Tue, Sep 18
@JeanFred, just some more background it case it's useful.
Sun, Sep 16
@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.
Wed, Sep 12
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.
Sat, Sep 8
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//.
Wed, Sep 5
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!
Mon, Sep 3
All OK now. Thanks for fixing that.
Sun, Sep 2
Sat, Sep 1
The detailed per-country pages such as https://stats.wikilovesmonuments.cl/2017/unitedkingdom are still based on 2017 data.
Just to support that. We'd love to see this working again this year!
Aug 17 2018
Mar 13 2018
Mar 1 2017
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.
Feb 2 2017
Feb 1 2017
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.
Jan 4 2017
Apr 15 2016
Dec 15 2015
Jun 6 2015
Feb 5 2015
Jan 19 2015
Yes, thanks Magnus. You've made a lot of people very happy!
Jan 17 2015
Should we merge T66794 into this?
Jan 14 2015
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.