In chronological order: #1: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality> #2: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg> #3: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna_-_Giule%C8%99ti.jpg> :-( -- Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]] _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

What I do note as something that could easily be avoided is having "ten more crappy images of the Eiffel Tower" in order to get some more obscure monuments on-wiki. I strongly suggest that in countries that participate in WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image. In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures. Strainu

2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter&lt;putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt;ru>: > I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in > this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image > of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have > several monuments under one code?

Then you could just make a list of ineligible monuments. The problem is that without a clear rule, you will have trouble explaining this "non-ok list" to the participants. It's unfortunate that you have multiple monuments with the same code. In Romania, this is solved by appending 2 more digits at the end of the code. Perhaps you could generate an "unofficial" code using a similar algorithm?

2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers &lt;maarten(a)mdammers.nl&gt; > > > 2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter&lt;putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt;ru>: > >> I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in > >> this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the > >> image > >> of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we > >> have > >> several monuments under one code? > > Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I > support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of > monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering > ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").

Yes, I agree that positive steering is better. We could have one of the judging criteria to be uniqueness or value adding, and explain that when images are similar in other criterias, the ones that bring in new aspects to Commons will be regarded higher.

Well this is why we should have prize money. I would be willing to even donate a small amount for prizes for kosovo if it was tax deductable (in germany where I live). mike On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Strainu &lt;strainu10(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: proposal in the aspects to -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Let's put it a bit stronger. I would never support such a proposal. I support positive steering ("we encourage you to upload photo's of monuments that not yet have a (good) picture"), not negative steering ("WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image").

Op 12-12-2011 21:31, Strainu schreef: That borders original research.

In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id

, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures.

2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers &lt;maarten(a)mdammers.nl&gt;nl>: Hey, That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc. Thanks a lot. _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers &lt;maarten(a)mdammers.nl&gt;nl>: Hey, That's great news. Unfortunately, the images should be hand-picked anyway in the vast majority of cases. Your tool certainly helps a lot with that, but I also want to detect errors, put up coordinates etc.

2011/12/12 Andre Koopal&lt;andre(a)molens.org&gt;rg>: Can you provide some links please? I'm trying to keep up with all the cool stuff that's happening around the images from WLM, but it's getting harder (which is a good sign!).

In the specific case of Romanian monuments, I'm more likely to encounter the other case - articles or images have coordinated, but the list doesn't - wh only have about 100 cordinates in the list.

While some valid points have been raised in these discussions, there was also a lot of bullshit (pardon my language, but there is no other way of putting it) from some people who can't look beyond the current project. It would be unfair from me to respond to those here, but I will most certainly respond onwiki as time allows. What I do note as something that could easily be avoided is having "ten more crappy images of the Eiffel Tower" in order to get some more obscure monuments on-wiki. I strongly suggest that in countries that participate in WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those without an image. In order to do this, we need better tools. I'm currently working on a robot that can fill the lists automatically based on the articles that contain a specific monument-id, and also searches for mistakes in the lists. I certaily hope I'll be able to make it work for other countries and I also hope that Nuno, Maarten, Platonides and the rest of the folks that gave us those great reporting tools will also find the time to develop tools for improving the usage of the newly uploaded pictures. Strainu 2011/12/12 Mike Dupont &lt;jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com&gt;om>: _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

I think Multichill added WLM already to some general stats tool, maybe he can give the link although it wasn't working during GLAMcamp.

In Spanish Wikipedia, lists aren't in article namespace, because they are in "Anexos" namespaces. All lists were moved to this space some years ago, and we shouldn't move them to the main space.