Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

Hi All, We have had a similar problem in Thailand. Our team member raised a concern of what should be in the photo. The government maintains a list of recognised "ancient" monuments according to the law. To the general public, what appear on the list are old temples/churches, schools, palaces,

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my main struggle is: who am I to decide it is or is not a monument :) Apparently, the national team allowed it as 'a monument' - should I take their authority for it? Or make my own judgement (but of course, ask for their arguments)? Anyway, just to clarify: I don

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

I think it is worth being consistent about the prizes, but definitely worth including those images in the metrics. The prize draw rules have been published and include that we are awarding prizes for pictures of things on certain lists. If something that isn't on a list of targets wins then ot

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

Hi, I think that non-monuments should not be eligible for winning the contest. It is unfortunate, but such images should be disqualified. >From our (Ukraine) experience I can share a story from last year: we have >found a 1900 church in a small village, its photo was in top-10 but we had to >d

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

Images that have no monument go directly against the rules of the competition. So I see nothing wrong in not letting them to compete for the international prizes. But for me it's surprising to see some rather small-sized, watermarked and low quality images among the best. Could it be due to the se

[Wiki Loves Monuments] Non-monuments winning?

Hi all, I wonder, in some of the international nominees (beautiful pictures again btw, congratulations), there are some where there is no identified monument available. For example, there is a photo of the Nile river without any ide