source. @Missvain can some admins really look at the deleted page? Chealer (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)