https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
--- Comment #3 from Dmcdevit <dmcde...@cox.net> ---
It's not so much inconsistency as variability of meaning. The concept of
"creation" doesn't apply equally to all media or types of works. And there is
inherent uncertainty when you make a derivative, like a crop: is it the
creation of the derivative or the original that is put in the date? I know that
the documentation for the "Information" template on Commons does instruct users
to put in when the original source was created (whatever that means), but some
other relevant points are that (1) the name of the parameter and the visible
output of the field is only labeled "Date", and many users likely reach their
own conclusion about what that means, and it is incongruent to use a more
specific label downstream, (2) where the creation date is unfilled or unknown,
the upload date is commonly put in that field anyway (even instructed by the
template documentation), so there is no way of telling which is meant, and (3)
not all of the machine-readable templates agree with Information about using
"date" for "creation date". For example, {{book}} on Commons recommends
"publication" date (which would be different from either the writing or the
digitization in some cases).
Links to template documentation for reference:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Information
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Book
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
