Template talk:NARA-image-full

Why ?

Why create a dedicated template? Doesn’t {{Artwork}} do the trick ? Jean-Fred (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My purpose was to model the fields for the template after the National Archives' catalog records. It's certainly possible to manipulate other templates to do the same thing, but this one is more tailored to its intended use and includes some NARa-specific parameters (like the identifier) that make it much easier. It also means the description pages will hopefully be much more structured than they would be if everyone uses more general templates in their own way.

Additionally, the idea is that we will be able to create a tool that can easily translate a catalog record into the wikitext needed for upload, so that an editor can simply copy and paste the tool output into the upload form. This template would hopefully make that a lot more straightforward. That's my thinking, at least, but I am not really plugged into the Commons community and its conventions. If you have suggestions, I would love to hear them. Dominic (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The convention are to use standardised templates (the triumvirate {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Book}}) − and as a general rule custom stuff is discouraged (there are exceptions − on top of my head, {{Fotothek-Description}}).

But in cases like this, it kinda Just Makes Sense™ to have custom stuff. I do not really know what is best.

But do not worry and keep working on it : even if this custom one is discouraged, it can always be used as subst:ed at upload time. Would be handy in any case.

Jean-Fred (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to use a dedicated templates as long as we are not completely sure about how to organize it. In the long run, it will probably make sense to sust:ed it. Here I would suggest to base the template on {{Artwork}} rather than {{Information}} for at least two reasons:

1. there is a "title" field, which would look better than writing "title" inside the "description" field.
2. the name of the author appears at the beginning, which would be more readable for this kind of things.--Zolo (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd use artwork -- that is more for paintings. It has a separate author and photographer field, which could get confusing when dealing with actual photographs. But, I don't like the subheadings inside the Description field... if possible, I think the text should be combined to make it flow more like a normal description, and definitely not in italics, unless a Description override is provided (in which case it should be presented as plain text, with the original title and source info below it). But, that is the type of thing which can be changed at any time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not partial to the italics, if you want to get rid of it. The only reason I chose to use subheadings is that I wanted to distinguish descriptive text that comes from NARA and the descriptive text added by Wikimedians. I agree, though, that it can look a little funky, especially when there is only a title. Dominic (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, please feel free to make any aesthetic changes you think would be improvements. Actually, I would appreciate that. :-) What I really wanted to do with this was simply make it appear as normal as possible while using NARA's terminology to be able to clearly to fill in the metadata. If one of the fields would go better in a different place than I had it originally, that's fine. I am not much of a template coder, so some of the things I did were because I was limited by the fact that I was just plugging these into the {{Information}} template (for no other reason than that that was the standard template I was aware of; I don't really know if {{Artwork}} would be more appropriate). Dominic (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

|Other pages=

I'm obviously doing something wrong here, but I was just trying to get an "|Other pages=" parameter, so we don't have to use the "Other pages" field for multi-page documents like we've been doing. Any help would be appreciated. Dominic (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do. What is the difference between 'Other pages" and "other_versions"? --Jarekt (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They are supposed to look the same, except that "other pages" will be for listing the other pages for multi-page documents (e.g. at File:A bill to provide a temporary government for the territory of Arizona, page 2.tif) while "other versions" should be fore listing the image's TIFF/JPG/DjVu/PDF equivalents (and derivatives?). It looked a little confusing mixing the other pages of a document with other versions of the same file, as we were doing. Dominic (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done I think it is fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Full of errors ?

{{NARA errors}} is currently placed on top of this template. It reads "Please do not overwrite original files: [..] Please help us by reporting errors! [..]. "

If there are not too many errors in these files, I think it's preferable to present the description in a way that it doesn't starts with maintenance requests and instructions on overwriting. The template could easily go below the standard information template. --  Docu  at 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Agree I kind of dislike this box as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"full of errors" is an odd (slightly insulting) way of putting it. I want to communicate two things: upload new versions under a different name, and if you feel the urge to correct an error, please report it so that NARA can update their own record. I notice a lot of people have been doing things like uploading crops and other small changes over the original versions, or making edits directly to NARA's copied metadata. This is natural, because it's how things normally work on Commons, but it's not a great idea when we're trying to faithfully represent archival documents and metadata. It's a wiki, so feel free to change the template to communicate that in a better way. I'm not a very good graphic designer or template whiz. :-) Dominic (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

« because it's how things normally work on Commons » − well, we do have COM:OVERWRITE. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Overwriting happens way too often. I don't think this is limited to NARA images. People even replace FP with their own version . --  Docu  at 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an {{Original}} template. May not be precisely accurate in this case but it does have the same message. It may look a little less alarming than the yellow template at the top. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just trying to match the yellow color scheme from the other NARA box included on all these pages, not to be alarming. ;-) I'm not offended if anyone has a better way of presenting this; in fact, I'd appreciate it. I don't mind {{Original}} with slightly modified language, if that is preferred. Dominic (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yellow hint below file description unclear

The yellow hint below the filedescription "The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields."" is quite unclear if you don't know what it is about already. It should probably be reworded a little so it is clearer. See Commons:Village pump#Don't fix it for a discussion that arised because of this issue. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Text parameter

I have made an edit to this template and updated the doc page. Please confirm that this is the correct behaviour for the template and make any further changes that are needed to the doc page. Allen4names (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source field

I'm not entirely sure why there's a custom "source" field. The source field that goes to {{Artwork}} says "Intentionally blank". I'm asking because this source field isn't machine-readable, so every image that uses this template is a file with no machine-readable source. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The {{Artwork}} source field is a strange one (for historical reasons) and says "Source/Photographer" and holds either where the image was downloaded from or the name of the photographer. The "Photographer" part made no sense to in case of NARA images (since that would be th so in the custom template we used a regular "Source". If there is some machine-readable marking you would add to it, we can figure out how. Also we might switch from {{Artwork}} to {{Photograph}} which just might be a better fit. --Jarekt (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple; just add id=fileinfotpl_src to the relevant {{Information field}}. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit request}}

If the only reason for the custom "Source" field is to stop it from saying "Source/Photographer", please add id=fileinfotpl_src to the "Source" {{Information field}} for machine readability. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 17:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove extra brace

{{Edit request}}

There is an extra brace before {{Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files}}. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How to get rid of "Transcribe" button

I was just browsing and noticed that a few images were already transcribed based one a DJVU file built from the TIFF files at Commons.

• DJVU
• TIFF 1
• TIFF 2
• TIFF 3
• TIFF 4

The DJVU doesn't have the "Transcribe this" link but the images do. Is it possible to get rid of this link now? Thanks, The Haz _talk 01:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think |text=no should do it.--Jarekt (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT USE

This template is unacceptable, some issues:

1. NARA-place is far too inaccurate, therefore an {{Object location}} is REQUIRED for any media commons wants to keep. However, {{NARA-image-full}} doesn't permit this, by adding cruft both above and below the info. It also contains Google Maps spam within the info, but that's an "Institution" problem on the side of commons.
2. There is no decent permission row for the REQUIRED {{PD-USgov}} mark, instead the media are additionally tagged with {{NARA-cooperation}} in an extraneous license section, for those reader who missed far too many NARA tags in the summary section.
3. The warnings not to overwrite the original TIFF are REQUIRED, but out of line on a derived JPEG. Likewise any info helping to find the original record is REQUIRED, but not to a point where commons duplicates the complete junk found in those original records, it's undocumented and meaningless here.
4. The error reporting is too complicated and/or does not work, e.g., a trivial horizontal flip cost me some hours today after I stumbled over the request.

–Be..anyone (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Agree – These are valid points. Either the changes are made, or someone needs to come up with are really good excuse vas to why not.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editrequest}}

Please change "Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without an ARC Identifier" to Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without a National Archives Identifier, as the name of the identifier has changed. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! jdx ^Re: 08:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editrequest}}

Right now, the template is set up to accept either "ARC" (old name) or "NAID" (new name) as the parameter name for the identifier. However, using "NAID" instead of "ARC" causes a file to get categorized into Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without a National Archives Identifier. I think this line: "{{#if:{{{ARC|}}}||[[Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without a National Archives Identifier]]}}" needs to be edited to add in the "NAID" option. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Location

Do I understand correctly that "location" in this template is where the master image is stored, not the place depicted? - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating information for NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) images - correcting dates

I noticed that there are many images uploaded from the National Archives and Records Administration using the Template:NARA-image-full. This template states "The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields." There are obviously incorrect "date" fields, for instance "Ceremonies - Preparedness Day, Washington, D.C. - President Woodrow Wilson in Preparedness Parade, Washington, D.C - NARA - 23922795.jpg" which has a date field of "1917 – 1918" when the image itself says June 14, 1916. What should a person do in this circumstance? Update the "Date" field? Only update the Structured Data "inception" field? I have asked the same question at the Village Pump Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request (7/13)

{{Editrequest}}

Please insert the following inside the <includeonly> section of the template code:

{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P760
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P170
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing creator
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P1476
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P6216
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P195
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P9126
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}
{{SDC_statement_exist
 |property          = P7482
 |positive_category =
 |negative_category = Digital Public Library of America files missing required SDC statements
}}

NARA's in-house upload project has been dormant for several years now, and their uploads are now performed by DPLA. I am beginning the process of migrating the old NARA uploads from US National Archives bot to DPLA's format, and maintaining them from DPLA bot. NARA is a DPLA member (the largest one) and all of its data is contained within DPLA's aggregation. As a first step, I am beginning to add SDC statements to NARA uploads, using DPLA's aggregation.

The code above is intended to add any NARA uploads to DPLA SDC tracking categories, in the same way as {{DPLA}} does for the uploads using that one. Dominic (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic: Is the word "required" really appropriate here? It's not as if someone has necessarily done something wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I mean, they are only "required" in the sense that they are required fields in the data source. All catalog records in DPLA should have this data present. It is mostly an attempt to identify Commons files that either still need structured data added or the SDC has been removed/changed (or the data is bad in the original record). It doesn't mean anyone else has done anything wrong, but it does still mean the files are in need of action (by DPLA). Sorry if that was confusing, it's not really meant to be used by anyone outside of the bot anyway, so I guess I didn't consider other audiences. It wouldn't mind if it was named anything else, though it might be inconvenient now with millions of files involved. Dominic (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dominic: So can we maybe say "DPLA-required"? I would rather do that because we field a good number of "what did I do wrong" questions on the help desk when people see SDC-related maintenance cats. Probably less of an issue here if it is only going on your uploads, though. - Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Maybe "DPLA-mandated" to be even clearer? It's fine by me, I just worried about 3.3 million files needing to be purged to populate the template, unless there is a bot to do that? Dominic (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"mandated" is a good choice. I'll make the change, but it's on someone else to work out about purging. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit request}} Instructions displayed by the template mention using the "description" field—that needs to be "Description", as the field name is case sensitive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dmoore5556: Hm… you have a good point about this template, but apparently that message comes from {{Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files}}, and that template is also used in some other templates where lowercase "description" is correct (e.g. {{Archivio di Stato di Milano}}). I’m not sure what to do about this tbh… should the please-do-not-etc. template take an optional parameter for the name of the description parameter? Or we can we change the NARA template to accept both capitalizations, or even only lowercase, for consistency? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lucas, I think adjusting the NARA template to accept either capitalization would have the least impact, and would be sufficient. Thanks for looking at this. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

1. @Dmoore5556: by "the NARA template" do you mean the present template or {{NARA}}?
2. Could you please propose a specific edit, rather than just stating the intent of the edit? I, for one, don't have a lot of experience with this templating system. What you say sounds correct, and I could make educated guesses about the best way to achieve it, but I'd really rather someone requested a specific edit.

1) I meant the template associated with this talk page (NARA-image-full). 2) I did not look at the template in detail; yes, I only stated a desired outcome. I could have dug into it further, but it's moot now, per the below. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I added support for |description=. If anyone specifies both |description= and |Description=, the two will just get pasted right next to each other, without anything in between; if anyone thinks it’s needed, we could also add a tracking category for this (assuming it’s considered an error that should be fixed), I suppose. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove newlines at the end of the template

{{Edit request}}

The template adds a bunch of newlines at the end which makes additional infobox fields look weird, as in File:Amish Country Byway - Grazing on a Farm near the Amish Country Byway - NARA - 7716971.jpg for example. Would it be possible to comment out the newlines? For each newline add:

<!-- -->

Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you :) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Parsing errors

@Dominic: I tried to look into it but am unable to figure out what's wrong: hastemplate:NARA-image-full incategory:"Pages with script errors". The usage of {{DPLA/inst cat}} in {{NARA-image}} looks maybe wrong as it doesn't have an argument. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That is definitely wrong, as "DPLA/inst cat" definitely needs an argument, and I don't think an argument of the correct type exists on the NARA-image template. The only parameter we have in that template is the NARA ID (or ARC id), which doesn't seem enough to find an institution (it's use in the DPLA template passes a much longer DPLA id value). I would probably revert that edit to {{NARA-image}}. @Dominic: , what was the intent? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of {{DPLA/inst cat}}. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Automatically detect "Extracted from" template?

Is it possible to add code to automatically detect if a Template:Extracted from is present within the template's "Other versions" parameter, and if, hide the "please do not overwrite this file" message? The template is automatically added there when uploading a crop with CropTool. According to Petscan, there are 2800 pages which use the NARA-image-full template and are in Category:Extracted images. I think this would be an useful change, but I have no idea how to do this and if it is even possible. TheImaCow (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)