I have the great honour to inform you that the Call for Proposals for WikiIndaba 2018 is now open. WikiIndaba 2018 is the 3rd conference of African Wikimedia movement and will give to participants the opportunity to share their Wikimedia-related experience and skills with a wide and active African Wikimedia audience. The conference will be held in Tunisia from 16 to 18 March 2018. If you want to participate to WikiIndaba and share your works and thoughts with African Wikimedians, feel free to submit your proposal in https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiIndaba_conference_2018/Submissions. The deadline for giving proposals will be January 15th, 2018.
If you need a scholarship to attend WikiIndaba 2018, you can apply to it in https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdJJ2I0FBqp4SuiW5ypj-9lnLaAidUmhMs….
Looking forward to seeing you in Tunis next March.
One other thing I was wondering: on Commons, is there a way to show the
collection of bounding boxes on a Wikimap, for a category of images that
use the "Map" description template, which can include such information.
What I've got in mind is a category like
all of which's images use the Map template and have bounding box
I hoped that this might be displayable via the Template:GeoGroupTemplate
at the top of the category page, but no deal.
Ideally, it would be nice to be able to put a template on the top of a
category page; pick up the bounding-box information from all of the map
descriptions, and display the results on a Wikimap.
This would be particularly useful for examining the contents of
where the individual maps form part of a systematic arrangement; but it
would also be useful for categories of old maps generally.
An earlier method (before the Map template) was to explicitly specify
corners for the bounding box, which the GeoGroup template /can/ pick up,
as for example for
However, by plotting push-pins rather than bounding boxes, this ends up
a rather overcrowded mess, that is difficult to interpret. Bounding
boxes would be a lot better, by making it a lot clearer as to which
points are linked with which.
Does anybody know if perhaps it is already possible to do this?
Or, alternatively, would creating and adapting templates to achieve this
be a lot of work, or should it be relatively straightforward?
Thanks in advance,
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
I am trying to prepare some batches of maps for upload to Commons, from
some of the images uploaded by the British Library to Flickr that have
now been georeferenced; but I have got some questions, and I could also
use some help, particularly with adding names/titles to maps on the BL
georeferencer that don't have them.
An overview page for the project can be found at
Here's a more detailed post I sent earlier today to the Wikimaps group
on Facebook. Apologies for the cross-posting, but I wasn't sure where
the best place was to send it to, for the right people to see it:
People may remember that three years ago we found and tagged over
50,000 maps and plans in the million images uploaded to Flickr by the
British Library. Since then, over half the maps have now been
georeferenced on the BL's Georeferencer. It would be good to start
getting some of the maps uploaded to WikiCommons. Starting with the UK
I've therefore created pages for a dozen proposed initial batches to
giving current-best proposed identifications, filenames and categorisations,
There's also a proposed general project strategy page:
I'd really appreciate any thoughts or feedback that people have on
these -- I feel that I've been slightly finding my way in the dark, so
it would be good to know if people feel this is on the right track,
and/or if there are any ideas or suggestions that come to mind. There
are also some specific areas where any help would be really
* Map titles. Currently there are titles entered on the BL
Georeferencer for only about half of the georeferenced maps. (It was
an optional stage, easy to miss out). It would be incredibly helpful
if we could start filling in the ones that are missing. These are
currently shown as pink highlighted links on the batch pages. Note
that it's also necessary to make a minor edit on the map to get the
Georeferencer to pass the update to its central spreadsheet -- in some
cases there /is/ a title, but it never got reflected to the central
list for this reason, because there's not been any subsequent edit to
the map. I'll try to update the batch pages at least once a day, to
[[Added on Facebook: One thing I should add, when adding names to maps,
is that I find it helpful to work in groups of about 5 links at a time.
So: open 5 in georeferencer, then click the map tab for each of the 5,
then open Flickr pages, then add title & make null edit. Each of these
processes takes a while for the page to load, but working on a group of
5 at a time, you can keep going with the next step for the next one
without having to wait.]]
* More georeferencing. At the moment maps from UK-related books are
about 80% georeferenced. But the average for most places is only about
50%. So if there's a part of the world you would like to see
fast-tracked into the next lot of batches, finishing the
georeferencing for more of the maps from there would be really
helpful. For links and latest progress, see:
* Hierarchies and category schemes. The batching and categorisation is
based on the hierarchical region-by-region analyses in this category:
But these are based on modern countries and regions, returned by OSM's
Nominatim service. It would be really valuable to have input from
people who have a better knowledge of the countries and their
histories, to get a better idea of what subdivisions would make best
sense for categories and at what levels to stop subdividing), given
also that the maps are mostly 19th century, so there may also be
historic subdivisions which are quite different to current ones; what
towns and cities should be pulled out for their own categories of old
maps and plans; whether there are particular things it is worth trying
to identify and pull out by bounding box; etc.
* Map description pages on Commons. I am thinking the uploads to
Commons should use the "Map" description template. But I want to make
sure I will be using it properly. So I've gone through the template
to see if I'm on track. In particular, I've put some questions there
about e.g. the right way to use "map location" when the subject of the
map may be quite complex, such as showing a part of a river in a
particular county; "map date"; proper use of "title" vs "description";
"map type"; etc. -- and it would just be generally good if somebody
could sanity-check what I'm proposing to do, well before the start of
any uploading. I've also suggested adding quite a few further fields
to the template, for example "book-title", "volume", "page",
"publication-place", "book-author", "book-collaborator",
"scan-resolution", "zoom-level". Would all of these be acceptable?
Plus it would also be nice to make a much more prominent link to the
BL Georeferencer. Feedback on any or all of the above would be very
At the end of the day these are only scans from books, rather than more
luxury stand-alone maps. But there is still a lot here that I think
would be very useful to have on WikiCommons, so I am very interested
to know what people think.
Again, if people could give any feedback or suggestions, I would be very
All best regards,
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.