Template talk:British-Museum-object
Merge with Artwork
[edit]This template should be merged with Artwork --Jarekt (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree - how would this generate the BM URL currently used? Fæ (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- By using {{British-Museum-db}} in {{Artwork}} "Accession number" field. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is what this template does. What is the point of making it harder to use or understand by forcing users to nest templates? Fæ (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- We are trying to go away from 100's small unmaintained templates related to a single object or artifact and replace them with few standard templates. This provides common look and allows us to internationalize the template so it looks well in Russian, Arabic, English and other languages. And we do a lot of template nesting to translate many commonly used terms. --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, as this template relates to the several million objects available in the BM online database, your rationale does not seem to apply. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This template is used on only 135 pages, not "several million" you mention. It capabilities closely parallel {{Artwork}} with {{British-Museum-db}}, and it is not internationalized, so the field names are not translated to the visitors from non-english wikis. See File:British Museum Kang Hou Gui Front.jpg do we need {{British-Museum-object}} there? Now nook at this same page here.--Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are misquoting me, I referred to the BM online database which the BM states includes 1,896,683 objects, not Commons. Your criteria above was for "unmaintained templates relating to a single object". You recognize that this template does not fall into that criteria as it relates to 135 pages. You have failed to make a case that the template represents a failure to meet guidelines or that the merge you propose would be to the benefit of end users. I do not feel further discussion would achieve a consensus between ourselves. I suggest that we should welcome independent comments from other editors rather than continue. Fæ (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This template is used on only 135 pages, not "several million" you mention. It capabilities closely parallel {{Artwork}} with {{British-Museum-db}}, and it is not internationalized, so the field names are not translated to the visitors from non-english wikis. See File:British Museum Kang Hou Gui Front.jpg do we need {{British-Museum-object}} there? Now nook at this same page here.--Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, as this template relates to the several million objects available in the BM online database, your rationale does not seem to apply. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- We are trying to go away from 100's small unmaintained templates related to a single object or artifact and replace them with few standard templates. This provides common look and allows us to internationalize the template so it looks well in Russian, Arabic, English and other languages. And we do a lot of template nesting to translate many commonly used terms. --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is what this template does. What is the point of making it harder to use or understand by forcing users to nest templates? Fæ (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- By using {{British-Museum-db}} in {{Artwork}} "Accession number" field. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Jarekt. Ths template should be merged with {{Artwork}}. The purpose of templates is to achieve generality as much as possible, which {{Artwork}} does remarkably well. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
queries about Zolo's reckless behaviour and a few thoughts by Fæ and Zolo |
---|
User_talk:Zolo#Blanking_of_information. Amongst other problems that Zolo's changes created were sloppy re-writes to specific information about the photograph, making the information boxes area approximately 3 times longer, using terminology that is non-standard for British Museum objects, creating a potential new copyright issue by taking more information than previously used from the British Museum database record and changing of measurement information giving a false impression of precision. Some of these issues may not be the problem of the new template and may be due to someone not familiar with the British Museum collaboration and previous discussion making such blanket changes. I remain firmly against this arbitrary change of template to a generic template that has not been reviewed or discussed properly to reach an agreed consensus with GLAM/BM and were the only benefit is to "achieve generality" which as far as I am aware is not supported by Commons policy. --Fæ (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Considering it as unlikely that many people will want to read the previous text I try to sum up the artwork/British-Museum-object dilemna, bearing in mind Fæ's arguments and not mentioning issues mentioned above that are not directly about it.
- Benefits of artwork
- it is a much more widely used templates. It is easier to maintain a few large templates that many small ones.
- we can't expect users to know too many templates. Admittedly, when all back-up templates are taken into accound, {{Artwork}} is not so easy for inexperienced contributors.
- Benefits of British-Museum-object
- it is quicker to fill
- it is specifically designed for the British Museum
- Some questions
- How should photographs of object details be handled ?
- Currently they {{Artwork}} just mentions it inside the template either in the title or in the descrption field.
- Currently the description of the detail is called "description" and the description of the object is called "detailed description" in {{British-Museum-object}}
- I would suggest other solutions in the case of transcluded description, but I think we can leave out this question for now.
- How could we handle the registration number and the link to BM's database with {{Artwork}} ?
- Should we provide a link to the British Museum database in "accession number" or in "references" ? Accession number sounds simpler to create and maintains, "references" sound more logical.
- {{Artwork}} diplays "accession number" while the British Museum uses "registration number". I would suggest to adapt {{British-Museum-db}} so that it would display "registration number". Clearly not perfect but not awful I think.
- Apparently the museum uses "accession number" to refer to a secondary number but it is not all clear to me: "Supplementary accession number previously allocated, as lacked valid accession number. More on that would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolo (talk • contribs) 2011-03-11 20:57 (UTC)
- What if we switch from British-Museum-object to artwork ?
- I suppose a bot can make the move so that no content should be lost. However there may be some manual fixes to be do afterwards, notably because a bot may confuse photographer and artist and photo date and object date.
Please sign your posts on talk pages. You have re-factored my comments above without my permission and for a dispute that you were part of. This is not acceptable behaviour for talk pages, please reverse your changes intended to hide my comments. If you think the discussion requires a summary then ask someone independent to do so, being one of the parties involved makes the summary suspect for bias and is unlikely to help reach a consensus even if you are trying your best to summarize fairly. --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Examining the collapsed comments I note you have added several undated comments after my final dated comment, this is misleading and may be seen as manipulative, particularly considering some of the pointy comments about "celebrated GLAM/BM consensus" which was never a claim of mine. Please go back and add correct dates and times to your comments otherwise I shall consider your additions deliberately intended to mislead as to what my later comments were in reply to. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the signature, this was an oversight. I have added {{Unsigned}} to make clear I had not done it properly.
- I had apparently misunderstood your "Considering the GLAM/BM discussion about the original template design it seems odd to over-rule existing project/task force collaborations", I thought that overruling a collaboration meant overruling a consensus achieved during that collaboration.
- I had collapsed the above text because I thought we could all agree most of it was off topic. Again I apologize if you feel it is manipulative, I did not mean to prevent you from answering there. I have uncollapsed the table, and somewhat changed its title.--Zolo (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)+ --Zolo (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
URL for British Museum pages needs updating?
[edit]The example URL results in a "page not found" page on their website. That result page does however state that they've updated their website, and indicates what the correct URL should be. Can someone fix this (sorry, I don't know how).--A bit iffy (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I Agree here. The template for building links into the BM website from object-numbers is broken as of 18 March 2021. As an example I use Fæ's Vindolanda Tablet 291 info page, British Museum object number 1986,1001.64 ... at present this produces a bad URL http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=1362732&partid=1 ... the page https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?museum_number=1986,1001.64 would work better. I'm unsure how to change the template so that correct URL's are produced, but it seems that https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?museum_number=MUSEUM-NUMBER would be a better template? Mcvoorhis (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ahh -- I see now the discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:British-Museum-db left by BabelStone at 11:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC) ... the British Museum has changed their entire inventory system. Whoops. Mcvoorhis (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)