I'm not quite sure what the focus of this template is (as opposed to just using an image box), but I guess it is intended to be similar to some of the other taxoboxes.

However, in this case, I'm not sure that it is a good idea to put the title of the painting above the image. It is much more usual to put a painting's title in italics below the image - after the artist's name and then followed by the (year), size and medium. -- Solipsist 12:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When should one include the name of the city after the museum? It seems only fair that the reader is told that an obscure museum like the Czartoryski Museum is in Kraków (as in the case of the Lady with an Ermine article), but what about world-famous ones such as Museo del Prado and Musée du Louvre? Is it parochial to write Museum of Modern Art instead of Museum of Modern Art, New York City (particularly as 'The National Gallery, London' is preferred to 'The National Gallery')? Some guidelines on this would be helpful. – Ham 10:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view would almost always: there has to be a time when you learn where the Louvre is and, as for the Prado—isn’t that a rag-trade thing? After all we only read encyclopedias because we are ignorant, and the only things that can be assumed about us are that we can read and that we want to learn. Well, that’s my rant of the day. —Ian Spackman 21:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look more closely, this conversation seems moot. The template will automatically treat as a link what you put as the museum parameter. I’m not sure that that is a good idea. (I am sure, however, that a template which encourages editors to treat works of art as physical objects whose dimensions, physical characteristics and location are significant is a good thing.) —Ian Spackman 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created an alternative to this template, Template:Painting2, which may be useful in special cases: "This template is identical to Template:Painting, with one difference: it does not automatically treat the name of the artist as a link. It can therefore be used if the artist is unknown, if there are several artists, or if something should be added to the name of the artist (e.g.: "Attributed to Raphael")." Skarioffszky 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a new field to this template, "city=". It's optional. Skarioffszky 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by User:Neutrality means that the template will do no auto-linking. I think overall this was a good change overall—despite the fact that a lot of existing articles will have lost useful links. I am just noting it here. —Ian Spackman 09:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to be able to align some painting boxes to the lefthand side of the page. In articles where there are different versions of a painting, (eg The Waterseller of Seville (Velázquez)) it would be nice to use this template for the other versions, but be able to place them on the left. Any ideas on how this could be done? --Raggatt2000 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I made the change. What do you think? -- Raggatt2000 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo sbarco di Garibaldi e dei suoi Cacciatori delle Alpi a Sesto Calende il 23 maggio del 1859
Artist	Eleuterio Pagliano
Type	Oil on canvas
Location	Musei Civici, Varese

The image on the right is—at this moment of the template’s development—displaying in a quite horrible manner, at least in Safari. I have included it using the code

{{Infobox Painting| image_file= Eleuterio Pagliano, Lo sbarco di Garibaldi.jpg
| image_size=336px
| title= Lo sbarco di Garibaldi e dei suoi Cacciatori delle Alpi a Sesto Calende il 23 maggio del 1859
| artist= Eleuterio Pagliano
| type=[[Oil painting|Oil on canvas]]
| height=230
| width=600
| city=[[Varese]]
| museum=Musei Civici}}

which looks perfectly legal!

There are two problems.

The first is that the year field seems to be mandatory. (Although there is a workaround: include “year=”, while leaving the parameter field blank, and the “, {{{year}}}” after the artist’s name is supressed.)

More seriously the box is sizing itself to get the title on one line. And the title is wider than the image. —Ian Spackman 14:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background colours are defined in the stylesheet for a good reason. The use of manual background colours for large elements should be avoided because 1) it breaks the look and feel of a skin and 2) it may make the text unreadable if a different skin is used (for example a high contrast white on black skin, used by, say, a visually imparied user). The subjective aesthetic improvements do not outweigh these problems. ed g2s • talk 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree. Firstly it's a template, it shouldn't act as a crutch and it shouldn't contain information that isn't already cited in the article. Also aesthetics do play into it since it is art that is being displayed. But that is just my opinion. --Idda 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Painting has been nominated for deletion renaming/moving. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the 'inches' are not displaying for me, see Tony Robbin for the example. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the article was using {{Infobox Artwork}} and not {{Infobox Painting}}. Perhaps there should be a merge of the two?. —MJCdetroit 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I was looking at this template page because {{Infobox Artwork}} has no explanation or example of use, and lost track of where I was. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done in cases where there is no image, but the infobox is still needed (e.g., see Garçon à la pipe)? --Zundark 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:No image available.svg ? - TheMightyQuill 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's an improvement at least. But I think no image at all would be better than an image saying "no image available". Someone who's familiar with the template scripting language could no doubt easily modify the template to handle this case automatically. --Zundark 11:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no space between the colon after the second language and the second title. This is visible on pages such as Mona Lisa. I was trying to fix this, but didn't manage to get it to work. Can somebody help? - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "museum" should be changed to "collection" in this template. Many important paintings are housed in art galleries, stately homes, private collections, etc. I don't see any reason why this field needs to be so specific. - Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.2.111 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common way to display units is {{convert}}. It would make sense to change this template to allow for its use. The least disruptive approach would be to add new optional parameters such as height_convert and width_convert and allow editors to use them instead of the existing height and width parameters. For example:

height_convert = {{convert|80|cm|in|abbr=on}}

width_convert = {{convert|120|cm|in|abbr=on}}

would produce this result:

80 cm (31 in) × 120 cm (47 in)

and when inches are preferred:

height_convert = {{convert|32|in|cm|abbr=on}}

width_convert = {{convert|48|in|cm|abbr=on}}

would produce this result:

32 in (81 cm) × 48 in (120 cm)

Using convert makes other options available as well (see Template:Convert/doc#Parameters and Template:Convert/list_of_units/length)

Thanks. 67.100.125.86 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There are probably better ways to code this. For example, in the syntax if

height_cm =80

width_cm =120

are entered, the code would look like this:

{{convert|{{{height_cm}}}|x|{{{width_cm}}}|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}

and would produce this result:

80 cm × 120 cm (31.5 in × 47.2 in) —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be simpler just to have a dimension parameter:

• dimension = {{convert|32|in|cm|abbr=on}}

that is common in other templates. It allows you total control of:

• metric first versus non-metric first
• cm or mm
• precision (nearest cm, nearest 0.1 cm, or nearest mm)

Lightmouse (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler on this end, yes, but inbuilding {{convert}} or {{convinfobox}} makes it easier when calling the template from the article. Note, though, that there's no reason we can't have the best of both worlds (easy to do with {{convinfobox}}). JIMp _talk·cont 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd started a sandbox to begin moving this template's styling in the direction of most modern {{infobox}} templates. Comparison between the old and new styling can be seen at the test cases page. Comments appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that the font has been reduced to the size of normal picture captions; that works really well. Of course Template:Infobox Sculpture and Template:Infobox Artwork are now lagging behind. Ideally I'd like to see the three merged into a single template with 'museum' (or 'collection', as suggested above) as an optional parameter and a choice, when stating dimensions, between height × width (for quadrilateral 2D works), height only (for sculptures) or diameter (for circular paintings). Ham 22:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two are, so far as I can tell, already redundant to the new version. Feel free to try it out by swapping the name that the templates are called by in articles with "infobox Painting/sandbox". If there are no objections, I'll deploy the new code at {{infobox artwork}} and redirect the other two templates. I'll be on hand to correct any errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being bold and going ahead with this. It seems to work in most cases. The new template is at {{infobox artwork}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but a simple redirect evidently does not the job, but causes error messages: see recent edits onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts: Infobox_trouble. So please check again, --RPD (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I put the coordinate of the object of a painting (the coordinate of the view of a painted landscape) ? -- Juergen 91.52.171.24 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the first text of the box gives the name of the Work of art, e.g.

title=The Baptism of Christ

at The Baptism of Christ (Verrocchio).

I wonder if we could add the original (if not, common name) in the next line:

<br /> — Battesimo di Cristo —

. That would provide our readers with that important information. Any opions before I start? :-P --Scriberius (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]