Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Art/US-UK

Questions? Comments?--Pharos (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

could you maybe bung a few examples in the 'goals' section - I've got a sort of general idea that things like photos of statues or public art works might be a good fit.. but I'm not totally sure! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They will be photos of public domain artworks in the museum's collection. The goals will probably be organized by several categories like "find artworks from the Ming Dynasty", for example, if the museum has a Chinese collection. More on this as we work out the contest structure.--Pharos (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the photos need to be submitted in February, but may be taken before? And can one submit photos from more than museum? (The rules, as they are currently written on the Flickr page, make it sound like you could win in more than one museum, with points counting "twice." Not sure if that's intentional, or if I've stated my point clearly.) --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The photos should be taken sometime in February; the rules won't be released until then, anyway. You can participate in more than one museum—each hunt will probably be run mostly autonomously anyway, with maybe a light global competitive element on top.--Pharos (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaflet handout

Could we design, say, an A5 information leaflet we could hand out to people that come along giving overview of:

• why we're doing this
• good photography techiques
• copyright restrictions
• how/where to upload photos once taken
• rules for prizes
• anything else?

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be best for each museum to have their own leaflet, or at least that we have a template which can be customized, because each will be run somewhat differently. I think another thing we'd have to include would be the request list for that museum.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on...

Has anything similar to this been done before? Wondering what lessons can be learnt from previous experiences. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This project is something of an evolution on our Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event.--Pharos (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I, along with some others, have been interested in documenting outdoor sculptures for a bit now.

I think your project has some real potential for helping to establish a base-line understanding for the condition of artworks; here's hoping that you get a lot of participation. Richard McCoy (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

V&A discussion

Please come along to a discussion we're organising at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-uk next Tuesday, 6th January at 9:30pm UTC to discuss the practicalities of the V&A side of this project and how this can best link it with the main project. Cheers! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Prizes

Few Qs:

(a) Who wins the "Prize from Wikipedia"?

I would think we should reward the "Prize from Wikipedia" to the winners from each individual museum as a bonus prize.--Pharos (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(b) How is the scavenger list going to be put together? When I went round the V&A I noticed there were quite a few sculptures of obscure 17th century people for instance - I thought a picture of their sculpture could feasibly be used on their article, for instance, if nothing currently existed. However, I wouldn't know it would be useful until I actually saw the sculpture itself. Would it be better to say all photos used on wp get credits, and possibly more for certain ones on the list.

I think it would be easiest to just say that everything on the list gets credit, whether or not it's eventually used on wp. There's no reason we can't make a big list.--Pharos (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(c) What do we do if more than one person takes a photo of an item? We cant put both images on the article and we don't want to encourage a revert war! Should we just say both people get the points to make it easier?

Yes, both people would get the points; that's only fair. And possibly even if they shouldn't both go in the Wikipedia article, maybe they should both go on Wikimedia Commons.--Pharos (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(d) Should we say in the Guidelines for WP editors that people should say in the photo comments if they've been uploaded to commons and then what articles they have been used on to qualify for the points? That may make it easier to judge how many points someone gets.

I think it would be good for everyone if this information was in the photo comments, so it's easily accessible to the photographers and the museums. As I say above, though, I think it might be easiest to score this based purely on what's uploaded to Flickr.--Pharos (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

cheers AndrewRT(Talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The WLA flickr page currently says "Use the scavenger hunt list provided by Wikipedia (posted soon) to take shots and cross off as many subjects on the list as possible ... images uploaded to this group will be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles and you'll get full credit when an image is used " (my emphasis). Reading this I had in mind something along the lines of:

i) Image uploaded to flickr with right tag, license, etc: 5 points

ii) Image from the list uploaded to flickr with right tag, license, etc: 10 points

iii) Image then used on wikipedia: extra 5 points

However log the list is, you're always going to end up with images which weren't on the list. Are we just going to say no credit if not on the list? If so, we need to get that list started very soon, and finshed in a couple of weeks. Also, are you now saying that (iii) should be dropped? If so, we need to change the wording of the flickr page. Also I'm not sure it's that good an idea, because it means we may end up with hundreds of images that aren't particularly useful for WP. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"you'll get full credit when an image is used" simply means that there will be proper copyright attribution to the photographers. I think this particular phrase was added just because some of the folks in the Flickr community weren't familiar with how attribution on Wikipedia works. I think the idea was to go solely with what you describe as method (ii), so yeah, it would be good to get started on those lists soon! Judging on whether an image is used on Wikipedia, what you describe as method (iii), could quickly become very subjective and complicated by the healthy diversity of opinion among Wikipedians, who tend to edit things back and forth.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

With i) make sure that the images don't infringe copyright before giving points away for it: ones on the list we can make sure are copyright-free, but others may not be. With iii) perhaps "Image does not yet exist on wikipedia", and/or "First group to provide this image"? Or alternatively, only use iii in conjunction with i, not ii, so that anyone who takes a picture not on the list that's useful for wikipedia gets the same number of points as if it were on the list. Mike Peel (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, what we came up with with the Brooklyn Museum was to do (ii) only.--Pharos (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons or Wikipedia?

Are we supposed to upload to the Commons or Wikipedia? Gordo (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons first, then here if we have no luck there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for uploading here rather than to commons is that you can't upload fair use images to commons but you can direct to wikipedia. Is that likely to apply here at all? If not, I suggest we ask everyone to upload to commons so the images can be used cross-projects and cross-languages. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be no fair use images, since all the works are PD. To clarify, the photos will initially be uploaded by the photographers themselves (mostly non-Wikimedians) to Flickr, and then us Wikimedians will take them from Flickr to Commons, either manually or maybe using a tool like FlickrLickr. Then we can go through Commons, and see which are appropriate for the different Wikipedia articles--Pharos (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, really that simple? Gordo (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Why would many non-Wikipedians be participating in this? And would I, as a Wikipedian photographer in the contest, have to upload to Flickr first? I don't use Flickr and uploading directly to Commons would be much easier for me. Reywas92^Talk 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In London and I believe in New York too, we are advertising the event widely and hoping to get a significant number of non-wikipedians involved. We've asked everyone to upload their raw photos to flickr first, and then transfer the ones we want to use to Commons for linking into Wikipedia. There are a few advantages to this, including that it makes the scoring much easier to do! Using flickr is very easy and there are a few tools that make transfering the files to Commons very simple too - if you definitely don't want to do that, I'm more than happy to upload the files to Flickr for you if you want - just let me know where I can access them. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If I do have a chance to get to the museum next month I will be able to create a Flickr account, but thanks for the offer. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but in the rules we didn't mention anything about wikimedia commons, only that these would be used on wikipedia. Institutions joined with the express knowledge that these would be at wikipedia, not the commons. Sorry folks, but we are limited to wikipedia per the setup. Thanks Shelleyb7 (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Flickr upload tools

Possible ways to get the photos from Flickr to Wikipedia:

• FlickrLickr
• Flickr upload bot
• Flickr2Commons —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMenninger (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Do List

Could I suggest we put together a To Do List, with deadlines, something along these lines:

Task	What?	Who?	Where?	When?	Progress
Wikipedia Prize	Finalise details: Winning criteria How to implement	WLA organisers	WP:WLART	31 January	Not started
Prizes	Compile scavenger hunt list	WLA organisers	WP:WLART#Goal List	31 January	Not started
Prizes	Agree points system	WLA organsiers	WP:WLART#Prizes & Flickr Group	31 January	Not started
Participants	Publicise	WLA organisers	WP:WLART#Participants	31 January	Wikiprojects & local chapters informed
Handout for attendees	Create	WLA organisers	WP:WLART#Goal List	15 January	not started
Handout for attendees	Print	WLA organisers	WP:WLART#Goal List	31 January	not started
Scorer(s)	Recruit/appoint	WLA organisers	WP:WLART#Prizes	mid February	Wikiprojects & local chapters informed

Anything else? AndrewRT(Talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything else? How about IPR? Gordo (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What's IPR? AndrewRT(Talk) 14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

london meetup

London meetup would normaly be on the 8th. We can either try and move it or encourage people to visit the V&A that morning.Geni 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming along to the Jan London meetup so I'll ask people there what they think. One option is to keep the meetup on the 8th - consistent with 2nd sunday - but move location to the V&A. The 1st is going ahead anyway so people who would have coem to the meetup could either come along both days or just the 8th if that suits them. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was more thinking of moveing quickly around the V&A in the morning and holding the meetup in it's noirmnal place in the afternoon.Geni 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We moved it. The February 8th London Wikimeet will be at the V & A, starting at 1pm, with lunch before that? Gordo (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

License: CC-BY-SA or PD?

Just noticed commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, which states:

Regardless of any local laws to the contrary, the Wikimedia Foundation has stated its opinion as follows :

To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain. If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers.

WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it. This is neither a policy change (at least from WMF's point of view), nor is it a change that has implications for other Commons policies. —Erik Möller 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, should we be asking people to release their photos under public domain, rather than CC-BY-SA? Mike Peel (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If it's a 2D representation of the PD painting, then no new copyright would be engendered (per Bridgeman vs. Corel). Inclusion of the frame, or if were shot at an angle, then the photographer gains a copyright over the work. howcheng {chat} 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think most of the artworks we'll request for this project will be 3-dimensional (sculptures, etc), precisely because it is harder to get free images of these types of artworks.--Pharos (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any photographs would be copyrighted by the photographer at the very least. Surely they can choose to release under CC rather than PD if they chose - regardless of the rights of the museum. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the photographer gets any copyright over the images - if there's nothing creative on their part (i.e. they're just replicating a 2D image that already exists), then they don't generally have any copyright on the photo. The rights of the museum are completely irrelevant here. So, should we be requesting that images just showing a painting/other 2D work are released by the photographer under PD, whilst using CC-BY-SA for any 3D works? Mike Peel (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think a non-transformative image of a 2-dimensional PD work would be something we're looking for anyway. I'm sure pretty much anything like that can be (and already has been) found with a Google search, so we wouldn't need to waste time on it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that the licence issue will never be resolved. I have had several "art" items deleted from Commons. Gordo (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why they were deleted? What was perceived to be wrong with them? Mike Peel (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the rules, images are licenced CC-BY and photographers must be credited on Wikipedia. thanks Shelleyb7 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging component

Hi folks. We're now also going to have a judging component for the best photos, run by Cary Bass, which will be combined with the pure scavenger hunt aspect.--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Submission deadline and Los Angeles shoot date

So if the images have to be submitted during Feb, but our LACMA official day is 28th Feb 1-7pm, that doesn't leave any time to actually PP and upload the images? Mfield (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, obviously we'll have to extend the deadline at least for Los Angeles. I'll raise this with the museum people.--Pharos (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tripods issues

Although I am now having second thoughts now I see that the museum will not allow tripods for this project. Either this project is a serious attempt to collect good photography of (public domain) art and that means using tripods or it will just be attempt to collect the largest number of noisy, unsharp shots. If the museums have no interest in helping get good quality images out then I am somewhat disillusioned by why we should help promote the museums' collections. Are they still trying to protect their postcard and book sales. Mfield (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • There is still a good opportunity to get photos of sculptures. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That is true assuming that the sculptures are well enough lit. But it still worries me that the entire project is effectively crippled by the insistence on limitations that needlessly hamper the ability to come out with the best results. How are they on monopods is the next question. If it's a trip hazard issue then there should be no issue with monopods and if there is still an issue then its presumably commercial in nature. Mfield (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This page from the V&A website explicitly says that: "You may take photographs or use a video camera in the galleries, but not with a tripod, monopod or supplementary video lighting". I was going to help out, but as the only options available will be natural-light or frontal-flash I agree with Mfield that it won't be worth it, unfortunately. Neither option will produce even half-decent results. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • A ban including monopods feels like a thinly disguised attempt by museums to protect their ability to sell reproductions of their exhibits, a lot of which per Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. they don't hold copyright on anyway. I can understand the concerns about tripods causing trip hazards when the museum is busy but a monopod is no less obstructive than a walking stick (or a leg) and if they were in any way serious about supporting this project they could relax the unnecessary rules at least for the registered participants. Mfield (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • If they are worried about commercial use of high resolution imagery I was going to say I would happily sign a release against commercial use but the fact that the images are to be released on a Wikimedia friendly (read commercial use) license will make that irrelevant. Mfield (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't expect them to change all their rules overnight. What they are doing is taking a major step forward by actually promoting Wikimedia-friendly free content photography; until now, many many museums have formally restricted photography to "non-commercial" or more often just "personal" use. And there are legitimate reasons to not allow tripods. I suggest that those who are interested in tripod-like photos use as substitute the simple and effective string stabilizer technique.--Pharos (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is expecting them to change their general rules overnight, I am suggesting that in order for the potential of this project to be realized, coming to a special agreement with the museums to permit the use of tripods (or at the very least monopods) for this project would be a good idea. As for the string tripod, they may get you an extra stop in an emergency but they won't buy you what you need for adequate DOF at low ISO in museum lighting, even with the best image stabilization technology assisting. I guess it boils down to whether the aim is really to collect some truly useful imagery or not. If the compromises mean that none of the resulting images can pass the bar for FP and make it onto the front page of WP then that would be a shame. Mfield (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

License clarity

At the meetup, it was described as the photographers would upload to flickr where the museum staff would pick and tag the photos. These photos would have a different license (which one exactly?) and would be uploaded to Commons by the volunteers.

Clarity here will help us understand what will be achievable.

Thanks dm (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The licenses used will be the standard Wikimedia-friendly Creative Commons licenses, "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons". The process with the museums will be that, to ensure against the possibility of copyright violations (ie photos of non-public domain art), they'll be reviewing the photos and labeling them with the correct contextual information before we upload them to Commons.--Pharos (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid uploading "context" images

Hi. Could one of the organizers please confirm that sorting, labelling etc will be done offline (or on Flickr) before the final selection of images is uploaded to Commons? This will avoid the controversy surrounded the uploading of images such as file:WTM NewYorkDolls 025.jpg, which followed the Wikipedia Takes Manhattan project. See Commons:Commons talk:Photo scavenger hunts#Technical considerations - the need to avoid uploading non-educational images for a brief discussion (I won't link to the multiple deletion-requests). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sorting and labeling will be done on Flickr.--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the confirmation. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can make this useful for the preservation of cultural property

By photographing cultural property you are also documenting its condition at a given point in time. Though most institutions work very hard to control a building’s environment (temperature, humidity, light level, quality of air), some cultural property is undergoing physical change while on view, even it if is very subtle. Most of this change is too subtle for us to notice even over a long period of time. However, some things are undergoing more dramatic changes, and even have variable presentation states. Of course, this is most relevant to contemporary artworks, which usually have the tightest copyright restrictions.

Cultural property that is outside off the museum environment, or is in fact out of doors, is more likely to undergo change.

Since the public is being encouraged to photo document artworks I'd like to suggest that the public also be encouraged to pay attention to the physical condition of the artwork. Take extra photographs of details of artworks that seem to have condition anomalies. Don’t forget to look at the artworks outside of the institution.

Looking at artworks this way is a little different than looking at art for purely aesthetic reasons, but it is just as rewarding.

Here's why I think your work is important to the preservation of cultural property.

1) The condition of cultural property changes due to the environment

2) Cultural property is moved around a lot, thus its representation may also be changed.

3) Some artworks have variable presentation states. How it looks today may be different the next moment, month, or year.

4) Buildings are cultural property, too; particularly "historic" properties. For example, I know that the IMA considers Oldfields its largest artwork. In this way, Oldfields is a complex, multi-part artwork with a varying presentation state.

5) It is also important for cultural institutions to understand how patrons interact with or near artworks.

Finally, I'd like to suggest a super bonus category! Yes a super bonus category!

I wonder if anyone will be taking photographs using a camera that can see into the infrared.

There is this camera that can do it, off the shelf:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07071304fujifilmispro.asp

But there are ways to do it at home, or by having your camera sent off to a specialist

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/395292/take_infrared_pictures_with_your_digital_camera/

There may be some very interesting rewards for photographing paintings made in Northern Europe during the Renaissance (you might be able to see under the paint layer and view an under drawing, or something else all together!).

Woops. I forgot to sign this.--Richard McCoy (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Goals List

Who exactly is producing this? It is due in 4 days & I can't see any trace of work on it. The Visual arts project has only just been informed of the whole thing. General areas where Commons is very weak are:

• Japanese Ceramics are bizarrely weak (Chinese and Korean are much better covered)
• Islamic & Indian miniatures: Persian/Indian/Turkish
• Old master prints (special access needed usually, but this is an ideal opportunity)
• Commons furniture categories are generally weak - [1]
• Generally out-of-copyright paintings are pretty well covered, thanks to Corel v Brightman. Unless specific artists are known to be weak, shooting these is unlikely to be very helpful frankly.
• Generally 3-dimensional objects are much less well covered.

Johnbod (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Accession Numbers

Please be sure to record as full details as possible of objects photographed and include these on the image file. Many excellent photos on Commons will never be used because they have inadequate information - dates, country of origin etc. The best way is usually to get a shot of the label & any display information in the museum. Please note that the index card on the "Buddha" example on many individual museum pages does not represent adequate information for the index file. For some museums online databases may allow access to adequate information via the accession number, but for most this will not be the case.

Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The accession numbers are indeed the appropriate information in this case. Our arrangement is that the museums themselves will be captioning the works fully on Flickr, working off of the accession numbers. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Over Christmas break I attended LACMA and took some pictures of artwork. Are there any restrictions as to what I can upload to Wikipedia? What licensing tag do I use? Kingturtle (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything where the creator died in 1938 or earlier ({{PD-old}} on Commons, or {{PD-old-70}} here) is OK, although if the work was first published in the US, then you have to go with the chart at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Publishing" for unique artworks will usually mean exhibited in any context, or sold or donated. In practice it is likely to mean "created". Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for watchlist notice

Please see the proposal at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#WP:Wikipedia Loves Art notice proposal.--Pharos (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

flickr upload limits

I uploaded 15 photos and have used up most of the free flickr accounts monthly upload limit at 100m. Any chance someone could see if they would relax this for photos posted to the Wikipedia Loves Art group? Otherwise, I'll just start uploading them directly to Commons as usual... dm (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. We're working on fixing this or finding some alternative.--Pharos (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Remaining pictures needed?

Unfortunately I missed this, or would have come along. Was just reading about it in the Signpost. I might be able to go along next weekend or even later in the month, but it would be good to have a "missing images" list to help fill the gaps in the collections, rather than duplicate efforts. Or even do "reshoots" if no-one got a great picture of a particular object. Will it be possible to get such a list? Don't do it on my account, as I might bail out, but is it being considered? Did it all go well, by the way? Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the V&A one in London, by the way. Does each individual museum have it's own page here, other than the rules page? Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I cross-posted the above to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Art/V&A rules. That seems a better place for individual event notes. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I had added some areas where Commons is weak to that page (and above), but this sort of approach has unfortunately not been considered at all in the planning, or the goals sets by the museums. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone organises some of the Flickr pages by museum, my offer to fill in gaps at the V&A still stands. I'm not going for the prize, that's for sure: "The photographer with the most points (who shot at the V&A) will win a prize to be announced from the V&A gift shop." Unless the winner gets to chose! Though the Indianapolis one is funny: "FREE iPod Touch, a fabulous IMA Blog t-shirt and a limited edition IMA Blog Rubik’s Cube". :-) More seriously, could someone look at this later in the week (when more people have uploaded) and then cross-reference with this and make a list of what is missing (if anything)? Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The second of those is the museum's list, as far as I can see drawn up with no thought as to what might actually be useful on WP or Commons. It is so vague I don't see how it can be cross-referenced to anything. But there are some useful images on Flicr. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well, I'll check back and see what new lists there are if anything, before I go. Some time later in February. Hopefully things will be clearer then. Failing anything else, I'll take pictures of the stuff I like, or which sound like they might have articles of their own. Should actually sort out a mobile system to look stuff up while I'm there... Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of Category:Collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum seem to have at least one good photo from the museum itself - User:VAwebteam is a staff member who has done excellent work releasing 3-D photos of their highlights (following the "100 highlights" book I think), so the V&A is way ahead of most museums already. Many of these would benefit from further sharp close-ups of details & so on though. Or there is the more general list I added above. Indian miniatures could be used quite widely & Japanese ceramics are currently very poor - at least properly categorized ones. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of material without discussion

I am afraid to say someone took it upon themselves to delete part of the project because they were ignorant of its connection. It would be helpful if the matter was rased on the talk page before such action is taken. cheersHarrypotter (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art involves 15 museums and cultural institutions cooperating in a highly organized project. You can't just add some silly deleted Wikipedia page to the list of these museums, and expect it to stay.--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor Pharos) seems to be making some big assumptions. Of course Wikipedia Loves Art includes Wikipedia Art ie Wikipedia (Loves) Art. This is a logical necessity. You seem unfamiliar with the contetnts of the National Art library located in the V&A. Please check this or similar material available in New York and I'm sure that after the passage of a small amount of time you will agree.Harrypotter (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, apparently I have to explain this further. Wikipedia Loves Art is a centrally coordinated project among museums; it is a photographic project that involves staff and official cooperation from each of these museums. This is what the museums signed up for, and this is what the Wikipedia editors and the staff at the different museums are working on together. This wiki-page is not a catch-all for every idea that has to do with both Wikipedia and art.--Pharos (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• It was absolutely right to delete it. What on earth has the NAL got to do with it? Oh, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly "Wikipedia Loves Art" is different from "Wikipedia Loves Art". Secondly, whatever arrangement this or that wikipedia editor has made with this or that bureaucrat at this of that museum, as the title Wikipedia Loves Art is published under the GNU Free Documentation License. Therefore it can be adapted by others particularly other Wikipedia editors. Therefore the project Wikipedia Art can freely be integrated into Wikipedia Loves Art. Secondly as the National Art Library is part of the V&A, and the V&A is Wikipedia Loves Art a moments reflection reveals that the National Art Library is included in Wikipedia Loves Art. This process of deduction can be extended not merely to every book, but every article in every book and even every statement in every article in every book. This process of reduction passes through a whole range of art practise, whether its George Maciunas and Fluxus, or the more austere works of Conceptual Art. Examination of these texts will help 'Editors better asses the merits of the argument and offer a more valuable opinion.

As regards the use of the word silly, I take it that this was not used in an uncivil sense. However I am at a loss to appreciate any other significance the use of the word may have in terms of the sentence in which it is included. I am glad we are making such positive progress.Harrypotter (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Harrypotter's argument is better suited for an article about a possible Wikipedia Art article and its inevitable AFD discussion, rather than this project page. In any case, it can live here in the discussion page, it should not be on the Project page (which is *not* in article space) dm (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, lets leave that text off the Project page, but we can continue discussing it here. dm (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

I thought it would be useful to start a feedback page, so we can learn what went well with this and what could be better done anyother way. I've started it at /Feedback. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons pics

Is there a place where these can be seen together? And who is categorizing them? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They haven't been uploaded to Commons yet. We're deliberately holding off on uploading them until the participating museums have finished their labeling process at Flickr.--Pharos (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the plan for this? Have you got a timetable? Are you going to involve other wikipedians? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good categorization is crucial for getting them used, & can be rather tricky on Commons as the categories are pretty chaotic in many of these areas. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The plan is, um, in development. I guess we'll wait till the the Flickr process is done, assess the state of things, and then come up with our process for Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. We should probably not rush to any plan as of yet. I hope we can get the participation of a good number of folks, particularly our Wikimedians who've already worked on the lists and with the museums. I anticipate we'll have to be careful in finding obscure existing categories and creating many new ones, as we also had to do with Wikipedia Takes Manhattan.--Pharos (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it will be necessary to create that many new ones - if anything the problem on commons is that there are too many overlapping or isolated ones, but the schemes and category names are not consistent or very logical; I've never worked out if they have a mechanism for tidying them, like WP:CFD. If they do, it's not very effective. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the museums and participants said yes to illustration in wikipedia articles. Upload to wikimedia commons was not discussed and this is a potentially big issue. Shelleyb7 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Shelley, Commons would just simply be the location of file storage. Files uploaded to Commons still will make their way into articles, but now they can go into Wikipedias in different languages, as well as any of our other sister projects. If we were playing hardball, I'd argue that once the museums agreed to CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licensing, they relinquished any control over those images and legally, anyone is permitted to do anything with those photos, but that's in nobody's best interest, which is why we are still in a holding pattern on our end here. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The contest was in February now we have May - anything new? Wouldn't it be a good idea to update the project page? --Historiograf (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not updating the page earlier. We are still in the phase of the post-processing of images (which is a big job for the museums and everyone, which we have to complete before there is any uploading), but we do have some winner announcements already. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Night of Museums

Perhaps our next edition should take opportunity of this event, and we could collaborate with this initiative? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Eakins scavenger list

The next time people go hunting for images, please take a look at List of works by Thomas Eakins first. In particular, anybody going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, or Philadelphia Museum of Art should keep their eyes out, because these institutions all have very large Eakins collections. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS - 6 extremely hard-to-find Eakins pics are in the Eakins room at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. See More info. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Art/NL

A similar project will kick off in the Netherlands next month. It will last the entire month of June, so it could also be interesting for tourists visiting the country. The project page is at http://www.wikilovesart.nl, I am afraid it is in Dutch only.--82.92.181.129 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Nature

An offshoot of this project, but relating to protected areas, national and state parks, monuments, etc.?

I've asked the rangers at Everglades National Park to give me an off-season ranger-led slog through the Everglades in November. I already got the park article and five other articles related to the Everglades to FA status, but there are so many other issues involved that spawn from this that I think it might be an interesting idea. For example, when I wrote Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Ficus aurea was a red link, I think (or a stub). It became an FA before I could get Geography and ecology of the Everglades to FA.

Anyways, it's an idea. If someone has already thought of it, point me in the direction. If not...is there any worth in developing it? --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me! I'll be emailing you, to see how I can help.--Pharos (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Delay

As I wrote in German on the occasion of the winner announcement of NL http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5917892/ I think the US museums are not handling the contest in an appropriate hurry way. I have NO understanding for the delay (set aside that legally WP can use all CC-BY-licensed content on Flickr WITHOUT any museum consent) --132.230.239.15 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The two projects have one rather key difference: WLA in NL had a pre-approved list of works to be photographed, while WLA in the US and UK was rather more open ended, meaning there was a greater variety of works photographed and the museums could only certify the captions after the fact, requiring a great deal of extra bureaucratic work (perhaps NL has been an improvement, certainly they learned from us and we hope to learn from them in future). Needless to say, of course, we are only working within the context of our partnerships with the participating museums.--Pharos (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any images up on commons yet? Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They'll all go on in more or less a single blow, should be starting next week.--Pharos (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons categories

I'm quite disappointend with the WLA events.. It took me a whole morning to categorize all the images taken at the Metropolitan Museums of Art and I found out that in NONE of the other museums where an event took place the images were correctly categorized. A correct categorization would divide the works of art into "sculpture, paintings, jewelry, etc." in each museum, would put a category for the author (if available) or for the country the piece of art comes from. I wonder if any volunteer of the project would ever take care of fixing the those categories, since a work of art is definitely impossible to find there, unless you directly know it was shot during those events. --Sailko (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been the main problem with the uploaded images - one I think I mentioned beforehand as not adequately thought through. The trouble is that Commons categories are in fact incredibly difficult to add in bulk because they are so random and inconsistent; to do a good job you need a lot of knowledge of both Commons and the subject - too much to ask of the museums I think, & not a job they were asked to do. I have added a few & no doubt other have, but mainly on things I'm interested, & of the V&A ones. It would also have been better to have an initial "uncategorized" sub-cat out of which images could be moved when they were categorized. Otherwise you have to look at each image to see if it has been done yet. Broad sub-cats of the type you mention would have helped as a start, but categories should just not be within the main museum category. But hats-off to the V&A staff for a brilliant job adding the full descriptions - this is so often the weakness of Commons photos, making them unusable unless the editor happens to know exactly what an object is. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's something difficult to set "at least" a basic categorization such as "sculptures in the X Museum", "Paintings in the X Museum", "african art in the X Museum"... it's not random, neither inconsistent. that's what I did last day and it took me a whole morning for just one museum. it's one of the way to find the images, otherwise nobody would know how to look for them. Yes, the "uncategorized folder would had definitely helped. --Sailko (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Sailko. It's true that the volunteer-tagging aspect was underorganized, and I'm glad you've helped to remedy this with the Met. I also agree that an "uncategorized folder" would be a good idea for future events; we tried to do it for this one but it was a bit beyond my templating skills.--Pharos (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)