Template talk:British-Museum-object

Image

I have reinstated the image in the template. This template does not serve the same purpose as the 1911 template (reason given for its removal). 1911 indicates that Wikipedia has incorporated information from 1911 and hence is a reference. This template indicates further information may be obtained from the British Museum catalogue and hence is an external link. It does not necessarily mean that we have taken any information at all from the BM site. If we have that should be listed separately as a reference, properly formatted. SpinningSpark 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the image, and compared it to {{1911}} because the two articles there were using it, had it in the references section at the time (since moved). You've restored the image, giving the reason "because this is does not belong in refs section, it is an external link". Are there any other templates that go in the EL section, that use images? The only templates I can think of, are the stub templates, and the inline Sister project templates (eg {{Commons category-inline}}).

The image makes it appear to be a stub template, from my perspective (eg Lothair Crystal#External links) hence I'm actually more likely to glance past it (rather than being more likely to notice it, which I assume is the main reason for the image?).

Instead of using an image, I'd suggest adding comments to the /doc page along the lines of: "This template should be at or near the top of the External links section."

For the same reason, I'd suggest restructuring the text, so that the external link part comes first (rather than the British Museum link), per all the other Category:External link templates (eg {{British pathe}} or {{CIA World Factbook link}}, etc).

It's a wonderful resource (and template idea), that I hope my suggestions can improve still further. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't fight over keeping the image (although I do quite like it). I only restored it because the comparison to the 1911 template was false. Sister projects are a better comparison, and a right justified box as the Sister's do it would avoid the confusion with stubs. I agree the link to the specific page should come first, I also think there is no real need to be showing the ref number to the reader, the name of the link could be the article name: Find more information on Interesting object pagename, an object held in the British Museum. SpinningSpark 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested restructured text, but I don't feel comfortable editing the template with its new intricacy. Could you update it, so that the external link comes first?

Regarding right justified boxes, I believe there is a fairly strong consensus that only Sister projects (and portals) should use them. Otherwise every resource that could be considered extremely useful (or other definition/criteria) might want to use that format (leading to much argument, and/or box clutter).

I do feel strongly that the image makes it appear "stub-like" and hence possibly harmful, and is also a bad precedent for EL templates, so do advise removing it.

Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that the image makes it look like a stub – see Minoan Bull-leaper, which uses both a stub template and this one. In fact, this template (kicked off by James Forrester) was based on {{British-Museum-stub}} which I made at WP:GLAM/BM and which has the same image. matt (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-removed the image. I did not do the other changes suggested above because there is the question of how the template should behave if no ref or url is provided at all and that form of words does not lend itself to that possibility. SpinningSpark 23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

URL

I have added a parameter for passing the URL. It does not currently work if the url contains "=" which makes it useless at the moment, but I have asked the VP tech if they have a solution. SpinningSpark 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed SpinningSpark 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

category

Why has the auto-categorization been removed? That was the whole point of this template surely. SpinningSpark 12:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM#Category:British Museum-related articles - what's it for?. Fæ (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a hatnote

This template is not a hatnote. I removed the {{hatnote}} internal meta-template, and added code to keep the visual effect: indent by one colon : and italicise. I also made minor text adjusments, and rewrote the documentation page.

A WP:HATNOTE is used only to answer the reader asking: "Am I on the right page?". For example, this can occur when there is an other page (topic) with a similar name. The BM reference is not. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)