Template talk:LOC-image

Note

This template's HDL lookup only works for images from the Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs Division (the loc.pnp in the URL). For images from the Geography and Map Division, see Template:LOC-map. There may be other divisions as well that we should create templates for. --Delirium 07:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

We should add instructions about still needing a copyright tag. --Evrik 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The template doesn't mention copyright at all. Is there really confusion about this? :) --Gmaxwell 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• yeahh .... the template ite replaced was a copyright template, there might still be confusion. --Evrik 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet some of the more casual users of Commons are totally unaware that not all tags are copyright tags.--Pharos 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem

It appears the LOC has changed their servers a bit. See Image:Pauling.jpg and notice the template does not work correctly, even though this is from the PNP part of their site. Aboutmovies 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The digital ID was not given correctly for this image, so no, it did not work. (It can be hard to figure out the digital ID if you find images on other parts of LoC's site; you usually need to search on the PNP part and find the original page, and that is what seems to have happened here.) Carl Lindberg 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a field for their reproduction number?

Hi, when you click on How to obtain copies of this item (right below the pic in its destination page) they always ask you for its reproduction number (even when obtaining copies from digital files through their Photoduplication Service). I was wondering if we should include a field for it in this template, since it seems to be the most reliable identifier for them. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We do, it's the same as the digital ID for the prints and photographs div. Or rather the reproduction number has some heading stuff too, but as I recall I wasn't able to form a working URL using it or something like that. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't easily form a URL for it I don't think, so it would have to be in addition to the digital ID. We could make it optional I suppose. If I recall there are some works where the digital ID refers to a grouping of works, with the reproduction number being the actual individual items. One example is Image:ApexBuildingHighsmith.jpg, which is from pplot.13734, a collection of photographs. Clicking a link on that page gives you a gallery view, but it is possible to link to an individual image (in this case reproduction number LC-DIG-pplot-13734-01527). Usually though the digital ID points to a page with individual works, and it is easy to get the reproduction number from there. The LoC does seem to use this "pageturner" thing for certain collections though; no idea under what circumstances. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an optional field will do, à la {{LOC-image|ggbain.XXXXX|#repNumber#}}, where #repNumber# is an optional field for its reproduction number. Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour

{{Editprotected}} I don't see a need for this to be red. A less alarming colour would be nice, e.g. white or gray. Thanks, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done [1] by Wuzur. Thanks, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Change category

{{editprotected}}

Please move this to Category:Source templates rather than Markers, since that's what its for. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rocket000 (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Category:LOC picture without template

I create this maintenance category so that people can help adding templates to those files. Teofilo (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to note#3

{{Editprotected}} One should consider that "(the loc.pnp in the URL)" as mentioned in note#3 still applies. But appearingly the Library of Congress redesigned their page, so ".gov/pictures/" in the URL is where to find Prints and Photographs Division from now on. The "old" style with loc.pnp does not work for all items, although some are redirected properly. Please add this info to note#3.

 Not done: I don't know what you're talking about, but you can do it yourself anyway as Template:LOC-image/en is where the English message comes from and that page isn't protected. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He is saying that the Library of Congress is changing the URL style of many of their images, and the URLs generated by this template sometimes no longer work (but sometimes they do; I haven't found a pattern yet). Unfortunately I'm not sure the old "digital IDs" they use, which is the parameter for usages of this template, apply for the new URLs. So, sometimes this template will give a link which no longer works, but the image may well still exist. So yes, I guess the best we could do at the moment is add a note. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New image URL at the LOC

{{Editprotected}} Old URL: [http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/{{urlencode:{{{1|}}}}}/ {{{1|}}}]
New URL: [http://loc.gov/pictures/item/...

Can you change the appropriate template?

- Dogears (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please update the documentation as well. Jappalang (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I tried with File:Dresden Altmarkt 1900.jpg : old url http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.00946/ works, your suggestion http://loc.gov/pictures/item/ppmsca.00946/ does not.

Is it something I missed? Jean-Fred (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking me, I am not certain; I presume Dogears know of the correct code. What I know is the template is not working for File:William Zeckendorf NYWTS.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The info above appears to be incorrect. The "item" URLs take a new item identifier, not the older digital ID which is the argument to all the templates on the hundreds of thousands of existing images. So no, the template should not be changed per the above. The (really) old URLs appear to usually still work; in the above case though the old hdl.loc.gov URL redirects to the "resource" URL then gets an internal error. Perhaps we should add an "item" parameter to the LOC image templates; if present *then* we can use the "item" URL style as specified above rather than the resource. I.e. something like {{LOC-image|item=12345678}}. A (working) URL for the above image is here; that needs an item parameter of 95507047 though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The digital id, was specifically chosen because it is a permanent url ID and because it is unique to the specific scan/digitization of an item. I'm not sure if there are similar guarantees about the permanentness of the new item ids. TheDJ (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure either. They do often still show the older digital ID links on their image pages, which seems to indicate they are supposed to keep working. On the other hand, they seem to show the new item links under the "Bookmark This Record" headings, which indicates that is now a preferred (or at least supported) URL style. And if you look at the MARC records, you'll see these item numbers under the "001" tag (usually the first one listed), so I think these numbers have long existed, if not used in URLs. It may be best to ask for *both* values to be supplied if known, and maybe use the most reliable URL style (which seems to be the "item" ones at the moment. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done old and new ID are different, the old ID, ppmsca.00946 in the example above, is still present on the page. So we should continue to use it and not replace it. If someone skilled can rewrite the template to accept both IDs it would be great, but that was not requested here. --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on Template:LOC-meta from 13.08.2010

This template based on Template:LOC-meta from 13.08.2010. Please Keep all future discussion on Template talk:LOC-meta. --Kaganer (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong URL again?

The LOC might have changed their links again. The template is linking to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/g7823m.ct000570 but the new url appears to be http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g7823m.ct000570 instead. -- Autopilot (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that image should be using the {{LOC-map}} template instead of LOC-image, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Derivative images

{{Editrequest}} Often an image will be taken from the LOC but modified (e.g., Franklin Pierce, which had to be cropped for File:Franklin Pierce.jpg). There should be a flag such as |derivative=true which will change the text to "This file was modified from an image available at the Library of Congress." or something like that. —Designate (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

rm editrequest-template. Please provide the code. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Digital ID?

I have uploaded this image and inserted what I believe to be the correct digital ID, however the link seems to be broken. MB298 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right about the broken link, but it's not the template's fault; the LOC catalog page also links to hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/highsm.41412. I've filled out the feedback form there, and maybe they'll get back to me. Good catch! grendel|khan 20:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The link is still broken as of 05-26-2020. Can someone investigate the LOC catalog system and fix this template? Thank you. Moreau1 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be working for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Changed icon

How and why did the elegant, official logo File:US-LibraryOfCongress-BookLogo.svg get replaced by the plain, dull black words "Library"? Something to do with Autotranslate? {{LOC-meta}}? Could someone please investigate and restore the official logo? Thanks, --Animalparty (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears this humdrum logo is the new logo. Ugh. Make America Aesthetic Again. --Animalparty (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Newmanbe, Rastrojo, and Raymond: — I agree with @Animalparty: , the current logo is rather humdrum and appears dumbed down and generic to a fault. If the current logo was viewed by itself no one would know what it was for. Is there any way we can return to using the previous Logo, which is what is currently used at the LOC? Better yet, we should use one of these more artistic logos. Why was the symbol changed in the first place? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The change to the current logo was made in 2018. As a Wikipedian from Germany with less experience with the LOC maybe someone from the USA would change the logo? Raymond 11:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond. I am notifying several editors with template editor rights. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712, Jeff G., and Marsupium: — Hello template editors. It seems a red-link user took it upon himself/herself to change the logo in the Library of Congress template without a discussion or consensus. The editor who made the change appeared in 2018, made a handful of edits and disappeared. What puzzles me is that this editor has no template editor rights, needed to edit protected templates. I don't have template-editing rights, or I would change it back to the previous logo on the right and call for a discussion if someone objected. i.e.Since the LOC is a U.S. government agency there are no copyright restrictions on any of their logos. Could someone with template editing rights change the template back to the way it was with the logo on the right? The existing logo doesn't even indicate Library of Congress and looks like a generic label, not a logo. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither Template:Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions/layout nor Template:LOC-meta/layout is protected, so you should be able to make the edit yourself --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks for your prompt reply. I tried to make the change but the template is protected. I don't have template editor rights. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That's odd, now the template isn't protected, it seems. I will make the change. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Library of Congress changed their logo to this very drab one -- see detail here. I think it's meant to be a base where other elements can be added to it, where it works better, but standalone it still feels rather boring -- the previous logos were quite good, I thought. Anyways, that is their current logo. They do have versions which additionally add "Library of Congress", which would be good -- though the horizontal one does not work as well in a template like this. If someone would make an SVG of a variant they sometimes use like this one, that would work better and at least be an improvement while using their current logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The template, for now anyway, is using the logo displayed here. Yes, a logo with the orange lettering included would be an improvement over that plain black generic label that simply read LIBRARY that was being used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I suggest you ask for someone to make such an SVG logo at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ID with slash

The template seems to convert slashes to %2F, breaking links when the ID contains a slash. For example, File:1937.06.02.Ingleside.house.aliceville.alabama.by.alex.bush.jpg has the handle http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.al0687/photos.006338p but {{LOC-image|hhh.al0687/photos.006338p}} produces

This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID hhh.al0687/photos.006338p. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.

where the link is broken. Wikiacc (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It would seem as though {{LOC-meta/url}} uses the urlencode magic word . That makes sense, but I'm not sure I've seen these IDs with slashes in them before. It's possible that there are no characters in LoC IDs which require URL path escaping, in which case we may be able to remove use of urlencode. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikiacc (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong URL in LOC-Image

{{LOC-image|id=94512727|division=pnp}} leads to error.

The template is linking to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/94512727 but correct URLs would be https://www.loc.gov/item/94512727/ or https://lccn.loc.gov/94512727 (permalink). HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The id parameter should be cph.3c09031 in that case. This template was done before the LoC introduced the item numbers, so it does not take them, but the older per-division digital IDs. It probably should, but as an "item" parameter name (which would let it ignore the division parameter, at least as far as generating the URL). "pnp" is the default division, so you don't need to specify that. Maybe it could check for an all-digits "id" parameter and assume it's an item identifier in that case, but we can't break all of the existing usages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)