If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Fixed. Not sure what happened there - I uploaded it and checked a copyright tag in the upload form - but it didn't seem to come through when the upload finished. Oh well. WittyLama16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your info on my discussion page on Polish Wiki - I should put more info on my personal page, to be easier found. I am happy to be added to mailing list - as an admin on Polish Wiki my email address is easily obtained anyway, so I am not worried about getting it spread. Just in case - lukomski.lukasz at gmail.com. There are several Polish speaking wikipedians editing from the UK, so it's always a good to add more ties between the two communities.
And regarding the backstage event - unfortunately I have to pass this time. However I am interested in getting involved Polish editors in collaboration, so please, keep me informed! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's an article you should involve yourself in, but the matter is clearly notable and has been written about in the NY Times. Although I attended the Backstage Pass event, I have no connection with your position as WiR, so I feel I have enough distance to edit the page. Let's see what other people think!Harrypotter (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK you may not use the image. We're getting assistance from curators for writing text so far. We haven't gotten around to negotiating images yet ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK any help with the article would be good - perhaps getting the appropriate permissions for pictures could be a next step.— Rodtalk19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rod - although I didn't immediately see the relationship upon closer inspection yes it is clearly an article that is eminently relevant to the prize and a good choice. I can hopefully put you in touch with the curator of the object(s) if you would like and, if you can come to London in the next few weeks - potentially visit the institution and work with the curator on-site. Who knows. The BM's own photo is definitely their own copyright and we won't be able to use it on Wikipedia for the forseeable future, but potentially they might let us take our own photos. I'll check. Please send me a private email if you would like to take this further. Best, WittyLama21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got about halfway through assessing articles in Category:British_Museum_directors (all the old librarians :)) before reading your blog post & the line "ignoring sub-categories of articles about staff or trustees". So, er, what would you like me to do? My thought is that probably including historic personages in the assessment is probably ok (but maybe not include the living ones)? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm a little confused about this too. Could we have a policy somewhere that we can collaborate on improving for ensuring consistency for categorizing articles and when standard templates should be used (for example the {{British Museum}} navigation template may not be appropriate for all objects falling into Category:British_Museum-related_articles). Fæ (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this too, and I'm thinking of aiming at FA on the Latin Vicipaedia for Tabula Rosettana. I realise that this is about outreach, and Latin doesn't reach out as far as it used to, but I also aim to try to improve articles linked to this subject on some other language editions. Let me know if this seems a possible project, or if you have any comments ... Thanks! Andrew Dalby12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find lots of modern material about the decipherment of the hieroglyphics. What I haven't found yet is a bibliography of early publications about the Stone. Does the Museum have such a bibliography in some form or other? If so, is it possible to see it or get a copy of it? Andrew Dalby18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll look into that. As for the whether the FA Prize is possible for the Latin wikipedia... as much as I like the latin wikipedia, this really is a prize from the BM who want to reach out to new audiences and different cultures and I don't think latin fits that bill... sorry... Do you think you could help out in the english edition anyway? WittyLama12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I say, I'm working on other language editions as well, so don't dismiss the idea too quickly. I just tend to start from Latin: it's a good language for getting things straight. Yes, I can certainly improve the English page as part of this -- there's plenty of room for improvement. I didn't mention it initially because (a) I thought it possible that some other contender would want to do that, and (b) I'm not personally enthusiastic about the FA process in en:wiki ...
Back to the bibliography question. There's one very specific question which a curator or a bibliography might be able to help with. Wallis Budge in his 1913 Museum guide to the Rosetta Stone [1] says that the first French translation was published by citizen Du Theil in 1802. I think this is the librarian fr:Gabriel de La Porte du Theil, but I haven't yet found a title or a precise reference of any kind to this work of his. Andrew Dalby12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Witty lama, my story was actually intended as reporting about the event, with some context (not unlike the NYT article, although of course less substantial). But I agree that the prize is noteworthy in its own right. I expanded the description about it a bit - it still seems a bit too short for a separate section, so I mentioned it in the existing heading instead. (I also dented about it.) I left out the assertion that this is "the first time an organisation has actually put out a prize for Wikipedia work ..." since I have some doubts about the superlative in that form - for example, just two days ago a public body in Germany awarded prizes in a Wikipedia article writing and photography contest, at €1000 each; I suspect one courld find more such examples in various countries from the past.
Per your suggestion, I have linked the NYT article in "In the news" too (as a short "see also"). Some overlap in scope between "News and notes" and "In the news" is natural, but redundancy for the reader should be avoided, so often we concentrate coverage of a topic in one of them only. In general, "In the news" is not meant to be comprehensive, instead Wikipedia:Press coverage 2010 is, you might want to add the NYT article there too.
Congratulations on your pioneering work, and let's hope the BM collaboration is bearing many more fruits!
Dunno if it's relevant, but have you checked out Anthony Roll? It became an FA pretty recently and is also a featured text at English Wikisource. One of the three rolls, the only one still in its original format, was donated to BM back in 1858 century, and is now owned held by the British Library.
I guess it might not be eligible for the BM prize contest, but it might be interesting nevertheless.
Nice one! But yes, as a British Library object, it doesn't count for the FA Prize. Also - it was made a FA before the prize was announced. WittyLama00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was worth a try... If you're by any chance in touch with BL, I think it might be interesting to mention it. Especially now that the complete text is also available over at Wikisource.
Shouldn't something made before the contest announcement be even more worthy of a reward considering it was made for purely altruistic, wiki-like reasons? :-)
How about the BM having a page of the website about the Wiki-outreach exercise and listing their curator's suggested top 10 well written Wikipedia pages (which may, of course, be about current popular topics that the BM would not cover on their own website)? That way it's not only prize winning pages that might get some attention. Such a BM page would be an opportunity to say something about how important it is to check information in the sources rather than just relying on a WP summary... Fæ (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I understand that there are many motivations for writing a FA and an altrusitic desire to share knowledge is chief amongst them. I would not like the FA Prize to undermine that. Equally though, the prizes are trying to encourage the creation of new content in a particular area rather than merely reward those who have already done so. As for Fae's suggestion it's quite nice, I like it. Might be tricky to arrange (you know how difficult it is to get wikipedians to re-arrange the mainpage, imagine what it would be like to try to get some real-estate on the BM page). I think once there are several FAs about high-importance articles then we can ask them about this, but currently there really isn't that much depth of content that we would call FA that is terribly relevant to them. WittyLama15:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It did indeed - not a huge amount - but enough. The main point was not so much that it increased the total by very much but that these articles became some of the highest clickthrough locations. This didn't affect the total very much due to the long tail of many articles providing 1 clickthrough but these provided a bunch all at once. WittyLama10:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today was a good day too. I think the BM has had an article on the front page for 18 hours today. I.m glad they are being noticed and the BM is seeing a reward for its faith in wikipedia.
Some random stuff
see here. You can see that the Library of Congress has put up over 9,000 pictures and every one has added info added to it be amateurs (oh and some wiki articles too)
On the subject of Flickr. Some guy gave us a matching set of 70 Bassae Frieze pictures which went to commons. I told you I'd deliver you an article! Victuallers (talk)
That's fantastic! I just wrote off to the Greece and Rome department to tell them to check the front page of WP now. I don't suppose you could get the references to write up the "18 hours" statistic could you? That would go very nicely here Wikipedia:GLAM/BM#Article_Milestones. Equally, if you could write up the Bassae Friezr Flickr story in a paragraph I could blog about it too. WittyLama15:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning/evening :) I have a request for you as our Official Liaison. Can you find out if there are any (perhaps modern vs 19th century) official publications about the British Museum Reading Room that we should be citing or referring to? I've come up with a stack of books and articles (the thing is rather famous, after all, and librarians like to write about their own) but if there's a standard reference or two put out by the museum it would be great to use that in addition. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if the article on The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig that I just started working on would count for the purposes of the BM Featured Article prize. It's a piece of medieval Irish literature, but one of the three most important primary sources — and arguably the most complete source — for the story and its associated tradition is the Harley 5280 manuscript in the British Museum, whose relationship with the main narrative version is discussed in detail. At the moment in my research I'm also looking into some other items in the British Museum (eg. the Dunaverney fleshfork) which scholars associate with the historical context of the story. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liam, we're confused about how long the Seax of Beagnoth is because the British Museum site is giving us two different lengths. Please could you ask the curator to clarify? It's possible there's a typo on the British Museum site.—S MarshallT/C01:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slight clarification - the deletion discussion is about the category with a similar name to the article. There has been no proposal to abolish the article itself. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article about the ethnographic history of the museum is quite interesting. The topic area has the potential to get into Original Research but with the references that you've currently got that shouldn't be a problem. Yes - as Fae mentions, the debate about changing the title is in reference to the Category, not the article - does this fact change the nature of the debate about the revising of the category structure? WittyLama09:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this needs careful consideration. The proposed "renaming" as Category:Artefacts from Africa, Oceania and the Americas in the British Museum is actually not accurate as it excludes artefacts from Egypt. In fact what arises is a category relating to artefacts which are the responsibility of the BM's Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas which - if you trust wikipedia - "houses one of the world's greatest and most comprehensive collections of Ethnographic material", which kind of leads us back where we started. Ethnography is quite a loaded term, and these issues have already come up in other contexts. So that's why progress on Ethnography at the British Museum might help shed more light on the matter.Harrypotter (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any article can already have several sub-categories from Category:Ethnography as well as sub-cats from Category:British Museum. This is a pretty granular classification of an article if the reader were searching using categories. There seems little point in having narrow sub-combinations of categories created as new categories in their own right when there is unlikely to be significant content. Examining the category tree under Ethnography I see many articles on museums listed (including the British Museum) but I do not see a list of museums having devoted special sub-categories for Ethnography. Is there a rationale as to why the British Museum is an exception and why should Ethnography be a special case for a non-department based category and not artefact categories related to other big topics of interest such as LGBT identity, the British Empire, economics or slavery? Fæ (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key point I'm trying to make here is that if our category structure is supposed to match the BM's departmental structure as the introduction to Category:Collection of the British Museum says it is... then we should be doing just that. Their departmental structure has changed in the past and it does end up being somewhat arbitrary (like having Egypt separated from Africa) but that's what we're following. If we want to break from that then it will be a much larger exercise on our part to re-classify everything. WittyLama09:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Witty Lama makes a good point which highlights the dilemma as regards uncritically reproducing the BM categories. These are controversial (See Cheikh Anta Diop for some of this controversy (also here. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to have such categories Category:Artefacts held by the British Museum Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas, which would the reference the fact that this is how the artefacts are managed by the BM without committing us to a viewpoint in this controversy. This would certainly be helpful as regards the Briggs Enigma as what makes it enigmatic is that it has been regarded as being of European origin prior to modern European settlement in the Caribbean. I am not sure how fanciful that viewpoint might be, which is why it would be useful to have more documentation of it. As regards the points raised by Fæ, the situation is that the BM used to have a Department of Ethnography, which indeed ran a museum with a distinct identity, even if this is no longer the case. Bearing this in mind, and the special role that the BM has played in the history of ethnography, it might be correct to agree that this is a special case. As regards the other issues raised by Fæ, I feel this perhaps reveals a little more about some of the issues raised by the interaction created by BM meets WP. The maintenance of a set of categories by a museum bureaucracy meets consensus created categories produced by a diverse range editors. Bearing in mind the excellent work of Carol Dixon's Subject Indexing Report (Word document) in a related taxonomic tussle, it should be interesting to see how this develops. Fæ has made some useful edits to the Warren Cup, and whether this and other articles contribute towards a perceived need for new categories remains to be seen. Certainly covering artefacts gathered together in the London Sugar and Slavery Gallery of the Museum of London Docklands might very well call for a slavery category. Bu these are questions the answers to which only the future can provide.Harrypotter (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are probably close to agreement here. We may well need to keep a few categories that overlap significantly and see what evolves. It's probably a little unfair to call the categorization by BM department just a reflection of their bureaucracy as departments such as the Egyptian Antiquities (later undergoing a change of name but still the same department with the same exhibitions) have been commonly referred to as such in the public press for more than the last 100 years (a search through The Times on-line archive will demonstrate). The acid test is how many articles persist with such categorization and how the category tree shifts about. With such a well know large institute, one could probably compare to the category tree of Category:House of Commons of the United Kingdom which even after much re-design is a non-obvious collection of lists and sub-categories. So long as these are useful for the layman reader the rationale will be clear even if the overall structure remains inconsistent and debatable.
For the time being my view would be to defer category deletions/housekeeping unless there is a firm consensus, my primary objective in raising a CFD was to create a category that the general public would be able to find and understand as it reflects the names they see in publications relating to the BM collections and in most publications about these artefacts rather than due to any issues I have with ethnography categorizations. Fæ (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm following all of the details of this debate correctly, but can I suggest that we've come to agreement:
It would be good to change the naming of the categories so that they match the departments of the BM, but without being an uncritical reproduction. To that end, we should change the titles from things like category:Asian objects at the British Museum to category:Objects from Asia in the British Museum. Currently they are not consistent (some say "objects at" and some say "objects in", and "Prehistory and Europe objects in..." is not even grammatically correct.
Thanks for the invite - I've added my name. Never done an FA, but there will be lots of supporting articles required and I might learn something too! Victuallers (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Re your question...
Made significant contributions to FAs never done one myself .... I think the phrase used is "Pages I have contributed to include" Cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let's hope it can pass - but get a thorough review in the process. I'll pass the word on to people to have a look at its review. WittyLama00:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaosdruid. You can list requests for images of BM objects at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos_requested. As for using the Museum's own images I'm afraid to say that's not going to happen any time soon. Believe me I'm working on it, and have had meetings with the relevant people - but free-licensing is something that is a big and scary move for a museum so it will take a long time to get there. We cannot use Bridgeman v. Corel for their images of objects as this only counts for faithful reproductions of 2D objects. So, best bet is to stick your request on that page and we'll see if we can organise a photo expedition. WittyLama23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ca:Usuari:Mafoso from ca.wiki; I have read about the prizes. I think is a greatfull Idea .I will try to encourage some of my colleagues to try to make some features articles in Catalan. however need your help: where can I see the collections of the museum? know if there are any collection dedicated to pieces from regions with Catalan cultural presence? . Thanks (please answer at my talk page in catalan: [4])
Lean: more questions ... There ara some volunteers in Catalan Wiki interesteted and ask me ... They asked mi if translations will have less options than new articles, for example: if we made a featured article about the british museum , the english version is wonderfull, has less possibilities than another that we make for one collection item from zero?. --Mafoso (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lean, me again ... MarisaLR ask me if a article about the codex Llibre d'hores d'Alfons V d'Aragó (Psalter and Hours of Alphonso V of Aragon) with ref: Add. MS 28962 could participate : the book was a topic of the British Museum but now it's at British Librery.
Moreover, in ca.wiki the guys are working yet ... you can have a look about it at ca:Viquipèdia:Viquiconcurs Museu Britànic ( a translation about the prices plus yours answers to the questions). Now 3 persons are working in two articles: the British Museum and Rosetta Stone ... And I'm sure Marisa will try with a really good article (if it's not possible the codex she will look for some other topic).--Mafoso (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again (I'm becoming a test of your patience...) the lovely MarisaLR started with Miquelangelo's Epiphany ( in catalan), Has exhausted her resources ... we could provide some extra information: conservation work, studies or other work towards Miquelangelo's drawing from the British Museum?. Thanks --Mafoso (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wikimedia DC is going to have its first extensive sit down with the Smithsonian Institute this weekend and would like your thoughts on what has been good/bad so far with your collaboration with the BM. We started a page at GLAM to pull together ideas about what Wikipedia can offer to SI in a partnership. Any thoughts, would be appreciated, especially with your vast experience. Sadads (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw that you were the co-ordinator of the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM. I would be interested in collaborating with the BM on the Daniel Solander article (I also noted it here: Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One on one collaborations). I would, if possible, like to know more about the project. How is the collaboration done? Do we get help with references and images? Is there any deadline? Does the Feature Article Prize apply? Thanks in advanve! :) Esuzu(talk)18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded what seemed the best photos from today to commons:Category:Hoxne hoard. Hopefully a few alternates will be loaded by others in the next 24 hours... It would be neat if one of the coin guys were to identify the coins photographed as not only didn't I take these (my camera was borrowed) but I haven't got much of a clue when it comes to identifying Roman coins. Fæ (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you've not done it the Napoleonic way, I'll do it for you. The project has been a great success, and I hope it will continue to grow. All mainly thanks to your energetic efforts. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! The new articles are good... the real achievement IMO is the change of people's thinking that this work has illustrated and extended... well done Victuallers (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the best parts of the workshop for me, was reviewing the sources with Roberta Tomber when Ben found the Southwark archeological mineralized pepper reference (a very rare find). Not only was this a completely new source for her (she researches into the Roman spice trade) but it was a new source for the two other experts at the table. When we bring together this type of evidence, the resulting Wikipedia article must be of value for academics of the Roman period as well as enjoyable for the layman. Thanks for being the catalyst to make this possibly Witty. Fæ (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the barnstar. I think for your efforts in getting the ancient and modern to work together (so to speak) you also deserve a Barnobolus, may you use it wisely! JMiall₰14:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's been a line-ball case, but if you look at the article there's a whole section about the British Museum and the exhibition at the BM is famous for being one of the largest/most-popular exhibitions ever. We also have the article The Treasures of Tutankhamun categorised as BM-related for example. WittyLama21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liam: thanks for the answers. (my answers in blue)
Hi Mafoso,
Can I try and answer your questions here - and you tell other people? That way I can write to you personally and you can tell the other people about what I have said. Ok?
of course, I'm doing it now.
I am interested to see this! ca:Viquipèdia:Viquiconcurs Museu Britànic. Can you please confirm for me that everyone knows that there are 5 prizes in total and not 5 prizes for only ca.wikipedia.
That point is explained in the section Aclariments(Clarifications); I added it in the winners section too.
Would you like me to ask the curator at the British Museum for this object to give advice? Does ca:Usuari:MarisaLR speak good English? If not, I can ask the curator to give feedback on the en.wp article and also to suggest more references.
I asked to Marisa about this... by the way, the feedback at en.wp article, and references will be great.
My name is spelled Liam not Lean. Ups... excuse me I've have wrote your name "as it sounds" in Catalan. I'll copy the correct spell one thousand times at least (hehe).
Liam: MarisaLR doesn't speak English ... I will try to translate her questions. If you want I can ask to the curator, ok? .
meanwhile cuold you ask this three questions?:
Did you have more information about the owners of the drawing between the sixteenth century (Ascanio Condivi) and the nineteenth century (John Malcolm of Poltalloch)?
Did you have more information about restoration that you think rellevant? (we added information from [5])
Do you mean because the numbers are lower than last month? This is because stats.grok.se didn't compile the pageviews for several days this week (and most of the last week of the month) which is really frustrating... WittyLama10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Erik Z told me how do to it, and I'll also do it for the one month in the existing graph that shows a failure. I take the total recorded in the treeview results, divide by the number of days in that month that had successful pageview reports, and then multiply by the total number of days in the month. WittyLama13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff I am a bit uncertain about the meaningfulness of scholarship. It is not normally defined as a publication but could be used to describe the works of a person. Johns 2010 could be claimed as the first complete catalogue and the 2005 document as the first complete coins catalogue. I was slightly unclear about your rationale for adding this qualification so hesitate to re-word myself. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations - your project has its first FA. I'm in the process of promotions, and Royal Gold Cup has made the cut. I'll leave a note for Raul to see if he can get it on the main page soon. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On July 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hoxne Hoard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You may recall I had already sent an email to the BM Prehistory and Europe curator, before I knew of your involvement. As I said somewhere else, Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. So, for context, here is what I asked ...
Further to our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon. As you can see from below, I am trying to source an image for a Wikipedia article I am writing. I have a digital image from the British Museum already. I received it this morning - order number FI-000251762, image id AN227204001. However, the terms and conditions that came with the image expressly forbade on-line publication.
I would therefore like your permission to publish this image on wikipedia under a suitable licence.
— 28 June 2010 15:23
The BM Picture Library content manager replied, in part,
... However, given the nature of your project I can grant you permission to use a low resolution version of the image in your article. It is your responsibility to ensure the file is resample (sic) in Photoshop to change the resolution to no more than 72dpi before it is put online. ...
— 5 July 2010 16:01
I assume that this is not a wikipedia release as previously discussed. I am therefore unable, under this release, to upload even a low-resolution copy of the BM image of this flesh-hook. Ho hum. No worries. --Senra (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started to echo the prizes I tried to make clear that at no time had the intention of that article would be viewing a different treatment in terms of quality and I sincerely think that our colleagues have respected that. If you want I can get in touch with the user ca:Usuari:Leptictidium, a person who regularly monitors the quality items (and native English) to a third party and will demonstrate the quality of the article. Please tell us what improvements you want in the article, we have no problem to improve it if it's necessary. --Mafoso (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liam: uoh!!! 1000 pounds !!! I'm doing a FA now!! (just a joke :-) ) ... Your responsibility is to make sure that we followed the process closely, we understand perfectly, if you have any doubt I believe it is my duty to dispel them, found an ally in my in this matter. I see the prize as a recognition of the work we do from Wikipedia, the efforts of colleagues, and the fact that a museum as important as BM recognizes it is a great victory. Therefore whatever you think we improved, we will.
I want to tell you that, with the excuse of the prize, some colleagues have begun to make different templates, start tocategorize the pieces of the collection as they are creating articles, the article about the museum is improved substantially ... This domino effect is mostly your "fault" and I think you have to take into account, have all my appreciation for the great job you do and hope that the impact it is having the prize in the Catalan wikipedia serve as encouragement to continue performing the task. Yours --Mafoso (talk)09:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liam, sorry my english (made with automatic translator) but I want to address you without the intervention of Mafoso. I want to thank you for the great work you're doing and that it transmits to the British Museum. I would like here to thank all my colleagues in the Catalan wiki participated in the evaluation of the manuscript correction and Miquel Àngel Epiphany. I've encouraged and I'm doing another article Tresor de l'Oxus (Oxus Treasure) that we had in the wiki ca. I also believe that this award will make the works of the British Museum are better known and more spread across the Wikipedias. Again thank you very much. You understand something? ;) --MarisaLR (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Liam. Tabula Rosettana was proposed as a FA on 30 June and (nemine contradicente) has become one today. I know this is about multilingual outreach and we've been improving the English article Rosetta Stone to the same standard: it's about to go to peer review and will then be proposed for FA. Iustinus, Neander and I have meanwhile been adding articles to link to this one on la:wiki, and Captmondo and I have been doing the same on en:wiki. It's Tabula Rosettana that has reached the tape, so I'm claiming a prize for it. I had significant help from Iustinus and Neander on la:wiki and Captmondo on en:wiki, so I would want to split the prize four ways. Andrew Dalby09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liam: Thank you for everything. I enjoyed making people move with the excuse of prizes ... Many thanks for your help and patience.
I left a message on our "tavern" thanking everyone and especially you and the British Museum to hold the prizes, I am sure that without your task had not been summoned ... there is only one thing that makes me angry: you know MarisaLR before me.
Some col·lateral aspects: I'll ask to the people who participated to make a small report about the actions we have done throughout the competition (new articles related to main article, templates, categories etc ....) I send it to you when I have it, I think that by that way you can check the impact of competition: is always nice to see such efforts is not limited to prizes itself ... that if this result can generate a domino effect (eg the previous link to "tavern" there are others who requested the translation of the other three winners articles ). Yours --Mafoso (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Rosetta Stone article promoted to FA status today!
Just wanted to let you know that the English Rosetta Stone article was today promoted to FA status. Kudos to User:Andrew Dalby for his extensive work on this project (to which I lent a hand), and of course to you for spearheading this collaborative project in the first place. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are the de-facto British Museum <-> Wikipedia contact, I thought you might
be interested.
The ideal situation would be for Commons/Wikisource to have a set of 'free' scans of the original,
but in the absence of those, any assistance you can offer appreciated.
Hey, thanks for pointing this out to me :-) I don't reckon I'll be able to provide any specific help as I presume this is of more relevance to the National Archives or the British Library than the British Museum. However, I'll help if I can. WittyLama03:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd signed up for my 20 quid? But I can't remember a reminder. I guess you spotted that BM views are up by over 50% this month. If there is a task you need help with then do ask, Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an library and information science grad student working with the World Digital Libraryas an intern. Find I'm running into rough ground with external links. New to Wikipedia, but not to web and social media and collaborative tools and working hard to balance the scholarly practices and value with the styles at work here.
Had some early advice that my links were not descriptive enough or value-add enough when I was using a very plain format the the Library of Congress had advocated. Broadened the format and structure based on coaching and now am getting some negative feedback concerning that structure as too advertisement like. Also receiving negative comments because we use the scholarly title in our link which is in the original language of the item, and then English, and some EN Wikipedia users are not understanding that the use of the original language is important in scholarly citations. Wondered how you balanced the various interests that seem to be working against each other here.
I am a wikipedian who recently joined the volunteer staff of a small museum in Haarlem. I am meeting tomorrow with their website manager and the PR (also volunteers). I read your blog post about Europeanahere and after talking to various volunteers at this museum I feel somehow certain that they can benefit from a working relationship with Wikipedia. Are there any suggestions how to go about this? I fully agree with your viewpoints you mentioned in your blog post here. Most of the older cities in the Netherlands have small-scale museums like this one that are chock-full of golden nuggets locked away in warehouses because their exhibition room is limited, or simply because the cost of security is too high to keep the objects on show. The British Museum is large enough to be able to cover the costs of security, but the huge amount of their possessions means only a fraction is on show - Any thoughts on this? Increased publicity can have both positive and negative effects. It's a fine balance between attracting more visitors, but also advertising to potential criminals. Jane (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for editing the Signpost story! Note that the keynotes by Doctorow and Sue had already been mentioned in our previous coverage. But I guess a little repetition doesn't hurt.
Regarding this change: It is not quite clear to me what you mean by "the controversy" no longer being actively pursued. The point of interest isn't the public debate (which has of course ebbed since last year), but the legal threat issued by the NPG's lawyers, and the nature of threats is that they don't have to be actively pursued to be in effect. See also David Gerard's remark here on what the Signpost readers' perspective might be on this. If you have word from the NPG that they do not intend to pursue the threat against Dcoetzee, that might be news worth reporting, otherwise I think we should satisfy ourselves with referring what is publicly known about the issue, until further statements have been made (maybe at the conference?). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let stuff like accusations of fraud against living people stay on pages like the ordination of priest question on WT:Contact Us. Not a huge deal since that page doesn't go in Google, but we do need to nuke that kind of thing on sight. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. --El Caro (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
