On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Nicu Buculei nicub...@gmail.com wrote:
On a constructive tone, I think this is easily solved at the jury level,
just make the Wikipedia usefulness one of the noting criteria, even if
the picture is wonderful done technically and artistically, if there are
In chronological order:
#1:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality
#2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg
#3:
:
Skickat: måndag, 12 december 2011 20:32
Ämne: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments was crap, it's high time
to admit it!
I have had the same issue with the Best Photo of Kosovo contest, but
we had some small winners.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest
While some valid points have been raised in these discussions, there
was also a lot of bullshit (pardon my language, but there is no other
way of putting it) from some people who can't look beyond the current
project. It would be unfair from me to respond to those here, but I
will most certainly
I miss pictures who document the monuments and is more then a nice picture.
Nina
Sendt fra min iPad
Den 12. des. 2011 kl. 20:28 skrev Tomasz Kozłowski odder.w...@gmail.com:
In chronological order:
#1:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011#Quality
#2:
What I do note as something that could easily be avoided is having
ten more crappy images of the Eiffel Tower in order to get some more
obscure monuments on-wiki. I strongly suggest that in countries that
participate in WLM2011 we limit the eligible monuments to those
without an image.
In
W dniu 12 grudnia 2011 20:28 użytkownik Tomasz Kozłowski
odder.w...@gmail.com napisał:
#2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anh%C3%A4user_Mauer.jpg
#3:
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in
this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image
of the exterior, would we need the image of the interior? What if we have
several monuments
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterpute...@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in
this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the
image
of the exterior, would we need the image of
2011/12/12 Strainu strain...@gmail.com
2011/12/12 Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se:
2011/12/12 Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterpute...@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal
in
this form. What if we have
We're going a bit too fast here :)
Yes, there are things to be improved when it comes to the jury process - I
agree on that with Tomasz. However, I don't agree on the specifics. But
Most importantly: this is not the time yet to discuss that. If we start
hammering out these details now, we get in
On 12/12/2011 10:40 PM, Maarten Dammers wrote:
2011/12/12 Yaroslav M. Blanterpute...@mccme.ru:
I think this is a good direction, but I can not support the proposal in
this form. What if we have just one crappy image? What if we have the image
of the exterior, would we need the image of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
