[Commons-l] Image description grammar (was: the great {{information}} campaign)

[Platonides]

Jastrow wrote:
> Le 9/6/07 9:55 PM, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
>> You're a bit late: It already is the standard.. it's use is directed
>> by the upload forms and  it is used on most images.
> 
> I know all of that. As of now, {{Information}} is not the standard in 
> the sense as it's not supposed to be used on *all* images, even those 
> which are already described by a better template.
> 
> Almost all pictures representing Louvre exhibits are described with 
> {{Information Louvre}}. That means more than 2,500 pictures. I know we 
> have more than a million files on Commons now, but we're talking about 
> 2,500 pictures with name of the artist, description, medium, dimensions, 
> credit line, accession number, precise location in the museum and 
> correct author attribution. Using {{Information}} for those pictures 
> would be a plain, simple regression.
> 
>> Not that there isn't room for improvement. .. the completely
>> unstructured data on a lot of our older images and imports from other
>> projects is simply terrible.
> 
> Which is exactly what my precedent message was adressing.
> 
> Jastrow

Agree. We don't need to have ONE template on ALL images, we can (and 
should) have a number of templates, as long as it's documented. Ie. we 
have a page listing all of "valid" templates and describing its 
arguments. If a bot knows that Information_Louvre->source is equivalent 
to Information->Author it can happily work with any of them being 
present. Just keep it documented (and a working parsing implementation).

Another example are PD books templates. They have everything about the 
image "Page X from book Y, by Foo on Year on public domain". Here the 
source & author values for the template would be hardcoded.