Last modified: 2014-08-26 17:11:29 UTC
Wikimedia Commons has a lot of description template that allows to give very accurate description of the work, especially permits to credit the original author and the author of the photography. The MultimediaViewer is not able to display proper attribution of those files right now: Original description: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Image_et_le_Pouvoir_-_Buste_d%27homme_cuirass%C3%A9-2.jpg MediaViewer description: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mus%C3%A9e_Saint-Raymond,_Ra_73e#mediaviewer/File:L%27Image_et_le_Pouvoir_-_Buste_d%27homme_cuirass%C3%A9-2.jpg
It probably depends on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
This requires handling of multiple Information-like templates in CommonsMetadata and replacing the current author field with multiple ones in MediaViewer. The first we should definitely do, not so sure about the second... this would make the interface more complex and confusing. Maybe metadata about the artwork could be integrated into the description box. CC-ing Pau for advice. At the very least, we should fix the current behavior that the author field can show either the photographer or the artist, depending on the order of the templates on the page. Always showing the photographer is probably the better option. It is also relatively easy to do on the CommonsMetadata side, without dealing with bug 62254 / bug 57259 (we just need to select the best template instead of the first one).
I'm not sure that dealing partially with authorship is an option we should accept.
Somehow related to bug 57465
Hmm, in my opinion, this description page should not be using a FILE information template, with FILE information metadata to describe an object... That object template is simply not in it's place there (at least not with those metadata annotations on it) I'm sort of baffled by the complexity of that thing, so i'm not really sure where it is DOING that, but in my opinion that is where the problem is.
DJ if you want to say we should have tackle the metadata problem first, I say yes :-)
