Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Tabs


(Moved from the talk page for the timeline.) odder (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]

Would like to add:

check out local copyright law and freedom of panorama status in your country

to the local timeline before the rules due date. --WikedKentaur (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your comment, WikedKentaur! I've just made it clear that those issues might be discussed (if possible) during the real-life meeting with the volunteers to be held somewhere in late March/early April. Regards, odder (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[]

Official confirmation[edit]

(Moved from the talk page for the list of participating countries.) odder (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]

Do we know which countries have officially confirmed? I think some were added to the list just by volunteers without a formal approval by chapters/groups/whatever (for instance, I doubt Russian chapter ever gave any official opinion)?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[]

I don't think we take a specific formal approach here. Whether a chapter or community really supports it, will appear in practice - for now most important is to have a contact person, and a helpful project page which points to the relevant locations. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[]
I had in mind smth like this. I know for sure that no team exists for Russia, for instance, and I would not be able to add any coordinates there right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[]

"Official" is a bit of a woolly concept here. I suggest that where specific project pages (such as the stub I set up for the UK) does not yet exist, that people adding their region or chapter should link to some evidence of the commitment. In the case of the UK I have linked to our workshop on the chapter wiki, and if for a WLM region there is no such evidence (such as chapter pages, blogs or web versions of emails on an open forum), then saying the participation is "definite" looks a bit premature. Cheers -- (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[]

I put Italy in the "definite" list, because we are very committed and started organizing, but as Fae says there could be major (legal) issues for us. Anyway, I did it. I also tried to change the colors of the map, without success: if someone would do it could it please update the color of Italy? Thanks (GIMP doesn't save in .svg, Inkscape does not do it well...) --Aubrey (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[]

I created the map just this morning, so I would ask you to wait until some more countries confirm/join before I change it again. It's not in use anywhere important, I'll certainly make sure that it reflects the current situation before it's published anywhere. Otherwise, we'll end up with hundreds of versions.--Cirdan (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[]


Should we make tabs in two rows? On my desctop screen, they do not fit in one row.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]

  • Ok, now they barely do, but many people could still have a smaller screen--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]
    • How does it look like now? odder (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]
      After your second edit they do not fit again (Discuss is out). But this is just my screen, I am sure on my laptop they would fit.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]
      Or may be a smaller font?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[]
Hi, I reduced the inner padding (left and right) on each tab now and hope the tabs fit better now. --Wiegels (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Wiegels — it does look better now. odder (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[]

E-mail addresses[edit]

Why do we switch to Last year it was, XX replaced by the country code. Is there a specific reason (just curious). Also, the new adresses don't work ;-)--Cirdan (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[]

That's because we're in the process of moving. Let's explain it with the Dutch queue:
  1. is the internal name of the queue
  2. is an alias for this queue
  3. is a new alias for this queue
  4. is the local name
It's ordered by preference. I updated the Dutch entry to reflect this. I hope to get this cleaned up soon. Multichill (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[]

I have a question: who is receiving the e-mails to --Millars (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[]

All emails go to OTRS. So anyone with an OTRS account and access to the right queue can answer these. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[]

Translation and PR team[edit]

The timeline for local teams suggest to

"have somebody join the international Wiki Loves Monuments translation team"

by July 1st and

"have somebody join PR team to work on press releases and external outreach"

by July 2nd. I haven’t found any further information on those teams. Any help? --Alex (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[]

Hi Alex,
Good points! For the translations, there is no well outlined team of course, but rather a group of people working on it. We should indeed find someone to coordinate that a bit again this year. The PR and outreach refer, as far as I know, to the local PR and outreach - almost all PR efforts are on a national level rather than international. Effeietsanders (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[]

Cyrillic IDs[edit]

Greetings from Ukraine. We are currently having a discussion on the generation of our local IDs for the contest, as only part of the monuments in Ukraine have unique IDs. We would like to know if Cyrillic alphabet in the IDs (format Вн-105-0123) will be fully supported (from Toolserver list to mobile version). If there will be any problems, we can switch to numeric IDs obly (format 05-105-0123), but we prefer alphanumeric IDs as they are more user-friendly. Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[]

Shouldn't be a problem. You can see the end result at this page. Multichill (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[]

Animated gif[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments - Animated.gif


Couple months ago, just for fun, I did this little animated gif... Maybe someone would like to use it somewhere? Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[]

WLM and Featured Pictures candidates[edit]

Currently, I'm bit wondering if it's really fair to let images taking part on the contest get featured on Commons before the end of WLM, and that there seems to be no guideline in the FAQ section. I would appreciate if someone of the organizers would state here. - A.Savin 19:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[]

Hi Savin,
I can't speak for the local organizers, and I think indeed you're right that it would be more comfortable for the jury to do their work if there hasn't been a FP-procedure yet. But at least for the international jury process it shouldn't matter. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[]
Because all the images are directly uploaded to commons, they imidiatly are a part of the commons database. Therefor I think it's fair that they can be nominated for QI or FP (they are used and processed on this moment, the interest in them is there NOW). On the other hand the FP-procedure doesn't say everything. Most of our new uploaders don't know this process and their images (also if they are good enough) wont be nominated. So I think that the main advice should be that juries (from all countries) simply should not look to the fact whether a picture is Featured or not. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[]

After 1st week[edit]

;) Przykuta[edit] 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[]

Files in Category:Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

In this category, there are some files of monuments, since some users probably wanted to take part in contest, didn't know how to do it correctly and so put their files in this category instead of adding the template. Should the files simply get removed from there, or is it in accordance with the WLM rules to add the template afterwards and let these files participate as well? Thanks - A.Savin 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[]

No answer -> going to remove the files. If there are any objections, please use my talkpage, will no longer watch this here. - A.Savin 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

I'd probably add the {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|xx}} template to them when suitable. Platonides (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Upload time is over[edit]

I think all references to WLM 2012 starting from the main page here to all the national wikis and all the national WLM-main pages should be altered fairly fast to inform users, that the upload time is over, but also to where and when they can find information about the judging process --Wuselig (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[]

How to find the uploads[edit]

Hi all. I only wanted to say that we received multiple questions on OTRS about how people could find their uploads, how they could see if they were a member of the contest and how they could find other uploads. See for example ticket:2012092910001487, ticket:2012093010007068 and ticket:2012093010001715. Maybe it's an idea to add these answers to the FAQ next year? I think it's too late to add them now to the FAQ, but it's a point to think about for the contest of next year. Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[]

I looks as if the organizers of the contest are so preoccupied with the sighting of the images for evaluation, that they dont find the time, to watch this, or any other discussion page. --Wuselig (talk)
I don't think that the organisers are so preoccupied, no. People are mainly getting on with their lives, you know, and also taking care of different things. For the record, I have answered that message on Trijnstel's talk page. odder (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Indeed, I saw what has been done in the meantime and also saw that User:A.Savin's qustion above has been dealt with. So I do appologize, and thanks for all the time all of you have put into this contest. And yes, a little rest and real life is permissable. --Wuselig (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 and too late activities by User:Wiki-Bot[edit]

[start: moved from User talk:Platonides 00:51, 4 Oct 2012 and 15:20, 4 Oct 2012‎]:

Hi, at least four files i've uploaded related to Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Switzerland have been marked as Uploaded too late. Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 ch has finished by User:Wiki-Bot ... but they were uploaded p.e. 23:54, 30. Sep. 2012, imho 'in time'. Some more file were uploaded within a hour later, and i'm convinced that not a bot should 'decide', imho a 'personal review' by a human Wikimedian of Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Switzerland team should say too late or not ...

btw: before i did those uploads i categorized many many Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in India related uploads (not my own) by hand, that's way i'm not 'amused' about your bot's unfriendly 'behaviour'. Please correct it's behaviour, p.e. that it 'learn' at least to ignore 'some hours' (what about two or three??) 'after' September 30, 2012, midnight ;-) Regards, Roland 00:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is precisely a task that should be done by a bot, not a human. It is repetitive, boring and prone to errors, when done by a human. A bot will be exhaustive and completely fair. Of course, it should be given a final date, should entries be accepted until midnight, five minutes after, noon, or on autumnal equinox?), but that also needs to be agreed when done by humans. It's always a pity to reject entries for being submitted late, but deadlines are like that. The line must be drawn somewhere.
Now, about the files removed which had been uploaded at 23:54, 30. Sep. 2012 (please, include the diffs in these cases, so the details can be checked!). If they were indeed uploaded at 23:54, 30. Sep. 2012 local time, they would indeed be in the contest. In which timezone is stated the date of 23:54, 30. Sep. 2012 ? If you didn't change the timezone in your preferences, the default for Wikimedia Commons is to show the dates in UTC, in which case that photo would have been uploaded at 01:54, 1. Oct. 2012, Swiss time.
Platonides (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
[end: moved from User talk:Platonides 00:51, 4 Oct 2012 and 15:20, 4 Oct 2012‎]:
Hi, as pointed before, it's imho a 'decision' that may be done by the staff of the Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, usually we call such a decision 'review' of uploaded media.
For example for Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in India i tried to support the staff by categorizing media related to the national contest and started Category:Maybe 'to late' for Cultural heritage monuments in India ? among others, so the team may decide, please also see Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in India 09:50, 1. Sep. 2012‎.
Please stop those too late User:Wiki-Bot activities untill a democratically 'human'- and not bot-oriented decision is done by the "Wiki Loves Monuments 2012" staff respectively participants, thanks and regards, Roland 17:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Are you a local organiser for Switzerland or India? The dates for each country were chosen by each local team, and nobody complained either when the feature was announced in the relevant mailing list [1]. I can exclude countries if so they wish, of course. Platonides (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Please Roland indicate the images not included here. We may consider them at least for the national contest. --Ilario (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Hi, and thank you, Ilario, it's already done, hoping that the topic will be also discussed 'in general', regards Roland 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The topic has been discussed in general before the start of the competition. Wiki Loves Monuments is taking place for exactly 30 days; for Switzerland, this means that the competition started on 00:00:00 on September 1, and ended on 23:59:59 on September 30 (both times in UTC+2, CEST). There is no way that images uploaded on October 1 local time (after 22:00:00 UTC) can participate in the competition. odder (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
That's very interesting. I understood that the contest ended in september 30 and I stopped uploading images at 24:00 WEST. If I had known that images could be uploaded beyond the deadline, as Roland points, I would have kept uploading images at the same pace I was doing. To keep the rules fair, all players should have the same opportunity to upload more images. Then, the players that haven't uploaded images in the last 4 days, should be allowed to upload more images for some days or weeks, and this must be publicly announced.
Of course, another option is just to accept only images uploaded in September, according to the previously announced and discussed rules. To do this, a bot could be of great help, since you don't need to be a wise human being to decide if an image was uploaded before or after the deadline.
Btw. a handful of my images didn't arrive on time. When the WLM template was removed, it hurts, but I don't see this as a reason to change the rules.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[]
The national contest may have some exceptions, anyway we will send to the European one the images matching exactly the regulation of the European contest. What should be clear is that I agree that all participants should have the same opportunity, but if Roland has used the upload wizard and you used Commonist (which is faster and more reliable), you had not the same opportunity. Anyway Roland is not asking to include images uploaded the day after the end of the contest, but the images that he was uploading around midnight. If he pushed the upload button before midnight, he has done all correctly. But if Commons is not able to accept these photos in time or if the Upload Wizard is slow, it's not a problem of Roland. For this reason 10 or 15 minutes after midnight may be accepted. --Ilario (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Then, do you think that all images uploaded 10 o 15 minutes after midnight with "upload" button pressed before midnight are OK? This is great for me, since I have a handful of such images, although I had always thought that it was my fault for not having pressed "upload" buttons a few minutes earlier - all we could have pressed it some minutes, days or even weeks earlier.
My only pity is that if I had known that such images were going to be OK, I would have pressed the "upload" button for a few tens of images more - pressed before midnight, of course.
Btw, Commonist doesn't make a difference of opportunities, since all participants had the same opportunity to use Commonist, upload wizard, the classical upload page or even the WLM Flickr groups.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[]

When I see this, that I did this work to have well photos of Monuments, using Commonist and then my pictures was sorting out twice (the second time after german WLM-project included it by human review!), it is like a bureaucrazy and not a contest. And this, only because Commons is to slow to upload. Even if you not want to have a "academic quarter", your bot shouldn't remove things, that where reinserted by human. First thinking, than doing. --Quedel (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

I would like to know how we should deal with pictures taken in no-FOP countries during this contest. Clearly even if there are permissions from museums/municipalities or whoever has the power to authorize, there is no evidence of this on our OTRS system and even if there were any, I don't think FOP would be explicitly cited or even that this could be enough to by-pass a law. --Elitre (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[]

  • Just nominate for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[]
    • If we had a "rule" for this, I would not need a discussion and could speedy delete per DW. I am asking because some countries (i.e. Italy) had to request specific permissions to participate. I just need to know if and when the FOP falls within those exceptions. I would postpone tagging hundreds or thousands of files until this is not clear :) --Elitre (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[]
      FoP cases are not amenable for speedy deletion, they have to be taken to deletion review anyway. I already tagged dozens, mostly from Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[]
      As for Italy, WLM-IT has reached some agreements related with the restriction expressed in Template:Soprintendenza, but this is not any copyright issue or FoP exception. AFAIK any permission for copyrighted works should be validated on OTRS, if there is any related with Wiki Loves Monuments. Organizing teams in non-FoP countries are encouraged to teach participants about copyright issues like FoP, but it is not an easy stuff. --V.Riullop (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[]

I was just about to bring this topic of conversation into discussion. I don't know how this should be handled but something must be done by the WLM organizers/committee in helping or guiding the people who contribute. Take for example the WLM Romania 2011 and 2012. Hundreds of people contributed photos for monuments. Out of these hundreds if not thousands have been marked for deletion due to no FOP. For the veteran users of Commons who participated in the WLM, while losing their contributions is frustrating, at least is easier to understand why their work was removed. But the problem is, a good number of people joined WLM from ouside (from Flicker or 1st time Commons users for WLM only), and for them is a total turn off to see their work removed. And in the end, the removal of monuments is directly against the WLM goals. I can only imagine two things to do:

  1. WLM should notify the uploaders that their monuments don't qualify due to FOP, at the upload/transfer time
  2. Using the momentum gained with WLM 2011 and WLM 2012 (world records etc), WLM should try to petition the governments in the no-FOP countries to relax or make proper laws which allow for the flow and gathering of universal knowledge.

--Codrin.B (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Firstly we need to remember that apart from in Italy the oldest of these monuments will simply be out of copyright. The problem is mainly going to be with monuments that are new enough that the architect/designer or their heirs still have copyright. This prompts the logical fallback for next year - in those countries that don't have FOP rules sufficient for us to accept images on Commons we should only include monuments in the competition if they are out of copyright. WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Only monuments which are resent are indeed a problem. In some countries the average monument is 70 years old (not that strict to become a monument) an example is Flanders, Belgium with almost every old city house being a monument, also many from recent (1900-1970) years. On the other hand there are countries like France where the average monument is arond 300 years old, there there are far less monuments from the last 100 years, so far less monuments where FoP will be a problem. Best would indeed be law changes (throught EU will take a lot of countries at once) but I think lobbying for this is quite a commitment, I think a good and not that hard step that could be done there is to write an article (opinion article) which explains that it is very weird that it is impossible to generate free photographs of the (european, or your country) heritage because of a lack of FoP. Using examples. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Changing laws is a challenging long term great idea, but in the meanwhile we should help participants by warning them not to upload images of the concerned monuments. In Wikipedias lists, we could place a warning in the place of the photo of any copyrighted monuments in the list.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Yes we could leave them in the list with a warning, but I'd think it was safer to remove them from the list or have them marked "Monument xxxxxx exists but won't be in the competition until 2036 due to copyright issues." This should also give us a priority group each year of "monuments just out of copyright". WereSpielChequers (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]
I came here just to propose a similar idea. We'll need to duplicate the list and put it in project space though, as general readers of Wikipedia don't care about when the copyrights of something expires. -- King of ♠ 07:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Since the lists itself are encyclopedic content (and it is totally fine to add textual information about it, publish a map of the house or even submit satellite images if properly free) I don't think it would be morally OK to change them to fit the contest. We should definitely publish them in full. Making duplicates is a nightmare from maintenance perspective. Hence, I would prefer to build in a switch in the relevant countries so that the upload link can simply be replaced by a message "unfortunately it is not allowed by law to publish a photo of this structure because of lack of Freedom of Panorama". That could be overridden if permission is obtained from the architect. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Not talking about how easy is to build such mechanism (I have no idea), it would also outlaw uploads without the ID or with the wrong ID. May be it is not such a bad thing, but we definitely do have lists where it could make a problem (the example which comes to my mind is Germany, participating basically without ID, but Germany has FoP; I am pretty sure there should be examples of coundtries without FoP and without ID). I guess such a decision should be a result of a broad discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]
My experience in WLM2012 shows that at least some hundreds of images were uploaded without ID or with wrong ID or even misidentified - I think even a few of mine were among them. Since this could be solved by other people, we got images - often good ones - that we wouldn't have got if we had prevented images without ID to be uploaded. Then, we can give warnings and help to uploaders, but we should prevent them to upload an image just because the ID is wrong or there are no ID.
Linking upload wizard to the database could be useful to warn users not to upload copyrighted buildings, and also to help users to find the right ID, or even to provide a draft description, a category and an object location. just like Ymblanter, I don't have any idea about how difficult is to build such mechanism.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Ah, I see there was a misunderstanding :) I would love to see it connected to the upload wizard, but that is indeed very problematic. I was just referring to the list template which contains an upload button in most languages/countries. This button could be switched off based on an extra parameter. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Maybe a simple script generating the galleries each participant?[edit]

Propozycja: Może w kolejnym Projekcie np. Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, powinien pojawić się prosty skrypt generujący w czasie przesyłania fotografii stronę z zestawieniem ( galerią ) przesłanych fotografiami każdemu uczestnikowi. Np. tego typu Alians PL Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 PS. Ale chyba w nazwie utworzonej prezentacji niepotrzebnie pominąłem spacje? Uzasadnienie: W kilku przypadkach spotkałem się z "nadczynnością twórczą", polegającą na przesyłaniu wielu, niewiele różniących się ujęć tego samego tematu, więc pojawienie się takiej strony umożliwi szybkie wyłapanie wartościowych fotografii danego uczestnika. Poza tym rozwiąże problem opisany przez np. Użytkownik:Przykuta/zabytki cyt. "lepiej nie zaglądać - dla operatora bota - lekko przydusza przeglądarki. " - Ograniczy przypadek uwarunkowany cokolwiek ograniczoną percepcją komisji oceniającej ( Domniemam że na zasadach obecnych taka komisja po prostu przegląda zbiory mieszane, do których adresy znajdują się w przygotowanych zestawieniach zabytków, być może dopiero w oparciu o swoją spostrzegawczość tworzą listy prac wysłanych - byłaby paranoja ale?). Zagospodaruje fotografie zebrane z pominięciem regulaminowej kategoryzacji, wstępnej samooceny uczestnika, etc. A więc uwiarygodni taką Imprezę, ponieważ tylko zebrane w jednym miejscu imienne katalogi uczestników z wysłanymi pracami - jak koperty opatrzone godłem, gwarantują wiarygodność takiego +- konkursu pod względem formalnym i eliminują problemy techniczne. --Alians PL 11:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[]

'Proposal:' Maybe in the next Project Wiki Loves Monuments such as 2013, you should have a simple script which at the time of transferring photos from the party list (gallery) sent photographs of each participant. For example, this type of Alians PL Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 PS. But I think in the name of the presentation unnecessarily created omitted spaces? 'Rationale:' In several cases met with "hyper creative", involving the transmission of multiple, slightly different shots of the same subject, so the appearance of the page allow fast catching valuable photographs of the participant. In addition, to solve the problem described by eg Użytkownik:Przykuta/zabytki quoted "it is better not to look - for the operator bot - a little crush browser . "- so homestead photographs without statutory categorization, the initial self-assessment participant, etc. ( Translate Google ). Authenticate project, eliminating technical problems... --Alians PL 11:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Wszystkie fotografie przesłane przez użytkowników są dostępne na tzw. stronie specjalnej i jest to funkcjonalność zapewniana bezpośrednio przez oprogramowanie MediaWiki, dlatego nie ma potrzeby tworzenia żadnych specjalnych skryptów; w Twoim przypadku wszystkie pliki widoczne są tutaj, a schemat Special:ListFiles/Nazwa użytkownika obowiązuje dla wszystkich użytkowników. odder (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Na polecanej stronie nie ma możliwości dodatkowego zapytania po zalogowaniu - pokazuje wszystkie pliki wysłane, cyt." Na tej stronie specjalnej prezentowane są wszystkie przesłane pliki". Przy kilku tysiącach uczestników i wielu fotografiach, w tym z poza konkursów stanowi na pewno wyzwanie dla każdego. Natomiast imienny katalog ( Koperta ) jest najprostszym i najtrafniejszym rozwiązaniem! Dodatkowo każdy z komisji pod każdą fotografią powinien zostawić swoją punktację, skoro w regulaminie wyszczególniono kilka pozycji "wskazane cechy fotografii". Może jestem zbyt leniwy aby tyle pykać, więc ponawiam propozycję do wspólnego przedyskutowania.
Depending on the structure of directories - categories
Dependency structure e.g. Wiki Loves Monuments 2012
1 Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012
2 Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 the country (e.g. in Poland)
3 Envelope - proposed own directory for each participant Wiki Loves Monuments 2012
4 Thematic categories relating to photography

Jeżeli w ramach działania Projektu Wikimedia Commons napisanie skryptu ułatwiającego naszą pracę lub usprawnienie takiego skryptu nie stanowi problemu, to dlaczego nie mamy z tego korzystać? A do takich decyzji które cokolwiek graniczą z przyznaniem się do błędów, niewątpliwie trzeba dorosnąć, więc upór organizatorów może nawet niepokoić. --Alians PL (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Vielen Dank, dass am Ende jemand das Ergebnis zumindest ins Englische übersetzt.--Quarz (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]

To make future contests even more successful[edit]

Quotation "To make future contests even more successful, Cyt. , we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey". Where are the results of this survey developed? ( PL: Aby przyszłe konkursy mogły być jeszcze sprawniej zorganizowane.....,. Gdzie są opracowane wyniki takiej ankiety? )

In addition, the... Niestety nie ma dostępu nawet po zalogowaniu do odpowiedniego zestawienia przyznanych-ustalonych nagród, a przecież to kwestia tylko wypełnienia prostej tabelki? Ceny aparatów fotograficznych w krajach Afrykańskich, Azjatyckich są takie same jak w USA, Izraelu lub Wielkiej Brytanii, wiec nagrody na etapie regionalnym w takiej Imprezie, powinny być jednakowe - czyli o podobnej wartości - dla wszystkich uczestników z całego świata. :) --Alians PL (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Ankieta jest niedostępna dlatego, że dotyczy konkursu z roku ubiegłego; tegoroczna ankieta jest jeszcze w fazie tłumaczenia i zostanie uruchomiona w ciągu najbliższych kilku dni, o czym każdy z uczestników konkursu zostanie powiadomiony za pomocą wiadomości na swojej stronie dyskusji.
A przecież to kwestia tylko wypełnienia prostej tabelki? --Alians PL (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Jeśli chodzi o zestawy nagród, to w każdym z krajów są one inne i nikt nie prowadził takiego zestawienia; jeśli chciałbyś zobaczyć, jakie nagrody są w konkretnym kraju, to musiałbyś wejść na stronę internetową konkretnego konkursu; w Polsce jest to strona w Wikipedii, w USA, w Izraelu, itd.
Zaś co do samych nagród, to są one ustalane na poziomie lokalnym i międzynarodowy zespół koordynujący nie ma na nie wpływu; poza tym nagrody zależą od wielu czynników, w tym również od budżetu organizatora: przykładowo, stowarzyszenie Wikimedia Polska może sobie pozwolić na sfinansowanie nieco droższych nagród niż np. grupa Wikimedian z Białorusi. odder (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Masło maślane - skoro jest jakiś ogólny budżet Wikimedia Commons? Skutek takiego rozwiązania jest taki, że wygrywają ci najbogatsi ale niekoniecznie najlepsi. --Alians PL (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Masło maślane? Ogólny budżet Wikimedia Commons? Wygrywają najbogatsi? Kompletnie nie rozumiem tego, co napisałeś. odder (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Vielen Dank, dass am Ende jemand das Ergebnis zumindest ins Englische übersetzt.--Quarz (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[]

On FOP again[edit]

Just a final note, on the same page here someone else suggested that the topic was added to the timeline of the contest, and as a matter of fact, it was (it is at least mentioned in April). So I understand the whole contest is informal and so on, but what's the point of having a timeline if organizers can skip or ignore this crucial passage? I don't think that "widening participation" should ever count more than "respecting local law" or Commons'rules. --Elitre (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Thanking copyright violators for sharing "their" pictures[edit]

Since I typically watchlist user talk pages on which I leave notices regarding files tagged as copyright violations, I saw that {{WLM 2012 thank you}} was sent to several users whose uploads had all been deleted as copyright violations. I don't know what list your notification system is using, but perhaps it should check that there is actually something to thank them for. Telling users who have uploaded nothing but copyright violations and who have just received a {{End of copyvios}} that they are "of course very welcome to keep uploading images" ends up being a bit of a mixed message. LX (talk, contribs) 08:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]

The bot simply goes through a list of all users that have uploaded anything that was marked with {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012}} at some point during the contest; it does not check whether the image was a copyright violation or, for instance, was in violation of FOP, or even whether the image is still in existance. If you feel bad with us sending copyright violators a thank you message, please feel free to revert the bot. Thanks, odder (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Perhaps in the future, the bot could check if the images still exist. LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Well, it could, but there would be no simple way to check whether the image was a copyright violation or a violation of the freedom of panorama uploaded in good faith. Nothing is impossible, though; thanks for the suggestion. odder (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
I think if the images were deleted or are currently on Ffd, and there was no other contribution from a user, a thank you message is indeed not appropriate. If the copyright violation has not been detected of course we can not do anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
An image can't be a "violation of freedom of panorama" – that just goes against the meaning of the term. Although the examples I encountered were violations of the photographers' copyrights, unauthorized photos of copyrighted subjects that are not covered by freedom of panorama are also copyright violations, plain and simple. I don't think there's a need to make any assumptions about good or bad faith in either case, but there's just no reason to thank people for uploading files that can't be hosted here. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Assume good faith. These people tried to contribute, but didn't do it in the right way. I appreciate the tried, Multichill (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Please assume that I am assuming good faith. As I said just a few lines up: I don't think there's a need to make any assumptions about good or bad faith in either case, but there's just no reason to thank people for uploading files that can't be hosted here. LX (talk, contribs) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
I can't see why the welcome message for WLM, which potentially applies to people that a) are not familiar with our copyright rules b) may mass upload their pictures and then just abandon Commons, should not underline that their pictures might be removed for copyright issue and maybe also remember a few concepts that organizers do not like to remind, like the FOP thing. --Elitre (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Probably there is no reason to thank for pictures we can't host, but I think there are reasons to thank for trying - provided that we assume good faith.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
No. Positive reinforcement of unhelpful behaviour is unhelpful. Consider Special:Permalink/81821562. First we tell the user "If you do not stop uploading files that are not free," (the only kind of files they've uploaded) "your account will be blocked", and then we thank them for sharing "their" pictures with the world and encourage them to "keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons". Sending that kind of mixed message to a user who hasn't understood the purpose of Commons is not helpful to the user, and it's not helpful to Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[]
Maybe we should have made an alternative {{WLM 2012 failed thank you}} for those people without any WLM uploaded file left, saying "Thanks for trying to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, we are sorry your files did not abide by the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons and had to be deleted. You can contact XYZ if you wish for a more detailed explanation of the reasons they were not eligible and how to fix these problems, we would also like your feedback on the issues you encountered...". Platonides (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Nominated images from India[edit]

I am really surprised to see the images that have been declared as winners from India. Majority of these images have failed to even qualify as QI (Quality Image), which is a rough indicator of an image's quality. Case in point are entries #2, #3, #5, #7, #10. There's an ongoing debate going on on image #1 as to whether its a QI and as of now more people think its not a QI. Moreover, image #1 and #8 are so small in size (less than 1MB both) I am not sure whether they are going to be of any practical use.

I thought technical quality was one of the important point of judging. If an image is nominated for an international round it should at least be technically good enough to be a QI. I doubt whether the jury had looked at all the images in full resolution. This poses question as to whether they were competent enough to do the job.

I believe, the WLM 2012 India contest was not conducted properly. There were many good images, that were not even selected for final round nominations, and even in the final round, I am not sure on what basis, they chose the pictures. Some pictures are clearly over-processed, looks unrealistic. The goal of wiki images should be to represent the monuments as realistically as possible.

To say the least, I am disappointed with the nominated images. I think, WLM should look into the matter. - Dey.sandip (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[]