Oct 15 2020
Oct 1 2020
I’ve repeated everything in a new private Firefox window, while my common.js page is still blanked:
Curiouser and curiouser...
Sep 30 2020
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:
Sep 29 2020
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
Sep 27 2020
Sep 5 2019
Sep 2 2019
Aug 28 2019
I think the text needs some minor tweaks (not sure where to find it on wiki within the template structure):
Aug 25 2019
Jkbr I believe.
Oct 7 2018
Sep 18 2018
@JeanFred, just some more background it case it's useful.
Sep 16 2018
@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.
Sep 12 2018
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.
Sep 8 2018
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.
Sep 5 2018
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!
Sep 3 2018
All OK now. Thanks for fixing that.
Sep 2 2018
Sep 1 2018
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!
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
Jun 6 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.