Dear colleges,
I notice that statistic "incorrect statistic by number of identifiers not in the lists" in http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=... incorrect. For example according to this tool the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WoxBoxhas 441photo "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true, You could look at this list and find that most of these 441 photo in fact are present in our list. Could you fix it? It is vrey importatnt because we have nominations for users with most number of different listed identifiers.
-- Regards, Andrij
2012/10/8 Андрій Бондаренко a1@wikimediaukraine.org.ua:
Dear colleges,
I notice that statistic "incorrect statistic by number of identifiers not in the lists" in http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=... is incorrect. For example according to this tool the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441photo "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true, You could look at this list and find that most of these 441 photo in fact are present in our list. Could you fix it? It is vrey importatnt because we have nominations for users with most number of different listed identifiers.
This is very likely to be a problem with the monument database. Is there something "strange" with these identifiers (non-standard format, previous codes included in these fields etc.)? I've seen this happen if the identifiers are larger than the database field, which sometimes happens when more information is included in these fields than just the code.
Strainu
2012/10/8 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
2012/10/8 Андрій Бондаренко a1@wikimediaukraine.org.ua:
Dear colleges,
I notice that statistic "incorrect statistic by number of identifiers
not in
the lists" in
http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=...
is incorrect. For example according to this tool the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441photo "with identifiers not in the
lists"
but it is not true, You could look at this list and find that most of
these
441 photo in fact are present in our list. Could you fix it? It is vrey importatnt because we have nominations for users with most number of different listed identifiers.
This is very likely to be a problem with the monument database. Is there something "strange" with these identifiers (non-standard format, previous codes included in these fields etc.)? I've seen this happen if the identifiers are larger than the database field, which sometimes happens when more information is included in these fields than just the code.
Iidentifiers themselves look OK, but it is strange and even offensive for
participants that listed identifiers are counted as not listed.
-- Regards, Andrij
On 08/10/12 14:30, Андрій Бондаренко wrote:
2012/10/8 Strainu: 2012/10/8 Андрій Бондаренко: This is very likely to be a problem with the monument database. Is there something "strange" with these identifiers (non-standard format, previous codes included in these fields etc.)? I've seen this happen if the identifiers are larger than the database field, which sometimes happens when more information is included in these fields than just the code.
Iidentifiers themselves look OK, but it is strange and even offensive for participants that listed identifiers are counted as not listed.
-- Regards, Andrij
The "identifiers in the lists" / "not in the lists" should be taken with a grain of salt.
The quality of that depends a lot on the quality of the monuments lists.
That said, I disagree with the example you bring up of «the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441 photos "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true» You can easily see that he has 441 photos tagged with "{{Monument Ukraine|0}}", which are those taken as "identifiers not in the lists"
http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=...
That said, I disagree with the example you bring up of «the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441 photos "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true» You can easily see that he has 441 photos tagged with "{{Monument Ukraine|0}}", which are those taken as "identifiers not in the lists"
http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=...
Then you've made a mistake in interface. In the page " http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/users.php" I see the following:
And when I click "перегляд" (overwiev) i don`t see zeros but I see the next:
Could you fix this? It is expected that link "перегляд" will follow to page http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=... but not http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=...
-- З повагою, Андрій Бондаренко
sorry something wrong with screen-shorts. added them in attachment
Andrij
On 08/10/12 19:55, Андрій Бондаренко wrote:
That said, I disagree with the example you bring up of «the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441 photos "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true» You can easily see that he has 441 photos tagged with "{{Monument Ukraine|0}}", which are those taken as "identifiers not in the lists" http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=2271549&country=ua&type=badThen you've made a mistake in interface. In the page "http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/users.php" I see the following:
(...)
And when I click "перегляд" (overwiev) i don`t see zeros but I see the next:
(...)
Could you fix this? It is expected that link "перегляд" will follow to page http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=... but not http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=...
The overview link always sends you to the page with all the user contributions. You're right it'd be more appropiate if it sent you to the page filtering the contributions depending on the option by which you had filtered the uploaders.
2012/10/8 Strainu strainu10@gmail.com:
2012/10/8 Андрій Бондаренко a1@wikimediaukraine.org.ua:
Dear colleges,
I notice that statistic "incorrect statistic by number of identifiers not in the lists" in http://toolserver.org/~platonides/wlm/uploads.php?source=commons&author=... is incorrect. For example according to this tool the most prominent ukrainian uploader WoxBox has 441photo "with identifiers not in the lists" but it is not true, You could look at this list and find that most of these 441 photo in fact are present in our list. Could you fix it? It is vrey importatnt because we have nominations for users with most number of different listed identifiers.
This is very likely to be a problem with the monument database. Is there something "strange" with these identifiers (non-standard format, previous codes included in these fields etc.)? I've seen this happen if the identifiers are larger than the database field, which sometimes happens when more information is included in these fields than just the code.
Moreover - it puts files on lists which have moved heritage template to the relevant category. In case of Polish contest if the heritage has its own category we asked mass-uploaders to put the file into the category without heritage template in file description. See for axample:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_cemetery_in_Cz%C4%99stocho...
On the list there are also files with quite proper, but probably too lenghty heritage number. In Poland the number consist of: a) the number itself - for example "A-253" b) the date of registraton for example "A-253 z 18.03.1972" c) the name of viodoship which registered the heritage, for example ""A-253 z 18.03.1972; województwo podkarpackie"
Numbers itslef are redundant - each voivodship has its own list starting from A-1 till A-9999,
so for us this list of heratige without proper indetifiers is rather useless and completely missleading. For us it is not a problem - as our jury won't be using it - but it may produce false statistics for our part of contest.
On 08/10/12 14:45, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Moreover - it puts files on lists which have moved heritage template to the relevant category. In case of Polish contest if the heritage has its own category we asked mass-uploaders to put the file into the category without heritage template in file description. See for axample:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_cemetery_in_Cz%C4%99stocho...
IMHO the files should both have the relevant identifier and be in the category. If I came to the description page (eg. by Special:Search), I wouldn't know it was a monument without having to visit all its categories, which is impractical.
On the list there are also files with quite proper, but probably too lenghty heritage number. In Poland the number consist of: a) the number itself - for example "A-253" b) the date of registraton for example "A-253 z 18.03.1972" c) the name of viodoship which registered the heritage, for example ""A-253 z 18.03.1972; województwo podkarpackie"
Numbers itslef are redundant - each voivodship has its own list starting from A-1 till A-9999,
so for us this list of heratige without proper indetifiers is rather useless and completely missleading. For us it is not a problem - as our jury won't be using it - but it may produce false statistics for our part of contest.
Argh. So you basically made a new division inside the template parameter. I can compensate that in the code. I had no idea you were doing that.
Although there are multiple formats used: A-1834 z 11.08.2008 916 z 09.11.1984 1061 1101/92 z 14.04.1992 A/3102/78 i 79 147/Wlkp/A A.734 z 24.05.1993 1598-A z 23.11.1995
What is the identifier that should be extracted?
2012/10/8 Platonides platonides@gmail.com:
On 08/10/12 14:45, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Moreover - it puts files on lists which have moved heritage template to the relevant category. In case of Polish contest if the heritage has its own category we asked mass-uploaders to put the file into the category without heritage template in file description. See for axample:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_cemetery_in_Cz%C4%99stocho...
IMHO the files should both have the relevant identifier and be in the category. If I came to the description page (eg. by Special:Search), I wouldn't know it was a monument without having to visit all its categories, which is impractical.
Yes.. I personally agree with you in 100%. I was even arguing to not do this in that way, but I failed to persuade our fellow Polish commoners. They decided several years ago to do it in that way - before WLM started and they are very bound to this idea, unfortunately.
Argh. So you basically made a new division inside the template parameter. I can compensate that in the code. I had no idea you were doing that.
Although there are multiple formats used: A-1834 z 11.08.2008 916 z 09.11.1984 1061 1101/92 z 14.04.1992 A/3102/78 i 79 147/Wlkp/A A.734 z 24.05.1993 1598-A z 23.11.1995
What is the identifier that should be extracted?
I think it should be taken evrything from the field "$2" + code of voivodship ($1). In our heritage template:
{{zabytek|$1|$2|$3}}
$1 = code of viovodship $2 = ID $3 = exact name of place where the monument is located
for example:
{{zabytek|SL|A- 397/86 z 5.06.1986|Częstochowa}}
The wizzard was forcing people to fill $1 and $2.
ID can have many different structures - usually it is the number + date but not always - so the best is just to take them as they are. The mess with id's is not our fault - they were simpy copied from the xls documents as provided by our National Heritage Institute. I know that the Institute is actually working on implementation of a new system of monument's IDs to make them unique and simpler but God knows when they will do it..
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
