Hi Andy,

it is sad to hear that now the *name* is being blamed for WMUK not participating. My impression was that WMUK does not participate because no volunteer wanted to step forward and drive the initiative (no matter the name - that kind of things can be resolved if discussed openly). 

Fact is that words mean something else apparently in different parts of the world. In continental Europe, the word monument works just fine in this context. Fact is also that all alternative descriptions that have been suggested when we had this discussion back in January/February (which is the time to have such discussion) were even worse when it comes to being descriptive - usually it was either way too broad, or way too narrow. At least 'monument' is correct when you use the right dictionary definition (although the meaning of the word depends, as you described correctly, on the context). The solution in most countries has been found by using the national word for monument (rijksmonument, listed buildings, historic place) in the beginning of the description. 

Again, having such discussion early on is key in a multinational project like this. I hope we can now just work with what we have :) 


2012/7/2 Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
On 2 July 2012 17:24, Peter Ekman <pdekman@gmail.com> wrote:

> One more American quirk - "Monuments" here means lots of things here -
> but is probably most associated with what we've been calling "public
> art" - sculptures to famous people.  Another use is for "gravestone".
> So while most of us probably understand how "registered historic
> places" fits in with "Wiki Loves Monuments" it seems just a bit off.
> Any chance of getting a new title next July??!

This applies in the UK too, where I suspect it was a significant
factor in the initiative not taking off, this year.

"Wiki loves buildings", "...architecture" or even "...listed
buildings" (the latter very UK specific) would be more descriptive.

Andy Mabbett