Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

World Heritage Sites

When talking about "Monuments" in the sense of National Heritage Sites, I would expect each country to define World Heritage Sites at the top of their list as most important, followed by a page for "National Heritage Site", and then followed by a State-, Provincial-, or Municipal Heritage Site. It turns out that World Heritage Sites are not that hot in non-English Wikipedias and very often if you look at the interwiki links on the WHS page these are redirects to local lists of World Heritage Sites. Maybe we could get someone from the WHS project to go fix that in the various sister projects, though I suspect most countries find their own cultural heritage lists more important than the Unesco ones. Jane (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages

There is a tool which can produce a monthly list of top most viewed pages for articles which fall in the scope of a WikiProject. I believe it would be very useful to use this during September and especially in the later months when presumeably the pictures that have been taken can be added to the pages according to highest need / highest popularity. An example of what this would look like is here. Jane (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

I think encouragement for uploading quality images should be strengthened. Maybe a link to Commons:Quality images and Featured pictures on the welcoming page would be useful. --Elekhh (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this, and the consensus was that though we always encourage quality images on Commons, a poor image is better than nothing for many of these objects. Yesterday this exact same topic came up again during Wiki Takes Amsterdam, as participants wondered whether they should photograph buildings barely visible due to trees or scaffolding. The conclusion was "Take the picture and upload it, and let someone else upload a better one in the winter or after restoration activities". Jane (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but when we have multiple quality images of a topic (for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) than multiple new poor quality ones (1, 2, 3, etc.) do not add much, and one might even argue that these are spamming the repository. What I was suggesting was providing further guidance which can help direct uploaders towards the guidelines and forums where they can learn more about what is sought after in Wikipedias (i.e. no watermarks, proper description and categorisation, QI guidelines, etc). My sense is that there is too much emphasis on coverage at the moment (see 2011 goals) while tiny bit more emphasis on quality would not harm. --Elekhh (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the cases where we have multiple quality images of objects are in the minority. Perhaps, if you feel strongly about certain cases, you can ask for images to be deleted, but personally, I feel it is helpful to have more than one quality image taken from a certain angle, because it can show how an object changes over time, whether by acid rain, new restoration activities, vandalism, or whatever. Until we have multiple quality images of more than half of the national heritage sites listed, I really don't see why we should emphasize anything else than coverage, because any extra requirement we add here, just throws up a new hurdle for new users to jump over when uploading. Jane (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now again a table has been added which suggest that all what matters are number of uploads, thus more is always better, regardless of usefulness and educational value. How if there would be a column for nr. of images used in articles, and maybe one for number of FPs? Should 1000 unused images be more valued than 100 actually illustrating articles? Should an image which actually lifts the quality of Wikipedia be considered equal with one practically unusable? --Elekhh (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1000 good images or 1000 good images and 1 bad image. Then I still would prefer the second case. It doesn't hurt the other pictures, which so many monuments (500k in the participanting countries with lists) it's best to first focus on coverage, to get closer to the 90% (we're at 10% or some). Then focus on only getting better quality. Offcourse we prefer a perfect picture above a less perfect picture. But it's never just a case of choosing to get either 2 bad or 1 good image. Most of the time people are contribution or not, and each contributor has it's own skills, thus a contributer with less skills is still a positive value, he doesn't slow down the activity of the person with higher skills. Besides that there is the thing Jane sais: during the years buildings change, things get demolished, or improved. It would be sad if we declined a bad picture when 2 years later the monument isn't there anymore. I don't understand why it's bad to have a lot of images. Any image is welcome in my opinion, they don't hurt the better images. Besides that the average quality is in my opinion pretty well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elekhh, I agree with Bas here that all contributions are welcome, because the list of missing objects is still so long. The point is not to put ALL pictures on wikipedia (though personally I think that would be great), but the point is to have at least one picture of whatever quality for all articles on national heritage sites that don't have one yet (and there are LOTS of those). Look at it in the same way we treat artists such as Vincent van Gogh or Rodin; we don't put all the pictures we have of their works on their Wikipedia page, and though we may have separate articles for individual works of art, Wikimedia Commons remains the place where readers can browse the galleries of pictures. The same is true for architects like Corbusier, and large important buildings such as the Sagrada Familia. Please don't think that these pictures are all being uploaded to the English Wikipedia because they are not. They are being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and many of them may only be used there or on native language Wikipedias. Jane (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK

Why is the United Kingdom missing from the Participants and Events lists? Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Astronaut, the UK has been invited several times this year to join the project, but the Wikimiedia chapter was very busy this year working on the categorization of a gift of 80,000 pictures from Geograph on Commons. They didn't have any other resources to organize setting up the lists for Wiki Loves Monuments this year. I fully expect the UK to participate next year however, though I don't know the status of the Geograph images. You are more than welcome to represent the UK team next year (the preparations do take a lot of time, but if you start your project now you can easily be done by next September). Jane (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Geograph load is actually 1,700,000 images in the UK and Ireland, and there is a very big categorisation backlog. So for a large proportion of UK monuments we probably already have an uncategorised image, which puts us in a different position to other chapters. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but this list is great and helps me a lot! Jane (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012

I'm sure its not just me, but the calender seems to have flipped. Is there a 2012 page around? Ϣere SpielChequers 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The anchor is here: commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012 but there is no en.wp page as far as I know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is still a lot of "clean-up" to do on the English Wikipedia around WLM 2011, I am reluctant to just re-use this project. There was some talk of making a WLM sub page for the NRHP Wikiproject, but there are other US lists that qualify for WLM, such as the list of National monuments. I was thinking of creating a WLM sub-project page per country project, or does anyone else have a better suggestion? So WLM NL would be under Wikiproject/The_Netherlands, and so forth. Jane (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the French have created a WLM placeholder page as a portal to other Wikiprojects in other languages. This page currently serves that purpose and I am reluctant to change it or rename it to WLM without the "2011". I am strongly tempted to create a "WLM 2012" placeholder page though. Any ideas, anyone? Jane (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and merge

Hi everyone, I plan to replace {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2011}} everywhere with {{WikiProject Historic Sites}}. These pages can stay around for archiving purpose, but having all the project infrastructure is just redundant. Multichill (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me Jane (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 page

For the record, I created the 2012 placeholder page here: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Jane (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]