I’ve repeated everything in a new private Firefox window, while my common.js page is still blanked:

Curiouser and curiouser...

Ok, many thanks for checking. I’ll investigate the common.js file

So far as I can tell, it's not possible to see the new desktop when logged out, is it? But here are the other two tests:

OK, thanks. Here’s the video: https://imgur.com/a/P4vk4j5

Sure, happy to do that. Is there somewhere else I can upload the screen capture? It's 40 seconds, and comes out at 114MB which is apparently too big to upload here.

I see that some of the screenshots above may be the result of the issue raised in T263950

OK, done.

I think the text needs some minor tweaks (not sure where to find it on wiki within the template structure):

Jkbr I believe.

@JeanFred, just some more background it case it's useful.

@Multichill, @Lokal_Profil thanks for the feedback. I do think that the that the Monuments Database should switch over to harvesting UK monuments from Wikidata (Scotland, Wales, England and NIR lists), assuming you still think it useful to have UK sites in it at all. The WP lists of UK sites are unmaintained by us, and have no connection whatsoever with the WLM-UK campaigns. They also omit the vast majority of grade II buildings. Of course the WP lists may receive odd edits from individual editors but those aren't reflected back to Wikidata.

I think I must be missing something fundamental here, as I really can't understand why Scottish monuments continue to be harvested from Wikipedia into the Monuments database even after I explained above that none of the UK campaigns (including Scotland) have used the Monuments database since 2014.

@JeanFred understood.

The numbers given for the UK at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiloves/monuments/2018/United%20Kingdom don't match the actual daily uploads which we categorise as they happen in Commons cats Category:WLM-UK 2018 unfiltered 09-xx where xx is the day of the month. You can see the numbers in those cats here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2018_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Having now reviewed this in more detail, I'd like to withdraw this suggestion, and I suggest that this task should be closed.

A project to do this, which will hopefully eventually link with Wikidata, is History Research Environment (HRE): https://historyresearchenvironment.org. Developer support is most welcome!

All OK now. Thanks for fixing that.

In T200339#4513943, @Lokal_Profil wrote:

Thanks for the response. With "the tool" are you refering to a UK specific WLM tool, Monumental or some other tool?

Is the UK campaign primarilly making use of the Wikidata items or the Wikipedia lists? If the former then it would make sense for us to switch the Monuments database over to harvesting from Wikidata instead. Could be a candidate for something similar to T200112: Add wikidata-only datasets to MonumentsDatabase.

Clicking on a Details link for a specific country takes you to a page such as https://stats.wikilovesmonuments.cl/2017/unitedkingdom which is still based on 2017 data.

Just to support that. We'd love to see this working again this year!

Not sure if this is relevant, but the tool seems to be picking up some monuments that are neither Wikidata P709 nor P718 (the only two that currently should be used).

Yes, I think this definitely would be of interest. We would need input from WMF legal before deciding exactly what the archive could hold, as I am pretty sure that it will not be possible to include anything that – if publicly held on Commons or elsewhere – would be an infringement of US copyright (making things 'hidden' does not authorise us to sidestep copyright restrictions and to hold for future re-use copyright-infringements such as new Paramount images). However, the archive could well be used to hold images that are public domain in the US but which are still copyright-protected in their country of origin. However, that's a legal and community issue that needn't hold up technical development.

We can I think approve the test uploads to Beta straight away, on the understanding that of course a suitable Commons-compatible licence will need to be chosen for the actual Commons uploads.

Yes, thanks Magnus. You've made a lot of people very happy!

Should we merge T66794 into this?

Finding volunteers to help with long-term maintenance is always a problem, especially with PHP. If you were to use the pwb framework it would probably be easier in the long term to get people involved, given the increasing popularity of Python. But of course better PHP than no tool at all, and the person doing the coding gets to choose.