Hi all,
The main reason the UK did not participate in WLM is because they had the massive image donation of high quality photographs from Geograph. All of the wiki resources were being used to categorize those, and unless some way of easing this work can be linked to WLM, I really don't think there will be a lot of enthusiasm for another large influx of images (with of course mixed quality).

I feel confident that WLM can still be key to getting high quality images of UK heritage, but somehow the contest needs to be positioned there in some way that will ease the current UK burden of categorization, etc.

As far as the US and the term "historic places" is concerned, it was my view that this was just one of many possible US  lists for WLM, and in fact there may even be lists of gravestones in the US that qualify for WLM. I know this is the case in the Netherlands. The issue is that the NRHP is the only nationwide US list that is any good on Wikipedia at the moment. The Dutch Rijksmonument lists include things from statues to gravestones, as well as listed buildings and recent architectural accomplishments that are in my mind, not "historical".

So to be clear, the NRHP list is being used just because it is there, not because WLM wants to exclude gravestones (or any other type of heritage monuments).

2012/7/2 Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>
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

Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list