Last modified: 2014-04-01 23:54:46 UTC
https://www.mail-archive.com/glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00004.html Output. -- If outputting {{artwork}}, please include the standard fields in the standard order, even if some of them are empty. eg: {{Artwork |artist = |title = |description = |date = |medium = |dimensions = |institution = |location = |references = |object history = |credit line = |inscriptions = |notes = |accession number = |source = |permission = |other_versions = }} & further fields have their standard places in the order; which pretty much corresponds to the sequence they are output in, *not* alphabetical order. This is important, because WikiCommons is not a "write once" medium -- pages are there to be easily edited and updated, by humans. It is useful to have all the basic fields in place, even if they are not populated, because it makes it so much easier to fill something in later -- for example, in my case, to move some of the 'description' back into the 'title'; or to add references; or transcriptions of inscriptions; or other versions, already on the Wiki. The empty fields also help to give the edit page order and structure when you look at it; otherwise it can get messy and harder to process, if the 'description' and 'source' fields are allowed to dominate, which can get quite long and free-form. And please keep the fields in the standard order above, so that experienced editors know exactly where to expect to look for particular information, and where to edit it.
* GWtoolset fields. The unexpected fields 'gwtoolset-title-identifier' and 'gwtoolset-url-to-the-media-file' are currently causing the template to throw warnings, which look unsightly. If these are going to be placed in the artwork template, please edit that template, so that it doesn't throw warnings. But is the artwork template actually the best place for these fields? They don't relate to a description of the artwork, rather a description of the upload process. The standard place to describe the history of the upload process is in its own template, separate from the image description template -- compare for example the template left by the Flickr2Commons bot in the 'licensing' section of the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Furnival%27s_Inn,_Holborn_-_Shepherd,_1828.jpg The advantage of this is that the 'artwork' template can be kept to a very specific function, without having its code cluttered up by other stuff. Think what the effect would be if every upload process wanted to add its fields to the artwork template -- maintenance, or even reading the code, would become a nightmare. Instead, much better to put this content in your own template, to mark the GWtoolset upload process, perhaps with an additional master parameter to turn visible output from the template off or on.
* Whitespace I can see it's useful at the moment, in the present beta stage of the code, to add a debugging dump of the tool's run-state to the end of the page. But please can you add several lines of whitespace before it. Normally, the category section is very easy to find, being the last thing on the page. But without whitespace, it gets buried in a big heap of text. So, fine to keep the debugging information there, but please add a few lines of whitespace before it, to make it easier to find the categories section.
Change 121307 had a related patch set uploaded by Dan-nl: Correct the format of the wikitext output https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/121307
in regards to maintaining the template parameter order as it is within the actual template; e.g., not always alphabetical. this could not be dealt with here because GWToolset is using templatedata to retrieve the template parameters and templatedata is alphabetising the parameters. does this need to be dealt with as a templatedata bug? @see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=templatedata&titles=Template:Artwork
Change 121307 merged by jenkins-bot: Correct the format of the wikitext output https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/121307
Should be deployed april 8
